Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01011972 - Animal Control ANIMAL CONTROL REEL#E POSITIONR �2-73 Predatory animal control 1972-1973 Special Animal Control Review Committee 1973-1974 Proposed Spay Clinic 1971-1974 Mise correspondence 1973-1974 STORED: BOX In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California In the Matter of Complaint of Warren L. Smith Concerning Predatory Animals . Mr. Warren L. Smith, 1100 Bailey Road, Pittsburg, California having appeared before the Board this day and stated that he has incurred loss of livestock by predatory animals and requested that the Board consider again using the services of a federal trapper i-gervices.:-.f ermerly._provided througtr t contract -with the'R.Bureau�=of Sport'_YIsher es and Wildlife) ; and Supervisor E. A. Linscheid having noted that on August 15, 1972 this Board had approved the recommendation of its County Government- Operations Committee (Supervisors A. M. Dias and J. E. Moriarty) that the matter of predatory animal control and squirrel eradication programs be referred to the County Agricultural Commissioner for his establishment of a review committee, to be comprised of experts in the field and public representatives, with the County Agricultural Commissioner to serve as chairman, and report the results of committee dis- ! cussions to the Board of Supervisors; and ' Mr. Smith having been advised that the appropriate procedure would be for him to make his presentation either in person or in writing to the aforesaid review committee, and Mr. Smith having indicated that he would follow said procedure; On motion of Supervisor Linscheid, seconded by Super- visor Moriarty, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that this matter is REFERRED to said, rev ew ,committ a for report. { The foregoing order was•_passe by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, J. E. Moriarty, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, A. M. Dias, NOES: None. ABSENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc: Mr. Warren L. Smith Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Agricultural Commissioner Supervisors County Administrator affixed this 9th day of January , 19 73• W. T. 'ASCH, Clerk r By xe Deputy Clerk Aulene B.A6880 H2+4M sOM 00 Q,m .. G Il'ED VGA d= LTV -AN 3 f 1 73 NU MARTINEZ TOLC230(2054) (1-033698CO02)PD 01/02/73 2033 - W. T. PAASCH ICS IPMOLSB OAK CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CO T COSTA CO. ZCZC 02180 NL MARTINEZ CA 100 0102 310P PT By __. Deputr PMS CHAIRMAN BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY BLDG MARTINEZ CA REQUEST-APPEARANCE BEFORE THE BOARD OF NEXT REGULAR SCHEDULED !MEETING TO PROTEST LACK OF PROT4CTION' OF PRIVATE PROPERTY BY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY IE KILLING OF LIVESTOCK BY PREDATORS WARREN L SMITH ' 1100 BAILEY RD MARTINEZ CA eC: u In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California October 24 19 72 In the Matter of Letter with respect to a position with Contra Costa County as a trapper . A letter having been received from Mr . Paul D. Stutrud, l .04 Manzanita Street, Stirling City, California expressing an interest in obtaining employment with Contra Costa County as a trapper of predatory animals and requesting certain information related thereto; On motion of Supervisor J. E. Moriarty, seconded by Supervisor A. M. Dias, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDS ED that said letter is REFERRED to the County Administrator for reply to Mr . Stutrud. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, J. E. Moriarty, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid. NOES : None . ABSENTT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc : Adminis trator Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Agricultural Commissioner Supervisors affixed this 24th day of October 1972 W. T. PAASCH, Clerk By T Deputy Clerk Lourette fincaid H24 4/72 10M FRRRE�.,CEIVED t cl �jd ,j�,,y7Z W. T. P ,% ASCH _. . _CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS -1 -..-. .. -... ...._.._.- C N OSTA CO. sy Deput Lk rc er Stan f�xciLfi YOL& V; re C- fi-afper every •� eat� t a {'ew mon fps to rcj , of !! preJa` ar e. 4f antrmo- 1 � 1. 5 ! k� ! S � c6 aural I4G! e. an c _( pr- �ave ? at'v% u,i t e- t \ ef-eS e-c( trL Lt e- G� a Acte- W 0.Y` d to to u Y`' T�a a `J oL,&- Au l D Jit Gwd ,1 L Y.c) VVQ- d0 no t ( v� 1�V1tiI l (Ji Q,1 i ve Vi �C e %0 seYz.ck reply fo Gene rc4-( IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Referrals ) to the County Government ) August 15, 1972 Operations Committee of the ) Board. } The Board heretofore having made certain referrals to its County Government Operations Committee (Supervisors A. M. Dias and J. E. Moriarty); and Said committee having reported and recommended as follows with respect to aforesaid referrals : Referral Date Subject Recommended Action 1-4-72 Complaint of Mrs. Bette F. Matter previously Wood, Orinda, involving referred to Judge Betsy F. personnel of Walnut Creek- Rahn for review; court Danville Municipal Court. has jurisdiction with respect to any possible action. 1-4-72 Review of Emergency Food Refer to County through and Medical Services Administrator and County 6-20-72 Program conducted by Auditor-Controller for People Pledged for current status report Community Progress, 1rc. and recommendation as to continuance of program with remaining available federal funds. 1-31-72 Memorandum of County Accept report of County Administrator on Report Administrator and place of Judicial, Law Enforcement copy on file with Office and Probation Committee of of County Clerk. 1970 Contra Costa County Grand Jury on Special Subjects. 1-31-72 Report of Judicial Committee Accept report of County and of 1971 Contra Costa County Administrator and place 3-21-72 Grand Jury and memorandum copy on file with Office of County Administrator on of County Clerk. report. 1-31-72 Report of Planning and Accept report of County and Public Works Committee of Administrator and place 3-27-72 1971 Contra Costa County copy on file with Office Grand Jury on Public Works of County Clerk. Department and memorandum of County Administrator on report. Referral Date Subject Recommended Action 1-31-72 Report of Planning and Accapt report of County and Public Works Committee of Administrator and place 3-27-72 1971 Contra Costa County copy on file with Office Grand Jury on County of County Clerk Planning Department and memorandum of County Administrator on report. 1-31-72 Report of Planning and Accept report of County Public Works Committee of Administrator and place 1971 Contra Costa County copy on file with Office Grand Jury on Contra Costa of County Clerk. County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and memorandum of County Administrator on report. 1-31-72 Proposal of Mr. Brad Larkin, Mr. Brad Larkin presented V Miramonte High School DUU4bt the proposal at meeting on animal control regulations. of Board of Supervisors and was complimented for diving attention to county problems; his proposal withheld from implementation because related severe problems would develop. 4-11-72Predatory animal control Refer to County and and squirrel eradication Agricultural Commissioner 6-13-72 programs. for establishment of review committee to be _ comprised of experts in the field and public representatives with the County Agricultural Commissioner serving as chalrman. and reporting results of committee discussions to Board. The Board having considered said committee report and determined the recommendations to be appropriate . NOW, THEREFORE, on motion of Supervisor Dias, seconded by Supervisor J. E. Moriarty, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid recommendations of its County Government Operations Committee are APPROVED. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote of the Board: AYES: Supervisors A. M. Dias, J. E. Moriarty, E. A. Linscheid. NOES: None . ABSENT: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, W. N. Boggess. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Supervisors affixed this 15th day of August, 1972. (S E A L) W. T. PAASCH, CLERK By� �� Deanna Petrie Deputy Clerk cc : Mrs. Bette F. Wood Walnut Creek-Danville Municipal Court County Administrator County Clerk Superior Court Secretary (3) Personnel Director County Auditor-Controller County Counsel Public Works Director Director of Planning County Agricultural Commissioner Mr. Brad Larkin Office of Economic Opportunity (2) County Welfare Director i Mr. James Schroeder f Ms. V. Wright Mr. W. Tibbits Mr. T. Bozorth Mr. T. Appelbaum Mr. J. Sudall Mr. H. Weslar Mr. Frank Arata Ms. Sylvia Scheuber Flood Control District t; VN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Inter - Office Memo Date: June 13, 1972 To: County Government Operations Committee (Supervisors A. M. Dias and J. E. Moriarty) From: Clerk of the Board By Aileen Elder, Deputy Subject: The Board today referred to you for review the county predatory animal control and squirrel eradication programs. c.c. County Administrator In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California June 1� 19 7-2- In the Matter of Hearing on County Predatory Animal Control and Squirrel Eradication Programs . This being the time set for public hearing on the county predatory animal control program and squirrel eradication program and Mr. A. L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner, having presented detailed data on the nature and scope of each of the programs as set forth in a memorandum report (a copy of which is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board) ; and The Board having heard persons favoring the discontinuance of one or both of said programs and persons favoring retention of one or both of said programs (copies of some of the statements as well. as a petition concerning dog predation of livestock and wildlife presented by Mr. Charles Violet are on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board) ; and Supervisor A. M. Dias having recommended that said matters be referred to the County Government Operations Committee (Super- visor Dias and Supervisor J . E. Moriarty) for study from the view- point of establishing a citizens committee comprised of parties interested and involved, to make an overall review of both the predatory animal control and squirrel eradication programs; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendation of Supervisor Dias is APPROVED. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES : Supervisors J . P. Kenny, A . M. Dias, J . E. Moriarty, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid. NOES : None. ABSENT: None . I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. c .c. Committee Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Mr. James Schroeder Supervisors Executive Director affixed this I th day of June , 19 Z Wildlife Alive �W. T. PAASCH, Clerk Agricultural Commissioner County Administrator BY - Q; I pen Fld;=r �''J Deputy Clerk W74 11/171 IOM • CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Inter- Office Memo Date: April 11, 1972 To: County Government Operations Committee (Supervisors A. M. Dias and J. E. Moriarty) From: Chief Clerk of the Board Subject: The Board today referred to you the memorandum report of the County Agricultural Commissioner with respect to an overall review of predatory animal control and squirrel eradication in this county. lk Attachments In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California April 11 19 72 In the Matter of Report of County Agricultural Commissioner regarding Predatory Animal Control and Squirrel Eradication. This Board heretofore having requested the County Agricultural Commissioner to report with respect to an overall review of preda- tory animal control and squirrel eradication in this county; and A memorandum report dated April 3, 1972 (a copy of which is on file with the Clerk of the Board) having been received from Mr . A. L. Seeley, County Agricultural Commissioner, citing reasons for utilizing the services of an experienced trapper on an as-needed basis for predatory animal control; and stating that with respect to the scope of the squirrel eradication program operations , manpower is very limited; On motion of Supervisor J. P. Kenny, seconded by Supervisor A. M. Dias , IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that aforesaid memorandum report is REFERRED to its County Government Operations Committee (Supervisor Dias and Supervisor J. E. Moriarty) . The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias , J. E. Moriarty, W. N. Boggess , E. A. Linscheid. NOES: None . ABSENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc: Board Committee Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Ms. V. Wright Supervisors Mr . W. Tibbits affixed this 11th day of April , 19 72 Mr. T. Boz orth W. T. PAASCH, Clerk Mr. T. Appelbaum Mr. J. Sudall By - u Deputy Clerk Mr. H. Weslar Lourette Kincaid Agricultural Comm. Administrator H 74 11/71 IMM CONTRA COSTA COUNTY F I L ED DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE A R R // 1972 April 3, 1972 W. T. PAASCH CLER BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CON OSTA CQ, er ........ �-�.y_C—peputy To: Board of Supervisors Attention: J. P. McBrien From: A. L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner - Sealer Weights and Measures Subject: (1) Predatory Animal Control (2) County's Squirrel Eradication Program (Board Order - March 14, 1972, copy attached). The Board of Supervisors, on March 14, 1972, recommended that I make an overall review of this county's predatory animal control and squirrel eradication programs and report to the Board. _ (1) Predatory Animal Control The question of whether the county should obtain the service of a full time trapper, or provide no assistance to livestock producers has long been a subject of controversy. Back in 1969 the Board referred complaints to the County Administrator regarding livestock depredation in the Marsh Creek area. At that time ranchers were insisting that the county have the services of a full time trapper. The matter was carefully reviewed at that time and County Administrator J. P. McBrien responded to these complaints with a December 23, 1969 memo to the Board of Supervisors. (Copy attached. ) Some conservation groups are making a statewide as well as a nationwide effort to force an end to all effective predatory animal ! control trapping. Their efforts are by and large well meaning and will certainly bring about a re-assessment of the need for such a program and will no doubt bring about improvement in procedures. Unfortunately, many people have not recognized the following facts that make it desirable that our county continue with a limited trapping program. (1 ) Federal trappers are highly trained and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service restricts trapping to that particular animal causing depredation. IvTon-target species are released.- (2) Coyotes cause considerable economic loss, especially to sheep men, and it takes an ' experienced trapper to capture coyotes. i (3) We require the. traps to be checked at REGEI�TED least every 24 hours. ' (4) The trappers use no poison. ;;PR J+) 1972 W.'T. PAASCH CLE �JPOARDOF VISORS eyDeputy ,Bb3rdof Supervisor -2- 4P 4/3/72 (5) If government does not provide at least limited assistance, it is quite likely that ranchers will be forced to handle the matter to the beat of their ability. The results could well be the indiscriminate use of poisons and this would bring about the killing of many non- target species. It is my belief that we should continue utilizing the services of an experienced trapper, on an as-needed basis, and only for animals that are causing depredation. �2) Ground Squirrel Eradication As this is a special program within the department, it is reviewed yearly to determine the acreages that are added to that already deter- mined to be free of ground squirrels and the changes, if any, that are needed. It is timely that the Board of Supervisors request a review and special report on the program, because it is rare that citizens write or call the Board's attention to the need for assistance in controlling squirrels. In 1953 when I came to this county, the only type of complaint that came to our office, or to the Board of Supervisors, which affected our department were complaints about squirrels and demands for assistance and, it should be added, they were frequent. Citizen demands for assistance in controlling squirrels have quite a history, with an 1874 abatement law being passed by the state legislature making ground squirrels a public nuisance and subject to eradication in the counties of Alameda and Contra Costa. The general reasons for the control and/or eradication of ground squirrels has only slightly changed since the early days of California, when back in 1918 it was estimated that losses due to these rodents were $30, 000,000 annually. These estimated crop losses do not consider the health menace due to bubonic plague infection, endemic in ground squirrels and other field rodents in California. (From 1908 through 1943 Contra Costa County had 1,726 cases of bubonic plague in humans. ) Ground squirrels will migrate from one to five miles and just to hold the squirrel population at a constant level, one must kill at least 90,% each year. It was decided in 1954 by the Board of Supervisors to change this county's suppression program to one of eradication. The reason for changing to an eradication program was that if properly administered, the program would eventually be complete and the yearly costs to coop- erating property owners and to the county would be ended. As we look at the progress made since 1954, taking into account the amount of rodenticides used, the reduction in the number of men used, and the map showing the land under eradication versus that now designated as free of squirrels, one can readily see that this program is moving towards a successful completion. In 1954 the county employed seven men for squirrel control and because of its success, the number has been reduced since then to five. With the next' vaeancy in the Weed and Vertebrate Pest Control section of our department, the number of men in this program will be reduced to four. ALS/ac cc: Clerk of Board V/ OFFICE OF COWNTY ADIAINISTRATOR RE � ��-✓� CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Administration Building cLcnK W-. T. nonN; OF ;,j,,f_;JVi;ca:; fdartincz, California Dy - T co;rA co, �t.:.2.<. ...�pevu:y To: Board of Supervisors Dole: December 23, 1969 =rom: J. P. MCBrien, ' Subject: Couri�ty Use of the Services County Administ ator of a Professional Trapper As a result of complaints receivedfrom several persons objecting to a county contract for the part-time employment of a professional trapper, the Board of Supervisors issued several orders (November 25, 1969, December 2, 1969 and. December 9, 1969) referring the matter to the office of the .County Administrator , for study. The county trapping program is described in detail in a November 26, 1969 letter which was directed to •a complainant by the Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U. S. Department of the Interior; a copy of that letter is attached. It may be noted from the letter that Contra Costa County has contractedwith the federal agency mentioned since 1924 except for a few years during which the county employed its own trapper. The contract for the fiscal year 1969-1970 provides for a maximum expenditure of $1900; the contract amount is the lowest sum specified in any of the agreements of the 37 California counties which utilize the federal trapping service. The trapping program is a limited one which has not been significantly expanded. in years and has,. in fact, been reduced in scope. The program objectives are prevention of livestock and. plant damage and rabies control, and the number of animals trapped is minimal. The. program is conducted on a humane basis, no lethal materials are used, traps are used in a selective manner, and non-predatory animals are released. if inadvertently- trapped. In connection with the complaints which have been received, -attention should. be given to the following two communications: 1. November 18, 1969 letter from G. W. Kent, M. D. , County Health Officer, advising that all mammals may be infected with the rabies virus and mentioning specifically skunks, bats, foxes, bobcats, cats., and coyotes. Board of Supervisors 2. December 23, 1969 2. November 25, 1969 letter from the California State Department of Public Health declaring the existence of rabies to constitute a public health ,hazard in Contra Costa County (along with Alameda, Marin, Napa, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties) . In my opinion, the need for the trapper program, in terms of prevention of damage and of rabies control, outweighs any minor impact which the program might have on the destruction of wildlife. JPMcB:bgg encls. ACC OE THC OlaccTOR AN • i '�'; y GEC, 12 i�E3 W. A. PIAS CH CLERIC 110^r10 AF 1.1jPr:'1V1r4R6 AGON AACOW- GO. STAT: Or CALIFORNIA Cv�C_:M .. ../�1�:';�anuey 2151 acalcmcr WAY aERICGLCY.CAUFORUM 04704 G.O„TRA Cr,;'",i GO. - ^rTI V rD Xovanber•259 1969 •- Board of Swervisors County of Contra Costa DEC 121969 • Martinez, CA 94553 ' �ff`ca ci Cai:.�ty Ri;mirlisV2iot an tle men : .•n accordance with Sections 1901,2 and 1920 of the California Healtf. a.d Safety Code, the existence of rabies in ;ae followini eoti.-ities in' Rabies Repi-Cr. 3V has been determined to constitute: a P%blic health hazard within the peopraphic block . of seven ( 7) co:.hties which includ: : Ala....-oda, Contra Costa, Marin , Napa, Santa Clary, Solo and Sonoma. After'consultation with and in accordance with approval granted by the Rabies Advisory Committee for Rabies Region IV an Nova rber 24, 19699 the California rapartmint of Public Health hereby redeclares as a rabies area the block of 7 counties mentioned above. effective %ecerber 21, 1969. The above re de clarat ion s as de-fined in Section 1901,2 a-.' the Health and Safety Code, is for a 12-month period and includes the incorporated' cities therein. A copy of this redeclaration has been forwarded to the cotmty health officers o f each of the 7 counties affected by the above action. Con, le tion of "Stateimn t of En for cemcn tl' forrs by each of the governing bodies within the above 7 counties is requested. The necessary 1 St"atemmnt of Enforcement" forns are enclosed with the notices of redeclaration to the affected governing bodies and should be fully completed and submitted to the counyxhcalth officer for his endorsement and forwardine to this De art;cent on or before January 2e. 1970. • This block redeclaration is based upon the long term endemic cyclical occurrence and distribution of animal rabies within Rabies Region IV, the level of rabies surveillance within the cowries of Rabies Region IV and the fact that the 7 co%anvies affected by this redeclaration comprise a block of adjoining; counties similarly and jointly affected by the endemic cyclical nature of rabies.1a wildlife. Sincerely you , iQuis F. aylo EDclosu Director of Public Health • �y � � 673 r .•:'`�1 UNITED SATES Yom' DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR � FiSH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU Or SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE ROOM 92717-FEDERAL BUILDING 286 COTTAGE WAY SMRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA "82S I love t� rCI`. )t .i I OaMaralmr p A0RlGUL_•rJA A0uwR We app.eciato your concern for the Ala cda-Contra Costo Countics • Ann r-al a 0.29a Control Progrcm. :la too ::c:a d6cply cone:riled efter the article in the Oakland Tribana rs brourjht to cur attention. li; are enclosing a copy of the n*as reioaso as orir1cally writton. Mr. Hildebrand. Director of Field Sorvicez for Alum.-do Comfy did talk with Tribunes reporters, but wo have no exact record of whzt was sold. Recording to Hr. HIldrbrcrd, the intent of the original • rmee. release was to inform oew reside t2 in tho rural -ares of AID.-m-A& and Contra Costa Counties that an - a.r.1 darn, crntroT cervico ,ties available for those that experionc�vastc2: poultry. o-otic: agricultural depredations. Ilowcvsr, the nmmpoper article strongly implied that Alameda and Contra Costa Counties hero entering into a new and expanded program of wildlife elimination. 11Q want to very definitely point out that we am-not cmbarking on a new and expended program of wildlife alinination Alomada County has contracted with the Division of Ulldilfo Services for animal dosage' control since 1922. Contra Costa County has contracted for this professional service since 1924, except for 1959-19j2 and 1942 when they supplied their own control spacialist. Over the years we have adjusted the -.vaunt of work in these counties to the ti:ork load rcquirmcnt. The wank load is related mostly to the Incidence of wildllfo rabies and tho amount of agriculturli depredation. Agricultural livestock production has been reduced over the years as urban expansion has eliminated ranch lands. For these reasons the programs to Alamada and Contra Costa Counties have not beton siCnificantly expanded since 1;35• The animal damage control program in those two counties have bcoan reduced by morn than fifty . percent this year as compared to last year, and-a twouty poreant reduction was ando in the year before last. In Fiscal Year 1569, a total of 62 animal dor.»cue requests were received from ranchers located mostly in the eastern half of Alarada and Contra ' Costa County. Ron-tarDnt or non-depredating anneals that are captured in response to justifiable d..nage control requests are rclanscd at the site of capture. A total of IS3,32'.00 in agricultural denrc-'rtiors tiara recorded in answering tie 62 domace control requ•--nts. us courze, the depredation valuation could lave been two to thrco tires rreatcr if cur r..cn had not captured the dcprcdatin►j animal. All deprcdaiting aninalsI except dogs, arc put to•sleep in a humane manner. Depredating dors are turned over to the randier or county pound deparbrent. The control techniques that our animal damaga control specialists use in Alameda County are costly live box traps, however, the steel trap with r..oro humane offset jaws has to be utilized in capturing depredating ' coyotes. Unless an eri.ergency prohlen occurs, no lethal agents will be used in' these two counties.. if ranchers conducted their own control operations many needless animals would be removed because many would use lethal agents. . ld have searched through our records, going hack +:ire than a decade. We have not taken any mountain lion or bear in Alnmcda or Contra Costa County. I t is our policy to take bear and mountain lion only after significant justifiable ccoro:..ic da-mage has occurred to warrant their removal. Even though the owuntain lion and bear occur in small nun-bars In those counties their diet has apparently been confined to native- or wild an Nals and/or plants, because we have no record of significant + agricultural depredations for more than a decade. Last year's agrieu.l.tural--product 6n valuation in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties was. $16,$$7,000.O * Damage control requests tare = receiv--d mostly •43••-ranchors-'that own or lease 48,570 acres of hand in tho two counties. ; In i962 the California Department of Public Health reported a total of - nine rabies cases In the two counties and- 18 eases were reported in f 1969 through Septeaber 30, 1949. Of the wildlife cases this year 1$ were skunks, 2 tiara foxes and one was a bat. Approximately 50 per- cant of the work in the two counties is devoted to public health and . livestock rabies protection. . rhe Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Division of Research, ;predator-prey relationship studies do not Indicate that predators control their pray populations even though they food on theri. • .The ' primary reasons for this conclusion is that the repreduetive capacities : of rodents for ercecds that of the species that prey upon them and that the prey species do not confine their diet to one rndcnt species for any length of time. Rodent and rabbit populations controi the � populations of their prey rather than the reverse. This is due to batter that and nutrition improves the reproductive potential for the prey species. Diseases and other stresses tand' to have the majority influence over the control of rodent and rabbit populations. 2 ; 1 ' We are enclosia�ro copies of our animal damagentroi policy,. j We sincerely hope the preceding inforr:ation gill be sufficient to acknowledge the true nature and purpose of anhial d:nmr.ge control activities. t , I Very truly yours, Ronald A. Thompson Assistant State Supervisor F Wildlife Services 1 Enclosure - 3 • HEALTH DEPARTMENT Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors DATE: November 18, 1969 Contra Costa County FROM: Glen W. Kent, M.D. SUBJECT: Letter from Mr. Sam Smoker Health Officer 11-6-69 . • �v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Sam Smoker stated in his letter that "opposums cannot carry rabies" . This is an error. However, the opposum is a low risk animal and in general is not con- sidered to be a significant link in the spread of the rabies virus . All mammals are capable of being infected with the rabies virus, and may become a hazard in spreading the disease . In California animals most frequently discovered to have rabies and which may play a significant role in its spread are skunks, bats, fox, bobcats , cats , cayotes and others . In Contra Costa County skunks have been our major problem. It has been our hope that the trapper would concentrate on our fringe areas where wild and domestic animals come in contact, or in general where housing and open space meets . GWK:a cc : County Administrator Mr. Smoker Agricultural Commissioner D � U; CONTRA COOTA Cv'J NTY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE GA-9 5/69 1M IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ., CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Inquiries ) on Predatory Animal Control . ; March 14, 1972 A letter having been received from Ms . Valorie Wright, 627 St. Marys Road, Lafayette , California on the subject of control of predatory animals and said communication having been submitted on this date to the Board of Supervisors with the recommendation that it be referred to the County Agricultural Commissioner for reply to the correspondent; and Supervisor J. E. Moriarty having noted that several similar communications had been received by Board members and having stated that in his opinion the overall matter of predatory animal control should be referred to the County Agricultural Commissioner for review and report to the Board; and Supervisor E. A. Linscheid having stated that it was desirable to include in said report information on the nature and scope of the squirrel eradication program; and Supervisor Linscheid having, also noted that the predatory animal control program to which several of the commu- nications made reference was no longer in existence, that a r - contract related thereto with the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife had been terminated some months ago, and- that- renewal , of the contract was not contemplated; and Supervisor Moriarty and Supervisor Linscheid having recommended that an overall review of predatory animal control and squirrel eradication be made by the County Agricultural Commissioner and a report thereon be submitted by him to the Board; NOW, THEREFORE, on motion of Supervisor Moriarty, seconded by Supervisor W. N. Boggess, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid recommendation is APPROVED and the County Agricultural Commissioner is DIRECTED to report as indicated. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES : Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, J. E. Moriarty, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid . NOES : None. ABSENT: None . CERTIFIED COPY 1 certify that this Is a full, true & correct copy of cc: Ms . Valor ie Wright the orighril document w..iclt is on file.. in my office, Mr . Walter Tibbits ,ind tlutt it .va: I %::. I & atlohtc:l by Ilii• 13on1•11 of Mr . Tim Bozorth S.qu'rv: v ('.antra C,•:Li C,nint;:, C ilifortiin, on Mr. Tom Appelbaum the C• I i. Ati+;.:T: X:'. T. i'AA :ClI. rolinly Mr. John Sudall cleric 'z ;•c:l..lo cletit of said Bonn]of Supervisors, by puty clerk. Mr . c Westar MAR 1 4 1972 Adicultural Commissioner �%l-i1 �_r..c County Administrator RECEIVED rA `- : -1972 w. -r. Paascw /Yjarch G l.-i 7_Z._ .. '-CERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Or/ A C T CO. f �I Z-.-7 - �- �y _ ,�aar'� �SUPer✓• sci rs a Ile(:Z_ r v mo - l� - _ _ _ -_ _ d r'e•�Zs_ _.ccr.�2�-t--�_- � �<'1( -Y2,.a __ ._ _�as_e� cZ.__ _`_� _::.� 1lYesa1c - -- -L-- 51'Z� cc ' _ 0;:Ar- �� .�- _tea/ s�; � ��✓��� a L _ Mr.&Mrs.H.B.Weslar 1154 Alberdan Circle Pinole,California 94564 ECEiATED - W. T. PANSCH CLER EOARD OF_StJPERVtSORS CON �f"TdSTa CCO ` pu:y ' r=-vim _ By _. _ D - ECEIME ; � VAR 1 " 1979 W. T. PAA§CF4 • CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVtSaft 4NT C06 A CO. ey Dencty, _ _ __ _ ,� � ��zrd© �'�S�l�ervl�'►rS C.�n��c CL�s� C��c�n�' havt5 ,jeen kl-mMfOJYA /)Ya _ 11C/1c�U T���E�S�r"uC �tQv1 Q�'�c►7�alc lrl�'�OC�/�T � _Glsa �sul o fp reala icon r-o rhe - �/� idol-�lrn a'vfr�n� '� lQsn.Gi1rr see.--s-0141. Ilk6uQs/ 2 Id��30Do 00 ��h rhis,,oas1-11oii mUs-1,fe, e�,olowv��! Iz 1 It - .dolc�s es etre /70 llea,S0� -kr7'�?i° iSClS'i� zo� Ye le"- Z� , ztllldll� III C'�lL a,,d Zj/r �r � 7b �� rYI/I "" (lal� / v �Cl ! 71Y14t 1�v % 4?,0201Vh1 lzf-eezwll kO • 9�S9S (larch 87 1972 Board of Suaervisors Conta Costa County I,Iartinez, Ca, 94553 Gentlemen: We hear you are permitting a predator control agent (trapper;) to work in our County. ITe urge you to immediately eliminate this ecologically unsound method of protecting the livestock of this area. We speak from experience: we have a herd of Black -Angus cattle in Tuolumne County; a=ypar:ago $2000 worth of our animals, cows and calves alike, were killed by dogs. For confirmation of this fi;-ure you can consult the local paper, the 'TUCI NE PROSECTOR. Not only were the cattle chased, but dragged, mutilated, and killed. The local dogs gathered in packs (even though indi— vidually the dogs were not vicious) and became wanton killers. They are not interested in eating their kill essentially. Eventually that year, 14 or 15 dogs had to be shot on our property alone, and I do not know hoer many the neighbors had to get rid of. It was con— firmed that loose dogs on private property doing damage were not excused, no matter to whom they belonged in town. Remember these were big cattle. Sheep certainly would fare no better; And surely the little foxes, coyotes, raccoons and so on which that big brave trapper killed were no hazard to those sheep. Iie urge you to consider the matter of dogs roaming in even small packs, and the damage they can do. And consider icor unintelligent it is to concentrate on harmless wild animals and blaming them for things that uncontrolled domestic creatures can do. Trapping will not get the dogs'. If you want to heli the shee;imen and other livestock oiners in our County, forget the trapper, and put in a real control: against the real killer. -;e look forfard to youcdoing something- realistic to solve this problem. Thank you. i,Mr. and Mrs. John V. Sudall �i IVD 1744 Ualnut Street El Cerrito, C 94530 IJAR v 7 D W. T. PAASCH CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS n CO ,��C�NOBTA-�/i. ud-rte- sy ' .;�T.�.lic (f P4 Orr ���/ r t C :l 1 t RECEI ED W. T. PAASCH GLE BOARD O,,F�` S, UPERVISORS CO ,,��//`` TA Co.� GSC .........+' puffy ex RECEIVED 0 1.3, 67 7--? 1 /W&PT.L-pA A S C H CLERK SOAPD, a:°. 21 -11141 3G.�< l� I/OIP7- � Imo, «�� a,.� (� �� �� II c� /� „ �6Sd fw2G, �w'"”- �^ j `211 rpt s 3 � ^ tA C/I POA -dv lztx 4-A JA-4� 71 7 I a • • D�o-o�c� aP- O 0 ��Uw-a% B � cC,GviH tcuG� 2�- /Vu-,�l.�c �I • Pd-IL ctl Rt,�m4--- "4,- �L /taT P40eAA- o -r& J CAQ C-.4-i «moi_ 26 0,AJ Ak �� 0 z� r7' 'i7� Q ZAP CL'tj Ila1 a_ J-C�C.' /�4 4. 4AN arc-(, Ll -C',' Y ZX 6i ZZ� Z�e Lid L,,U � C� c • 1 • G� Al a14 f � i & 1 I6 • 0 A PETITION TO END KILLER DOGS AND DOG PACKS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY I, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, want an immediate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: -to provide the Department of Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this county until such time as free-running dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents of this county; -to provide stricter enforcement of the law requiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs; -to provide personnel from Animal Control to assist with emergency animal problem's 24 hours a day; -to require the use of tranquilizer guns for capture of dogs rather than hunting or trapping wherever possible. Art Seeley, County -Agricultural Commissioner, according to news reports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional men for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. We're not doing the Job we're suuvosed to do." I want Animal Control'to do the job they're supposed to do:' SS Name Address Date lkv J 2. g" LIU 4. IV----- - - 5. �� �f i 9 /Pr. Aa fit.. Qe� 7. WUAP s. Jaw - y 'C 72-- 9. �C C �7- ez- (711 10-,A 11. 4 L Z 12. 6, dr 13. 7 IV L_JZ 4. r'1 15. t 1O j 16. 1/ZY172 17. N /71 y 18. ilL�p Vn1 i h. 19. 41rlajo Vd 20. A"dL C Rel 21. ��-c: rlogo otelics6A PXJ %ti 23. S C 111- Z a- l A:' r 1 )t4 'l 7 24. C04 C 1 CL 1- r .. t��"rTE art 7 ,Errs �i�c•�i���tsS't�Nfl K r t+c�E'R d�s�'ft�K�a jam.. .G� NA ME bb'f,'ES�j, �J f . ;7 7 itWfelic. r akmv e_ . kk'e{eoacl7-' 3L-'z`4- C50�E!r Cttr,\e- . 1.6L . �,�V:v.s- Urn VA dAV 4- q/j/7 .. .. .i.J�• .. -��e.N.-...s.. .- �u--�•R�v 1 �!3 9 C�'XLH,...�..-th �.at,t'cc.%� ,/`� 1_ /,�� �Z firKwu &W.4' uiy C (130 cTq- .�� .l r ' ,3�C►......�.1h•� ' tt'.r ti� 100% (6-4 . �.Q��-t.. � �. 07.2- .... . f � t TV, Vii' C L Tt 1 :�1 e tvavlio;rl ` 1. Alf-2-Alf-2- C"3,�r'b' (.11 '1 CSW a` 9 1 l An 'Aa 'Aa � . �-.0.�t�.�'-��� 414- j 7-2 All. ,qj. a S 4't C 5c- omc'� Lof, 1qp'��C� . ?"7 (2tt Cylo L. VV 04 - (I Qxcu-td c ')4'c--CC-k, bC J �- is ((nw) �_?:�-�� c c �. �.�• .,; .� /. ` --..% L ul 5'C) (oil jq�&o �b A7( '�• . 56 = C,� Jots ISI C�Nrr A Cos (Ali _ 71AO -Ax — (— T- I- IS -/�-7-qoz I -- -- t zc� AM-(- 'A74- 0 /� fGOUA 1.72 W- Aw 985 Ccs rTlt Gi d /0,? ` i a ,(� A/ 6/ 2 r �. 160. 4eb le, I I za- 11G�cG� . `pct AJC'_.► ct( f lot. bd�sim, (B-0- /P a,& -9,1 . if 1 t 7LICLPPLIV, /oma• l/'7 �, : � �/-�",�'; _ Lia_ 13 - v` �--� E'`�`` 1 Q 8 v� 4 �- b �G- Lye .e,. . � �._?2 420. _ _...tr.�-� '' r.�7© sur A PETITION M END KILLER DOGS AND DOG PACKS M COMM COSTA C(XWN I, the undersigned, a resident of. Contra Costalgounty, want an: immediate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county, I want the Contra Costa .. County :Board Of Supervisors: to provide the Department of Animal.:Control with fu6ds to hive a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this-county until 6uch-time as free-running dogs and dog packsno 'longer pose a problem to the wildlifes livestock and residents of this county;. - to provide stricterenforcement of the law reauirrg .owners to be in responsible control.of their-dogs. :Art~Seeley, Co ty"Agricultural CaTrmiss .oner, accordir to news reports, is M "sZthetic with Id roblem and admits,,that the killer dog.pack prcbIM'exists. 've been dying to ge-6 additional men €or years," Seeley has said, "but 'the; ... . effort faces defeat at budget time. Were not doing-the job"we supposed"to'do." I want Animal Control-to do the job they're suoposed todoz Name Address _ phone pol� 11 _. - 2• 3• / l� r .500,6c�__ �a / ` ... • U2. LL "Ct' 7. 91 �� 12 _ 13, '16. 4�1e en '18 IL ,, r g �y +� . .19• '� i.7.� + :#�, a.R ._-'...-1 i `^!' "} -�.� "mob: f_ =. a?y:u..,��J.�£c.4'6d..�b.;.� 21:'24 23 Lf, i� � i� rZ 2s �1 A PETITION M END KILLER DOGS AND DOG PACKS M COMM COSTA COUM'Y I, the undersigned, a resident of. Contra Costalgounty, want an: immediate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Contra Costa :. County :Board Of Supervisors: to provide the Department of Animal.:Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this-county until such time as free-running dogs and dog packsno 'longer pose a problem to the wildlife, ~ livestock and residents of this county;. - to provide stricter`enforcement of the law reauir rg .owners to be in responsible control.-of their-dogs. Art Seeley, Co ty Agricul ioner, accor,I � tuYal Can�►iss to news i+e is � Ports, sympathetic with t o problem and admits,:that the killer dog_pack probleM'exists. "I,!:7e; been eying to get additional men €or years,�� Seeley`has said, "but 'the, effort faces defeat at budget time. Were-not doing.the:job;we're supposed"to'do.1 I want Animal Control to do;the job they're supposed to' do Name ;, Address phone pol� 11 2.- 3�. •3. r C- t. 8. 91 PF o. OL Cc. o-t. c n: 3i R 13 3 ,F 'i w rV t r kv �. 18.' L ` t` � -.r 'x•' C''� �sem` 7 20 Sl r. t j L . .21: r, ti GCx 23 Lf, 24 _ 1 217 3'9 25 h A PETITION TO END KILLER DOGS AND 'DOG PACKS M CONTRA:COSTA CW11'Y I, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, want an immediate end to the problem of killer dog packs-in this county. I want the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: rr -- 04 - to provide the Department of Animal Control with funds to hire a .full-time v nerson -or persons to pursue the killer.'dcg packs in this county, until such time as free-running dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents of this county; - to provide stricter enforcement of the law requiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs. Art Seeley, County Agricultural Comrussioner, according-to news reports, is, b sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. f "I've been trying get additional men-. ror years." Seeley has said, "but the • effort faces defeat at budget time. We not o ' '� , udg e' d � irk the. job we're surposed to do. I want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do:' y, . . . Name . . Address Phone 1 3a `Q.ccea a� J37-11SI-7 3?—� m 3: y 0� (4-171 4 IN s. 7. 3oa 9: ell 12. AA47_4Zz5_6 3 �AlLo L L)eb P0. �ll o�x vz Il,/% 3- 9 19. / x 20. ��� �y 7 % (� 21„ •23. .24. Z a a 25. _ £ a A PETITION TO END KOLER DOGS AND'DOG PACKS IANTRA COSTA COUNTY WE, the undersigned, residents of vontra Costa County, want an imme- diate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. We want the contra costa County Board of Supervisors: -to provide the Department of Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this coun- ty until such time as free-running-.dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock•.and residents of this county; -to provide strict enforcement of the law requiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs; -to provide personnel from Animal Control to assist with emergency animal problems 24 hours a day; to require the use of tranquilizer guns for capture of dogs rather than hunting or trapping wherever possible. Art Seeley, 'County Agricultural Commissioner, according to news re- ports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional men for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. Were not doing the ,fob we 're supposed to do. ". We want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do: Name Address Date �r 6. ilia 17 i o /T r-, 17 e f 1� 11•" /.fi? %17 /i i 12. r / �3 14. 07 t X5.1 ' ,.�� &)L Fc 16. ! 9ald n.M i c,`a,I!A-6i , Wuw Q O 1 Ifp d..r�SL1 lLIDJ 9 3341 G� 19. 21. ri 22. ! .: b n 1 -4 1 r 23• r2J A PETITION TO END #LER DOGS AND 'DOG PACKS INTRA COSTA COUNTY WE, the undersigned, residents of -ontra Costa County, want an imme- diate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. We want the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: -to provide the Department of 'Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this coun- ty until such time as free-running.dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife , livestock and residents of this county; -to provide strict enforcement of the law requiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs; -to provide personnel from Animal Control to assist with emergency animal problems 24 hours a day; to require the use of tranquilizer guns for capture of dogs rather than hunting or trapping wherever possible. Art Seeley, County Agricultural Commissioner, according to news re- ports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. " "I've been trying to get additional men for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. We're not doing the lob we 're supposed to do. " We want Animal Control to do the fob they're supposed to do! Name Address Date 0 A6 �' . 2. - Ale 3. \%4 v 2,�tls,�, Zr 43� 4. 5 3 (> 7 7. L/K,e C,lia t 3 ALA14 ]2whA.4�U, 8. C Ave A/%A f — _V r 9. 10. 11• a 12. 2M Q_l iib Gt, L- � n _.'Tll�n�.�,i g& 13 ?a 13• n ro 14 W- A� it k 15. tai l k<,. Crins : ►75_,-4 Gra.n [ d 7Z -Sl 3 Z• 16. r, — .G rS-1ma U 1221 Oykc.�tb tis 14`rR e a .-a�.+!i.11�_-3"?° 19. r6-L-) 20. DL-b -7 21. %q C_LxM\tSe\rX c IDL r 22. ,�3 23. '1 _ 24. L ho � 2$ 16 j• YZrz 7—,3,3.7c `5701V511,411LEYA ZI-113A2 L , � .f ate- utcyt. , Aeturn by April -10th to: t , Mrp. C. E. Violet 805- La Gonda Way. Danville. Callf. . 94526 i l I A PETITION TO END ,K*LER DOGS AND DOG PACKS IXONTRA COSTA COUNTY WE, the undersigned, residents of 'Contra Costa County, want an imme- diate end to the problem of killer--.dog packs in this county. ' We want the Clontra Costa County Board of Supervisors: -to provide the Department of Animal Control with funds :-to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dpg packs in this coun- ty until such time as free-running..dogs and dog packs no longer pose a . problem to the wildlife, livestockaand residents of this county; -to provide strict enforcement of the law requiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs- -to provide personnel from Animal Control to assist with emergency animal problems 24 hours a day; to require the use of tranquilizer guns for capture of dogs rather than hunting or trapping wherever possible. Art Seeley, Calfnty Agricultural: Commissioner, according to news re- ports, is sympathetic -with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. - "I've been trying to get additional men for years, " Seele.y:.has said, "but' the_ effort faces defeat at budget time. We 're not doihk -the mob we 're supposed to do. " We want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to dot, Name Address Date 3, ��'� �/�•v •%/i E vc�L ,�l�.cl C,,/tea/ -/ -7 Y 5• o s 7-roe,T Cud. 4.7S 3 -1b -7 Z_ 6. 7• �-'•` 74 - _ — 7 . J 8. 7 9 3 -/f. 7..2 10. 12. BGG �1 ` ,✓ !l/Q/�c��r��/� <�^ _ 17 18� t - k 20. ,,S`� ; , i 3 Z,rte 21• X13 s-3 22. w c a'�v S3 of t, LIU rV 777 , 23 rr 25. W rf /� `7�l#r� "� G!7 .� f " `/ �`� l;( / �l �- 1 1l� /r A PL.TWION TO END KILLER DOGS AND DOG PACKS ItI COMM COSTA COUIGY I. the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa 'County, want an immediate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. I .want the Contra Costa . County Board of Supervisors: - to provide the Derarbnent of Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this county until such time as free-running dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents of this county; - to provide stricter enforcement of the law requiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs. Art Seeley, County Agricultural Commissioner, according to news reports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional men for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. We're not doing the job we're supposed to do." I want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do: NUU Address Phone 61 1. (� r , C 3 / v ' 3 - O/ 40 5. � D - • 6 7. 8. 130 oa uCQ &w. Jd f-iF 1 -S� . . 12) 01 160 -nj 18. 7` 3 20. i 21. v tet. 22.V1J// .� "23 24. 25. t A PETITION TO END KIU.ER DOGS AND DOG PACKS III CONTRA COSTA COU14 Y I, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, want an immediate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Contra Costa . County Board of Supervisors: - to provide the Department of Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this county until such time as free-running dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents of this county; - to provide stricter enforcement of the law reauiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs. Art Seeley, County Agricultural Commissioner, according to news reports, is sympathetic with the problk and admits that the killerdog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional men for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. We're not doing the job we're supposed t .I want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do: Address Phone L-- t7/, 4. ` 70 7 C A r/ to LU I i ( 0ci SI 11. 12. 13. f � 'vf� / �l .3 .EG :(f�/ r. / 7 /A. ti.?y.�`.__ �` 7 / Q r/'i I�13 y_•' Cil:,�j..+ 140, r r�, �--� 7- 166' i l o 18 LY 20. / , ' r 7 L�-�1= •2 C' S llici� / yiL �1 t ( 3 - 21. % A. L CLQ - ; r c f 22, l 4J� .2 G VG rry a V(.L •? 7� e r{..l'. 7 n �' / C� J 4- 24. / . - / �z��ti��� h. � Zoo r A PETITION TO END LER DOGS AND DOG PACKS I1V�ONTRA COSTA COUNTY WE, the undersigned, residents of Jontra Costa County, want an imme- diate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. We want the "ontra -osta County Board of Supervisors: -to provide the Department of Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this coun- ty until such time as free-running dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock-. and residents of this county; -to provide strict enforcement of the law requiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs; -to provide personnel from Animal Control to assist with emergency animal problems 24 hours a day; to require the use of tranquilizer guns for capture of dogs rather than hunting or trapping wherever possible. Art Seeley, County Agricultural commissioner, according to news re- ports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional men for years," Seeley has said , "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. We 're not doing the ,fob we 're supposed to do. " We want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do! Name Address Date 2. c %G 5"S7FS ANE F�(�ZCd ,. Rro Cam C, 3 2 7 3• `3 97Z 5• 7 ' 9 20.< G x 12 13. aQ 030 7 Y 14 15. 17• 18. 19. 202 l� . l >" b 21. , _ � 3 . 3 72 -3/-� 22 - • 7 23• ' 24 LILo 25. 1 ' A'PETITION TO END LER DOGS' ANTS:.DOG:.PACKS.;IAW. NTRA.- COSTA. -COUNTY .. W_ E, the undersigned.,':rest ants of •contra 11osta .County,. xa diate ..end to the problem of killer.�•dog packs in this..eounty. : We w the. Contra Costa County Board_of-. Supervisors: -to provide .-the.Department of.,Animal "Control'with 'funds --to hire a full-time--person or .persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this-- coum-. _ ty..until such time--as- free-running-dogs 'and dog packs .no longer posa .& . problem to. the wildlifee livestocktand residents of this county.' -to provide strict enforcement of the lax requiring owners to-,be la responsible control of their-.dogs.: ;} -to -provide personnel from: Animal Control to. assist--.with...emergenoy animal °problema 24 ;hours" a day; :.:.:. to require the use .of tranquilizer guns for,-;capture of .dogs rather or.-.trappirig..'xherever.-possible, Art Seeley, County Agricultural Commissioner-.. .accordingto: dews...re- ports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits, that•..the 'killer Adg' r pack problem exists. ' "I've been trying to get"iLddi'tional 'men+l or-,'years,.": � Seeley has said, but the effort faces defeat at budget time. We not..:-- '-----.. doingrthe Job we'Xe supposed_ to do." We want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to dot, Name Address Date 1. 3 A 2. j0jvvJ, Z" hwwo, 3. . D9.0&4 ow i R U_ AWMM& 71 r 80 Ai OA r 9. .409 11• �!^/3''d°it?..r'i'.L ;3•-!' Jam.' JLI .412 ! Z } ' :14 -A // to . . ya+.river • �/i/Mw�r—ia C f 19• 1 f: i. S. i �� , 1 t .- 20• y •r'lY{ t 1 - 21. �. 3 22. r � •�' !r �° n 4. 25. zlo u Ar .. : Ov . is 17 ���dirnd- - r•r 'Pell5117 Return byeApril 1Qth'.'t0: 1 :6O Mrs. C. E. Violet _ 80.�� La Gonda Way . ._ Danville, Calif. 94526 k Zv� ISI .•. L&!: ..�...» `Ni� I M-I -.r. te ATO ENDAKILLER DOGS AND DOG PA�-r��. COSTA COUNTY I the undersigned, t igned, a res-1 of Contra Costa;County, want an immediate: end to..the problem' of killer dog packs in this county. I-want the Contna, Costa , County Board of Supervisors to provide the Department of Animal control with funds. to hire a full . ' person or persons to pursue the killer dog ,packs in this,county'-until such ti 4 '' as free-r.UjrL ig dogs'and dog packs no, longer pose a problem to the wildlife,. k _z livestock and residents of this county; toprovide stricter enforcement of The' law reoui h ring ;owners to be in Y responsible-control" of their dogs. T Art Seeley, County Agricultural Commissioner, acconews reports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits,jhat the killer dog pack problem -exists. "I've been trying to get additional men for years," Seeley has said, "but the', effort faces defeat at budget time. Were not doing the�job we're supposed to do."' . I want Animal Control to do-the job they're supposed to dos Name Phone Aiddress - 2 r31, if V­ c, 0 3. � .� — D . JA 7. gLZ 12. 14 . 3.17 LZ 17. l f 18. O o: 19. j.G►, 9�So26.. .21 - G ZI J� r > J „V 25 �. /IV »s.Me1+3- 4 L � �.',.* A PETITION TO END AkER DOGS AND DOC PACKS INONTRA COSTA COUNTY WE, the undersigned, residents of Contra Costa County, want an imme- diate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. - We want the. C'ontra Costa County Board of Supervisors: -to provide the .Department of -Animal Control with funds. to hire a full-time person or, persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this coun- ty until such time :as, free-running dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents of this county -to provide strict enforcement of the law requiring owners to be In responsible control of their dogs; -to provide personnel from Animal Control to assist with emergency animal problems 24 hours a day; to require the- use of tranquilizer guns for capture of dogs rather than hunting or trapping wherever possible. Art Seeley., County Agricultural, Commissionerg according to news re ports, -Is sympathetic_,with the problem and admits:.athat ,-the_ killer dog pack.problem exists. .:, "I've been trying to get additional men for years," Seeley_ =has said, '.'but.,the effort faces defeat at budget time: We're not doinA -the Job we 're supposed to do. '� We want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to dol: Name Address Date 1 � k �� \LOSS S 2 C:ef 5- 3 6. 7. 8. -? 9 lae Z - 14. 11� 1,. , 150- M w 16 ' s 17 177, /17 N 1 Z; 19 A is r. ` r 2 0. - - ` 22 23.' i r! -16 y oN TV-7 K7tCv� 31z `r 77 t C�'j A Pl:frl'ION TO E14D KILLER-FOGS AND I)OG PACKS Ill C01RW. COSTA-C0L7,14 f I, the undersigned, a resident of .Contra Costa; ounty, want an =s ne'diat_e end to=the proble-n of. killer dog packs iii this:county. I:want the Contn3 Costa County Board of Supervisors: - to.provide the .Denartnent of hnimal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or•persons to_pursue the killer.c2pg packs in this, county until such.-time as free-running dogs and dog packs no'lop er pose a problem to the.wildlife,. livestock and residents of this county; ; •:. to'provide st anter enforcement of the law reouiring=owners to be in responsible controlof their dogs n ; - Arst�Seelev;Gouinty Q�y��!`cu i-,ural Carmissioner, according to news .reporrts,'is s np� et- c-with_th problewzm admits that the killer do.g pack problem exists. b ti�yu g to get,�addi-tior)&l men for years," Seeley has said, but: the effort faces defeat at budget=ttime. Wd re not doing the` Zob we're supposed-to do." I want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do: Name Address:- Phone 1[kct -Dr- 2. 4 jib, 3. I : ., 4. 3693 ! G:•- 778' 5, t. qm., Y - S'" �► _ 1st f S'' 2 66 G. E • lr f- �' 6MFS An C) ; 8 Y rsSay - 9 � ?o z ? t ; 2 10 '12. ;L7 3, .� 7-1 /] 0 0 { .... '" �— -J r a nc is �= 371& i is. {� 5607 DAG60 lftrv ' a4 yon► - 20=_ 1 A DAAn 694-- 506 Ll"k..*Icle Y, ( l=. 7 21. _ — 3 '23. 2S. A PLTTTION TO END KILLER DOGS ACID DOG PACKS Ill CONTRA COSTA CONTII'SC I. the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, want- an immediate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county.: I want the Contra Costa . County Board of Supervisors: to provide the Department of Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this county until such time. as free-running dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents of this county; - to-provide stricter enforcement of the law requiring awners to be in responsible control of their dogs Art Seeley, County'Agricultunal Commissioner, according to news reports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits-that the killer dog pack: problem exists.. "I've been �3to get additional men for Years� Seeley -has said "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. We're-'not doing the job we're supposed to:-.do." I want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to.do: Name ' Address.. Phone • Carol�rye. d� -rr ,n �O�C� ,`� 2.. �u�,e �{-t�;� •-;fin �� �'��@�,.�ot,� tr-�?�- ' fr`nQ'Lc: ��"� .5��' g "(o el- 5, 6,' 8 MS. e CA t 1fl. d { l� 12. 8_�74 f3_. y 13. . . 4 < (a 0,P 5 a d A et, 15 is. - 'rr� ► �-- 'g��J-,7 -?7-f 17. ` (,(�pt,C.�' . ., c• c.Q cA.. oC ( L4 +4 oil 17�1.(.l?.. , ��Ltitrlot0.. C� 18. , } L . 19• t 20 • ,s 1 1� - 1 .. ; 1 ' f}i\ES( K'lI' r�+✓ �,' j=`'`'t t r~t ). .J ,r. .(• .!\ )•$`.�ta. l 1! �CJ.- �$I� �1?i-h!^ ,,,fv�, �id R sc 21. : 22.* A)77 .23. 37_ (Ry r5 24. 25: A f A ?t iITIO;. TO END KILLER JOSS N-D DOGG PAC:SS D! C013UM COSTA COU-11 I, the undersigned, a rrsidert of Contra Costa County, want an 'mediate end to the proble-n of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: - to provide_ the Deparzent of Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this county until such time as free-running dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents of this county; to provide stricter enforcement of the law reauiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs. Art Seeley, County Agricultural Ccmnissioner, according to news reports, is s apathetic with the problem and addts that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional Tien for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. ►•'e're not doing -Che -job we're supposed to do." I want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do: «me Address Phone IL 1XI. Elaza '• 7-6125 2.\ E� 4 , !T/ . 7. C)- 21_�Czr &ZoLA 5 Ala II. . ' 13. i5, 16. &MU Z's w &Zazz /J 17. X C-t.C.• C9 oGl-r a PC l2. 19 rl dkk2i 40�a /G 22 23. OD l �r A-- 25.- ;,4. 5.7 / '' i� A PF•'"I'1'ION M r'.+1D XIUZR DOGS AND DOG MW Iti CONTRA COS+'A COLHJTY I, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, want an immediate end to the problem. of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Contra Costa County Board of SuTervisars: - to provide the Department of Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this county until such time as free-running dqgs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents of this county; - to provide stricter enfaroement of the law reouiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs. Art Seeley, County Agricultiwal Camdssioner, accordfrg to news reports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional men for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. 1-k 1 r'e not doing the job we're su}yposed to do." I want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do: Address Phone 4. J 5. 32,2 �S r,r .wz ein. d �oSt . s. zzz- AL /�S/ 04. 2(44 IPO. 1W 53,x•75/7 7. 57 PF s - -7 Lrr fl. 2. 1-1 ,k: t 837-67�Z. . . oOFoOF 14. 'A • `� 330 =!�� J•r. /�[ /�� �Q� }� 82 - 880 IX 21. Xc-, % 4147(f6NZ u.i,.a r 93 5- 7F2. 22. &A16ca z - 9 23. Zq - 24. w ' 40j: /a...� 9a.r-s c y 25. 0 PW - . A 1'_'1';:7L'1ON TO END KILLER DOGS AND DOG PACKS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY I, th u:.dersigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, want an immediate end to -the problem of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: -:.o nro•: .L:` the Department of Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time pe ca or ;er.:ons to pursue the killer dog packs in this county until such time as f r oce -L a.�n:::;; dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock anc' residents of this county; , -to r,Zovod,;� stricter enforcement of the law requiring owners to be in sl"-lc ._on--rot of their dogs; -t� ovi.da personnel from Animal. Control to assist with emergency animal pro: ..._...; 24 ours a day; -to require the use of tranquilizer guns for capture of dogs rather than hunti-. or trapping wherever possible. Art Seeley, County Agricultural Commissioner, according to news reports, is sy mpathenic ;:•nth the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional men for years," Seeley has said, "but the ef.Zort f__.es defeat at budget time. We're not doing the Lob we"re supposed to do." I want :animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do! Lame Address Date 7Z 2. /1771 3. 5. -5 7. L. B. Olylk I �I6Z loan 12. 3i u Lr � �� d 3 1 - .. ..L(QAiTQ - �•�-' �...(l'� /P� G(�-/y��j ~• /JL// P �jc�.�C%/•G. 14. 15. 17. 18. X?TC 19. O �Qi►w- C, 20. ' GeZ /,� 7L/ 21. ! :e. "70 9 24. / . \�a r A ::71TION TO END KILLER DOGS AND DOG PACKS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY tr� I, :.:u: n:••.arsigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, want an immediate enol to ch,7 problem of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Contra Costa C,x..is L:• :io::rd of Supervisors: -to pro. : .: the Department of Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or =ie::•ons to pursue the killer dog packs in this county until such time as : rec-runnj1dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, l:vc.;:.ock :.r..: residents of this county; .%rovlde stricter e:iforcement of the law requiring owners to be in rer;•.�nr i'� control of their dogs; -to nrovide personnel from Animal Control to assist with emergency animal problems 24 hours a day; -to require the use of tranquilizer guns for capture of dogs rather than hun::4-ag cr trcpping wherever possible. Art Seek:;!, County Agricultural Commissioner, according to news reports, is ::rlth the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I.%e beau trying to get additional- man for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort =aces defeat at budget time. We're not doing the Job we"re suouosed to do." wcat Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do. Name Address Date IF 2. 3.4. .[ AA.5 Vp I 3 /i 7Z 6. ! . 7. S. � l ' rI` • � f e ` PA.75!� 004 9. s1116 10. _ sh G pt 11. doo- :7 , ey 14.— ! �i .M/'w V �r t t W�': , J._�.11�1 .(i•� !�J �rhi,1� .�/.! .1 ' . 15. 1.:.J1 \ ?Q Al`11 6t. 1 •i'K" • r t 2(: CK r 23. 46VAI& 01 M Lwe- wt, 24. _ W Oa 9 4, A PETITION TO END ALER DOGS AND DOG PACKS IMONTRA COSTA COUNTY WE, the undersigned. residents of Contra Costa County, want an imme diate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. We want the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: -to provide the Department of:-Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or' persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this noun ' ty until such time as free-running=dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents of this county; -to provide etriot enforcement of the law requiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs; -to provide personnel from Animal Control to assist with emergency - animal problems 24 -hours a day; to, require the use of tranquilizer guns for capture of dogs rather than hunting or trapping wherever possible. Art Seeley. County_Agricultural Commissioner,, according to news re ports. is sympathetic" with the problem and admits;that" the;, killer dog pack problem exists. * ""I've been trying to get additlonal�men for years," Seeley has said, "but- the effort faces defeat at budget time. We 're not doing the Lcb we 're supposed to do. " j We want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to dot Name Address Date L z. �! 17 / 2. -77 G` 10, 3. { 7. 8. All f yv 10. < ♦ LJ/ 11- 12. 13 oe 14,. �r. s.-nmz� 41 RA3 2� 16. erre ..._. .. 17. 0 7. ` ((\ ;. (jam/. .1� r`+ I^..?✓ i 9 V�! 1 lrV V J 18. aczfir' n 20. CIA Cal rn A i5, T-, Cn n co r- d Lit 21. atl� Ric v C 0.1 x 22. 23. >��.�p t '! :��`_ �.'1 i i ' t " r �r .�7 vel C^ C` 1 ' „ r 24. LnCt �► P _ 's� 25. ELI - A PLTITION TO RM KILLER'DOGS AND DOG PACKS ZN C01-URA COSTA COUWI'Y I, the-undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, want an immediate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Contz�a' Costa County Board of Supervisors: - to provide the Depar*tr�nt of Animal Control with funds to`hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this county until such time as free-running dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents of this county; : to provide stricter-enforcement`of `the law requiriang owners'to be in z ' wrespansible control of their dogs. Art"Seeley; County Agricultimal Conissioner, according to news reports, is ,._ :. pro_ syrtpathetzc with_.the Plein-and 'admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying o get additional men for years," Seeley has said, ':!but the effort faces defeat at budget time.. We're not doing the job we're supposed to `do." I want Animal Control to do-the job they're supposed to do: . ... -Address Phone 2. - /tl 9 - 3. Al Ile lb s 6 I eck • COV c 9• R: 11. 12. ' He Qeckpy)hCank 49-2626, 13. . A 410171 7 � D 15, y 16.'� �X�-� f�bZ fC�-L' 17. M _ 20._ �.n n;; _(' til; a 9�3yL P n i► C'+ U-) -1-1 -3 ` � �" '21. , L%�1Gy[�C.Cti. . S iL ILO �lu��e"► flcUru r,G 8 3 I'7,56 3 . . ' Y//�1 -24.' t 25. <--'' N'I . 71'14WIC. 1 TITION TO SED XXLLSK DOGS AM DOG PACKS IE 0 MA COSTA COUITY I, r::. u..Jarsigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, want an immediate end to t:.•_ p:.;alem of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Contra Costa Cour.L, B.,.d %11 Supervisors: ;.:ov:cin the Department of Animal Control with'funds to hire a full-tine perean 2ersons to pursue the killer dog packs in this county until such time as free-running dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock- anZ residents of thin county; . -to provide stricter enforcement of the lsv requiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs; -to provide personnel from Animal Control to assist with emergency animal pre.-..a.,;9 ..4 hours a day, -to require the use of tranquilizer guns for capture of dogs rather than hunting o: trapping wheraver possible. Art Seeley, County Agricultural Commissioner, according to neva reports, is symp-athztic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've bee:: trying to get additional men for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. We're not doing the job we"re sueoosed to do." I want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do.' Mane Address De �. yO­Z�001 !o 2 lot 3. Lima -l/ 5. .# 6. _Zak&& 7. Ln, 3 Z 9. 10. 11. r �.L�Cat As 13. a V x ly 15 'I 3 A 7 Z 17. # 2- lb. - -t Z 19. L.I •? . , - z 21. / _ 3-/,•-7Z 22. c - i 24. 0 A PETITION TO END KILIXHIR DOGS AND DOG PACKS IN OMA COSTA COUNTY WE, the undersigned, residents of Contra Costa County, want an imme- diate and to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. We want the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: -to provide the Department of -Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this coun- ty until such time as free-running dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents of this county= -to provide gtrict enforcement of the law requiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs; -to provide personnel from Animal 0.ontrol to assist with emergency animal problems 24 hours a day;. ' to require the use of tranquilizer guns for capture of dogs rather than hunting or trapping wherever possible. Art Seeley, County Agricultural Commissioner, according to news re- ports* is sympathetic with the problem an& admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional men for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. W_ not don the Job we're supposed to do." We want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do! , Name n Address 1• ,V• %' 120 (,(,r/ �l Sk., 2.- 30 .3• 99- 4. 32 a" _ 5. �� r �✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 6 . 72 07 JS- f � . 12. ?d,. 13 Owe., 4 o IlW31Y4. i4 15. uc vId 16. ✓ l7• ''AA • '• ?._ I A&&tea._ t . 0 4d 19• s - y - g• 20. 211 9- 22. f1d - 24. .!f r �.t f % flic n 25. x.'- S. '100, .:.' .i .4i '✓ i k A PLTITION TO E34D KILLER DOGS A14D DOG PACKS D1 COI RA COSTA COUNTY I, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, want an immediate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: to provide the Denartrnent of Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this county until such time as free-running dogs and dog packs no lodger pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents of this county; - to provide stricter enforcement of the lana reauiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs. Art Seeley, County Agricultural Commissioner, according to news reports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack, problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional men for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. We're not doing the job we're supposed to do." I want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do: Name Address Phone r 2. Z 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 0 10. I1. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. -23. 24. 25. I A PETITION TO END KIPER DOGS AND DOG PACKS IN !1" COSTA COUNTY WE, the undersignedg residents of ",ontra Costa County, want an imme- diate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. We want the "ontra Losta County Board of Supervisors: -to provide the Department of- Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this coun- ty until such time -as free-running--.dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock•..and residents of this county; -to provide gtrict enforcement of the law requiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs; -to provide personnel from Animal Control to assist with emergency ' animal problems 24 hours a day; to require the use of tranquilizer guns for capture of dogs rather than hunting or trappiz*' wherever possible. Art Seeley, County Agricultural Commissioners according to news re- ports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. ' ' "I've been trying to get additional men for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. We're not doing the Job we 're supposed to do. " We want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do! Name AddT ss Date 1• 2. y�.i L' .z_ & 4. 5. QAj 4�,2 �/, /.L' A. s/1 8. 9. 3 GG� 31F-7i 10. i l• 0 wry p ,- Apt 7 Z 14. s i5. 16. 17. 18. 19• 20. 21. 22. 23- 24. 25. - a. A FINMOv TO UM HILLER DOGS A14D DOG PACKS 114 C0I1TRA COSTA COU ITY I, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa`County, want an immediate end to the problern of killer dog packs in this county. I .want the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: to provide the Department of Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this county until such time' as free-running dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents of-this county; _ to provide stricter enforcement of the law requiring,arners to be in responsible control of their dogs. Art._.Seelev,_ .County Agricultural Commissioner, according; to news -reports, is sympathetic-with -the--problem and admits that the killer dog pack. problem exists. ve been trying to:.get additional men for _years," Seeley has said, "but the effort face`s--defeat -at budget time: lie're: not doing the` j ob we're supposed to do." I want Animal Control to do the job.they're supposed to do: Name Address. _ Phone l. Ax. AIt A'a z�_ 2. 3. ,�D 4, 1 194 �j r� SG�✓+�l i(ij�/ 9 ! l / 8 ¢l 3 k S J3 J M CJ's 1,111,f. r .t-�-, G i'L:.i i• /^�41 {_ :?:�C J t . 9. 10. 6Z96 12 / 13. 3p 14. ool 16. , 7�cR �J. l 17•�. *,iY r - i'J n >0 _"-lel 60 / 18. Z(" ,6 20 .37,73 .. &,L -21. 22.- '23. _ - 24. 25. ';; t t II ?i' 11 It • M�. I r• �/ �ti I f G r _ ••. • 1 J • • •► L • •• .• 1 • • • • • 1 • • I_ 9 V;7 ■47 1 • • L •1 •1 • • ► I ••. t. •.• 1 r • • •,u R. • .• I • ► 4*11 • u • . I • _. • vz • 16 IF I v mo, Vol M. , _T 1 WA MAP Mum- / �ZAfL ! �11 ►� imm.-Pirb, , • 1 1 1 • A PETITION TO END KILLER DOGS AND DOG PACKS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, want an immediate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: -to provide the Department of Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this county until such time as free-running dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents of this county; -to provide stricter enforcement of the law requiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs; -to provide personnel from Animal Control to assist with emergency animal problems 24 hours a day; -to require the use of tranquilizer guns for capture of dogs rather than hunzing or trapping wherever possible. :art Seeley, County Agricultural Commissioner, according to news reports, is syawp:aL:ictic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I' .. :,L:en trving to get additional men for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort races defeat at budget time. We're not doing the Job we"re supposed to do." I wart Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do! \ama Address Date 3. 4. S. E. 7. S. 10. 1?. 12. 13. 17. 21. 22. _.. 23. 24. AX A PETITION TO END .KAER DOGS AND DOG PACKS INGNTRA COSTA COUNTY WE, the undersigned, residents of Contra Costa County, want an imme- diate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. We want the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: -to provide the Department of Minimal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this coun- ty until such time as free-runnin43 dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents o$ this county; -to provide Strict enforcement of the law requiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs; -to provide personnel from Animal Control to assist with emergency animal problems 24 hours a day; to require, the use of tranquilizer guns for capture of dogs rather than hunting or trapping wherever possible. Art Seeley, County Agricultural Commissioner, according to news re- ports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional men for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. We 're not doing the Jab were supposed to do. " We••want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to dol Name Address Date 1. .�.t LI o 2. 3- 4. 5- 6. 7• 8. 9. 10. 11• 12. 13- 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. �1• 22. 23. 24. 25• A PETITION TO END AER DOGS AND DOG PACKS INTRA COSTA COUNTY WE, the undersigned, residents of �ontra Costa County, want an imme- diate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. We want the Contra Wosta County Board of Supervisors: -to provide the Department of Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this coun- ty until such time as free-running dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock-and residents of this county; -to provide gtriet enforcement of the law requiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs; -to provide personnel from Animal Control to assist with emergency animal problems 24 hours a day; to require the use of tranquilizer guns for capture of dogs rather than hunting or trapping wherever possible. Art Seeley, County Agricultural Commissioner, according to news re- ports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional men for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. W_ _not doing the Job_ we're supposed to do. " We want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to dol Name Address Date 2 � � •� �Z-1 � c 3 /� 7?� Q3 3 3• ire 5. _/ h 6. da =Wf,^C- 009 VIC, 719/7• - s. 3 &1P Ah 1.0. LID 12. 13 J .6 14. ` i5. 16. 17. 1s. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. �5. J A PETMO1t END laUER DOGS AND�:RACKS IN CO,YfRA COSTA COUMr1 I, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, want an immediate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: to provide the Deparwent of Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs 'in this county until such time as free-running dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents of this county; to provide stricter enfc%,cerent of the law reouirirag awners to be in responsible control of their dogs. Qxt Seeley, County Agricultural Ccurissioner, according to news reports, is syripathetic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to get adaitional men for years," Seeley has said, !!but the effort faces defeat at budget time. We're not doing the job we're suT=sed to do." I want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do: Name Address Phone 2, ;� . , . � 4441 9 J lj� 61A 9. -QiLv U i:S iw. ', o age-? ?' 11. 12. C!-�U-o.-a 60)Lid C�'3 7 CY 14. 1� . lo. 17. 18. 2; . 22. '23. 24. 25. A PLTITION TO EhM KILLER DOGS LAID DOG PACKS T11 CONTRA COSTA COliivTY I, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, want an immediate end to the problen of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: - to provide the Department of Aniu:ial Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this county until such time as free-running dogs and dog packs no lower pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents of this county; - to provide stricter enforcement of the law reauirirag owners to be in responsible control of their dogs. Art Seeley, County Agricultural Commissioner, according to news reports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been tLying to get additional .men for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. We're not doing the job we're sawsed to do." I want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do: . . . Nam e Address Phone E,L ein A r,,Nz —262 2. 0 a. lk%;66 -(M 3.. ��, c� n fry 4 ei _ 6. e-, A-Ve -49� 19 a.dQk 7. r�ral tab iii CJ ! 7 n 'Rr c r P-7 t n;o -Ln ',:k-7 9 q, (D . . . . . . . . 8. r e- nu 9 12. 13. . . . . . . . . . . 17. 18. 20. 21. .22. '23. !4. . 25. A PLMUN TO END KILLER. DOGS A1Z DOG PACKS IN CONTRA COSTA COUi'v1'Y I, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, want an Zrsnediate end to the proble,-n of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: - to provide .the Department of Aminal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this county until such time as . ree-rruruhing dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents of this county; - to provide stricter enforcement of the law reouiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs. Art Seeley, County !Agricultural Co missioner, according to news reports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional men 'for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. Pere not doing the job we're supposed to do." I want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do: ;<a::e Address Phone SSS 2. Z 2 3. 4• 5• /, f' �erP.v�c.c_� ��.v��, � ��✓^'- _ -=1 �� .�-�S��R - 73.F_o a S/ 6. I I u7" 7, // 7 - Q _ ? 6• A:,2 . 9. 10 2 3S-6 11. ' 13. Y 15. • ,7• 1 h2• 2o. 21. 22. n�1J 4• 25. A PLIITICiv 10 END I<I= LOGS r 'M DOG PACKS Di COSTA CVUI'T1 I, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, want an iruniediate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Contra Costa County roam of Supervisors: to provide the Department of Punirral Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this county until such time as free-rima�i.n dogs and dog packs no longer pcse a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents of this county; to provide stricter e,�Lforcamemt of the law reauirir a owners to be in responsible control of their dogs. Art Seeley, County Agricultural Co��issioner, according to news reports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pace problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional tional nen for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. 11e're not doing the job we're sunt)osed to do." I want Animal Control to do the Job they're supposed to do: ;�tre Address Phone 4 L �' - 5. s 71 of 4-= 9--3 3 o. ., � a'C 12. 7:t 13. -/6 14 w-rw, d376 6 S12 1a �� & � 20. � 21. d ) > > 22. 23, t•z. Zj. A PUIPION TO END KILLER DOGS AWD DOG PACKS IU CONTRA CO.;TA CO(IQTY I, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, want an immediate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Contra Costa . County Board of Supervisors: to provide the Department of Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time Person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this county until such time as free-running dogs and dog packs no laMer pose a problen to the wildlife, livestock and residents of this county; to provide stricter enforcement of the law reauiring oAwm to be in responsible control of their dogs. Art Seeley, County Agricultural Commissioner, according to news reports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional men for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. We're not doing the job we're supposed to do." I want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do: Name Address Phone 1. 1003"x 36-h aL�� g.37- (DOD 3. 1y3oe Z4 FJ 7- 1546 3 r 14. X37.. �W . . 7 5. -94 70 6. I At 0 *F, 78 8 /` v Z 24 dw 1D. 11. -"eAw 4" 12. V•- -V . 13. Of (�, C�.�.Pi� a S�a •,Qhs • 933- /7-22 • 14 � �7 dam• . . 15. 49 "Age :Lr, a 2Qot�&- - 18 " f lg� t t —A�!? Zt 21. 22. �J � ,� �. t e/fiI � " � ✓i ti. I i�' l.'�r"r�'t ��xr��. r '23. 25. A PETITION TO END ALER DOGS AND DOG PACKS I&NTRA COSTA COUNTY WE, the undersigned , residents of contra Costa County, want an imme- diate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. We want the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: -to provide the Department of Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this coun- ty until such time as free-running dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife$ livestock and residents of this county; -to provide strict enforcement of the law requiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs; -to provide personnel from Animal Clontrol to assist with emergency animal problems 24 hours a day; to require the use of tranquilizer guns for capture of dogs rather than hunting or trapping wherever possible. Art Seeley, County Agricultural Commissioner, according to news re- ports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional men for years,° Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. W_ doing the ,fob we 're supuosed to do. " We want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to dol Name .. Address �1 Date 17 2. 3, � 193L u -.1 S- 1: ap- qj-- 5, ; �' ' -_7 G 6. i - --► r-X• 7�." Loo yp s. -- 9, // 6/7 .? e, � 7? 10. fl.2,CI71 Z&V 12. 14• ) oL, av Z-Zzag 5� z2f A 16. �' a� :;;Z�J_ Q '1 /• C. V 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. -- A FETTUON TO 13M KILLER DOGS AND DOG PACKS DI COMA COSTA COU111SC I, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa.County,, want an ied. ate .. end to the. problem•of killer dog packs=in this county. i want the Contra"Costa County Board of Supervisors: to provide the Department of Animal. Control with funds to hire a'.full-time person. or persons to:pursue the killer dpg._packs in this.county =until such" time as free-;-running dogsanddog packs no longer.pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents -of this countv,::'.. f to provide stricter enforcement of the law reouiringsowners`to be in msponsible control of their dogs. - { See3ey, County Agricultural Ccmmissioner, according, to news renorrts, is , eti c with the problem and admits that the killer dog pact: problem exists. -- ve een trying to get additional men'for years," Seeley has said, "but the. e , effort faces defeat at budget time. Wd re: not doing they job we're supposed`'to do.�' I=want Animal. Control to do th6 job they're supposed to do: Aare : Address- - Phone u . 2. lz 3 _C_ AWEVA., r � 3 • f y r• • 6 � 7• 071 x: 9 . 15.x` 4+ 13, :- z _ m s 14.- 15. tiv?..f• _�+�, AUC 3tx-�� its t/_3 AV,-Z-4 17. l 2 _ r '�,�/,t�,... .i.�h-• ��.$.rdt-te5�. � �..-t�j'-- ./f�y� _°.-tl�� 5�'. i) 18. 19. 2&0. Ua A2 C -22. w4r-I IPP, &7 A PLTrYION TO END KILLER DOGS AND DOG PACKS IN CONTKA COSTA COLINY I, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, want an immediate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: ' to provide the Department of Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this county until such time as free-running dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents of this county; to provide stricter enforcement of the law reauiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs. Art Seeley, County Agricultural Corrmissioner, according to news reports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to 4t additional men for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. We're not doing the job we're supposed to do." r I want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do: Name Address Phone 3. )e lxi . s�' a Y ` 5 4. ,� Z �f• s. 6. 7. B. 9. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. '21. 22. -23. .24. 25. • A PLTMON TO END KILLER DOGS AND DOG PACKS Ili CONTRA COSTA COLRRY I, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, want an immediate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Contra Costa . County Board of Supervisors: - to. provide the Department of Animal Pontrol with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer:dog packs in this county until such time as free-running ring dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents of this county; - to provide stricter enforcement of the law reauiri.ng:owners to be in responsible control of their dogs. Art Seeley, County Agricultu rel Cormt,issioner, according to new reports, is -sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional men fpr years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. We're not doing the iob we're supposed to do." I want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do: Name ' Address Phone 2. 3. J • 5� 60 7 _� r Jt.L C �L� •.��^'_ ti J/ `•_DLIV J T -2 2yc 41 9z Ar MMMMMM u. 1 (r- , 12. Gv e.. 13. f 15 Cc-w 17. } 18. 19. 20. 22e . . -230- '24. 23;.24. 25. A PETITION TO END KILLER-DOGS AND DOG PACKS IN CONTRA COSTA COUN'T'Y I, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa Countys want'c. inuediate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: y - to provide the Depar�tanent of Anima Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this county. until.such time as free-running dogs and dog.packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents of this county; - to provide stricter enforcement ofthe law requiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs. ' Art Seeley, County Agricultural Cetmissioner, according to news,reports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional menjfor years," Seeley has said, '-."but the effort faces defeat at budget time. Were not doing the. job we're supposed to do." ...' rte- I want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do:, . . . . . NLEAme Address Phone <93 7- 2. 2. -3 r y` dds Gr .� I 1Y1194 &o4 24 e 2JAt ,13. ,�Zz / ! V '15. 16.' ' 17. -s-= 1 - ti '20 . . .23. _ 1 25. i A PETITION TO END KILLER DOGS AND DOG PACKS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY I. the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, want an immediate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Conti Costa County Board of Supervisors: . - to provide the Omar went of Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this county until such time as free-running dogs and dog packs no longer pose`a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents of this county; - to provide stricter enforcement of the law requiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs. Art Seeley, County Agricultural Commissioner, according to,,news reports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional men for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. We're not doing the, job we're supposed to do." r r I want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do Name . .. . . . . . . . . . . . Address Phone _2Ta Ay(.( 4. I ! 8. 9. . :754"A-- A 11. �G "fie / �/ : . . h_�. X16— 10 12. 1l£'i vr` t00 QA. (.� • 13. E VY 0J 14. ,2,oy S452L.11 V 0— �g 4 . Off' 18. 19. - 20. t 21: 22, "23, . . . . . . . . . 25. A PETITION TO END ALER DOGS AND DOG PACKS INTRA COSTA COUNTY WE, the undersigned, residents of "ontra Costa County, want an imme- diate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. . We want the Contra ".osta County Board of Supervisors: -to provide the 'Department of Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this coun- ty until such time as free-running dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents o$ this county; -to provide Strict enforcement -of the law requiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs; -to provide personnel from Animal Control to assist with emergency animal problems 24 hours a day; to require the use of tranquilizer guns for- capture of dogs rather than hunting or trapping wherever possible. Art Seeley, County Agricultural commissioner. according to news re- ports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional men for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. We'_ not doing the job we're supposed to do. ". We want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do.* , Name Ad-dress Date Eel 1• � .. ^ � Wil. ,,,.:.J 1 2. IV- -7Z y Sr I r • J{' • rL r 6. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13- 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. i9. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. I • • A P=70N TO END XILLER DOCS AND DOG PACKS IN CMM COSTA COI811Y I, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, want an iimiediate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Contra Costa . County Board of Supervise s: to provide the Department of Am al cmrbmi with funds to hire a full-time per-con or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this county until such time as ftxv-rumiing dogs and dog packs no larger pose a pvcblm to the wildlife, . livestock and residents of this county; to provide stricter enforcement of the law reouiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs. Art Seeley, County AW4Cu1ture1 COMdOsieruer, a000rdirlg to news reports, is B341 pathetic with the pvablem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional men for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. We're not doing the iob we're sto do." I want Animal Control to do the jab they're supposed to do: Name Address Phone 117 1. �a. ��s •� 93.E= /6 2. 3. . r. 6. 7. 9 r� �� �► 9. 11. 12. 13. .14: '15. 16. 17. 18. 20. '21. 22. '23. 25. f A K.l'''IMON TO nqD KIUJER DOCS AI.'D DOG PACKS D1 CO.-TTRA. COSTA COUNTY Z, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa Count , wa: an i►�.:.ed;.ate end to the problam of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Contra Costa County 'turd of Supervisors: to provide the Department of Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer clog packs in this county until such time as free-running dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents of this county; to provide stricter enforcement of the law reauirirg owners to be in responsible control of their dogs. Ast Seeley, County Agricultizal Cor.am, 'ssi.oner, according to news reports, is sympathetic with the problem and adr.,its that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been tryingto get additional ;.yen for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget tir.:e. .e're not doi.M the Job we're suDnbsed to do." I want Animal Control to do the ;ob t'hey're supposed to do: Name Address Phone _zo 41 C,17 e- 3-7 - 6'-7 . ti) j - 4. 414 1 �''i n coo � .� 83� - ab-t - E• 3Id.C , 7• aM4j4 2W - 7 4,417 1-0 mg A (✓V 2 14 17, 2o. 2? 22 'Q 24. 25. A PLTrrION TO END KILLER DOGS AND DOG PACKS IN CONTRA COSTA COL7lry I, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, want an immediate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Contra Costa . County Board of Supervisors: - to provide the Department of Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dcg packs in this county until such time as free-running dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents of this county; - to provide stricter enforcement of the law revuiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs. Art Seeley, County Agricultural Coamissioner, according to news reports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional men for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. We're not doing the job we're supposed to do." I want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do: Name Address Phone Is 6 A ait' - t" 6. 7. -� IU•C9 5W— ql7 8. 9. . . . . . . Ifl. 11. . . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. . .19. 20. 21. 22. '23. 24. 25. A PETITION TO END #LER DOGS AND DOG PACKS IAONTRA COSTA COUNTY WE, the undersigned, residents of Contra Costa County, want an imme- diate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. We want the contra costa County Board of Supervisors: -to provide the Department of .Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this coun- ty until such time as free-running; dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife , livestock- and residents of, this county; -to provide strict enforcement of the law requiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs; -to provide personnel from Animal '.ontrol to assist with emergency animal problems 24 hours a day; to require the use of tranquilizer guns for capture of dogs rather than hunting or trapping wherever possible. Art Seeley, County Agricultural Commissioner, according to news re- ports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional men for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. We 're not doing the lob, we 're supposed to do. " We want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to dot Name Address ate f 4 5• • 6. a — I 111rla 7. �- 8. G ' 10. 11- 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21 . 22. 23. 24. 25. A PETITION TO END LER DOGS AND DOG PA,,KS IONTRA COSTA COUNTY WE, the undersigned, residents of clontra costa County, want an imme- diate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. We want the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: -to provide the Department of Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this coun- ty until such time as free-running dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents of this county$ -to provide etrict enforcement of the law requiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs; -to provide personnel from Animal Control to assist with emergency animal problems 24 hours a day; to require the use of tranquilizer guns for capture of dogs rather than hunting or trapping wherever possible. Art Seeley, Lounty Agricultural commissioner, according to news re- ports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer d9j pack problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional men for years,". Seeley has said, "but- the effort faces defeat at budget time. We rb doing the Job we 're supposed to do. " _ We want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to dot , Name Address Date 2. gtvt, '7` �• 3 - 3. 7 4. 4:Z 6 7. el? a. 9• 10. 11• 12. ' 13. i4. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. ' 23. 24. �5. A PETITION TO END *LER DOGS AND DOG PACKS IMONTRA COSTA COUNTY WE, the undersigned , residents of yontra Costa County, want an imme- diate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. We want the "ontra "osta County Board of Supervisors: -to provide the Department of -Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this coun- ty until such time as free-running dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife , livestock and residents of this county; -to provide strict enforcement of the law requiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs; -to provide personnel from Animal Clontrol to assist with emergency animal problems 24 hours a day; to require the use of tranquilizer guns for capture of dogs rather than hunting or trapping wherever possible. Art Seeley, Clounty Agricultural 'Commissioner, according to news re- ports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional men for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. We're not doing the job we're supposed to do. " We want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do! N e Address Date 1. - OwAa,efl4 - 6- 72-, 20 3. 50 ""f 40- 6. 2. ?. CC�(Z�l IGL1 A I CAM 1 WO PABL0 OtzIN�A �-6.7Z 8. �,H A.0A + oR ,.i 79 CmPaa�u OtZ,0JY-6 -7;Z MUA� 9. (1) 10. 11• 12. . 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. I A PE MON TO END KIMER DOGS AND DOG PACKSIII CONTRA COSTA COUNTY I, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa-County, want an immediate end to the problem of killer dog packs iq this county. want the Contra Costa . County Board of Supervisors: to provide the Department of Animal Control with funds to hire a full.-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this county until such time as free-running dogs and dog packs no IcrIger pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents of this county; - to provide stricter enforcement of the law requiring aowners to be in . responsible control of their dogs. Art Seeley, County Agricultwel Crnmissioner, according to news reports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional men for .years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. We're not doing theJ'iob we're supposed to do." I want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do: Name Address Phone 1. I 7 3 4. � �21 93.Je-1ep 7 5L IL rR I, 'S r- n r- I."I -ft- I?A --A- -:i q 3 1 - U-t cv: u. U 14. y�3 �. �. r 17. 20. '21. '22. '23. •24. 25. A PLTMON M END XIUZ R DOGS AND DOG PACKS 321 CWM COSTA COMY I, the undersigneds a rrsident of Contra Costa County, want an imnediaate end to the p mbl©n of killer dog packs ip this county. I want the C xmu Costa . Canty Board of Supm visors: - to provide the Denar Mrit of /animal Control with funds to hire a full-time parson cr germs to pursue the killer dog packs in this county until such time as free-mmning dogs and dog packs no lodger pose a pr eblm to the wildlife, . livestock and residents of this county; to provide stricter enfmawent of the lew reauiring'owrom to be in responsible control of their dogs. Art Seeleys County Agricultural Campissicner, acoaritp to now Lqqxg s, is sympathetic with the prabl��� -and admits khat the killer dog pack pdam exists. "I've been trying to get afdditional men f` yearss" Seeley has saids "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. We're not dohs; the.iab we're supposed to do." I want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do: / Address E3:oa�e 2. fco / cC K�� � . f .31 - 549%t 3. 4. d fg• - � Op 5 �,. i• /� t. /i s. ov V arc, a 3 9 - ,S / 7. f . 12. Mpm ' 13. 14. 16. 17. r 18. 19. 20. '21. .22. '23. '24. . 25. A PETITION TO END KIO,%R DOGS AND DOG PACKS IPJ *TRA COSTA ';OUNTY + WE, the undersigned , residents of :ontra Costa County, want an irme- diate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. ale want the Contra Costa County hoard of Supervisors: -to provide the Department of Animal .^.onl;rol with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog pack.-, in this coun- ty until such time as free-running dogs and dog pecks no longer pose a problem to the wildlife , livestoc:t and residents of this county; -to provide gtrict enforcement of the law requiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs; -to provide personnel from Animal Control to assist with emergency animal problems 24 hours a day; to require the use of tranquilizer guns for capture of dogs rather than hunting or trapping wherever possible. Art Seeley, County Agricultural Commissioner, according to news re- ports, is sympathetic with the problem and Admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional men for years, " Seeley has said, "but t1he effort faces defeat at budget time. We 're not doing the job we 're supposed to do. " We want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to dot Name Address Late 90 R ; �_�� ' �G� �u-- -Y.� 1�c CD-tt dcrz 3 4 . 5. 7 3 tf��e e. 6. GCf �Jis. 3-;ro-9;. 7 12 7. H. Z ;a �a-e il• 12 13. ._ 14-. 15. _ 16. 17. 19. 20. 21. - 22. 23' 24,. _ 25. _ ( _ A PETITION TO END K#LER DOGS AND DOG PACKS IANTRA COSTA COUNTY WE, the undersignede residents of Contra Costa county, want an imme- diate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. We want the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: -to provide the Department of Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this coun- ty until such time as free-running dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock-and residents of this county; -to provide strict enforcement of the law requiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs; -to provide personnel from Animal Control to assist with emergency animal problems 24 hours a day; to require the use of tranquilizer guns for capture of dogs rather than hunting or trapping wherever possible. Art Seeley, f3ounty Agricultural Commissioner, according to news re- ports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional men for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. We're not doing the Job we 're supposed to do. " We want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to dol Nae Address - Date 2. 1 3- 6. f /3 2. -7L c- 9.. CL ZAwl /n! 0 P A PET 70K M EM KILLER DOGS AIM DOG PACKS M CONTRA COS"+A COtM'Y ' I. the undersigned, a resident of Coma Costa County, want an :Lmnediate end to the nobles, of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Coruna Costa County Board of Supervisors: to provide the Department of Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time ' }person or persons to pursue ttie ]tiller dog packs in this county unti2 such time as free-rurmirg dogs.and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents of this county; io provide stricter enforcement of-the law reouirirz owners to be in responsible control of their dogs. Axt Seeley, County Agricultural Ccardssioner, accordirg to new reports, is sympathetic with the probleru and admits that the ]tiller dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional lien for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. 1-Wre r•.ot doing the job we're supposed to do." I want Animal Cantrol to do the job they're supposed to do: . . Name Address Phone l: • moi' 2. 1095 X37 d 73% 3. o a 4. ' 8. c , r • . . . �1a.�,c. $31-1 Y. lo. V7 37 . . r'oJ° t': t r'. r r•,�_ -- 13. .14. . lc. 17. 18. IS. 2r• 22. 22. 2.3. 2!7. 25. -d A PETMON TO END KILLER DOGS A14D DOG PACKS 111 CONPRA COSTA CO ffY I, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, want an immediate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Control Costa County Board of Supervisors: to provide the Department of Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this county until such time as free-running dogs and dog packs no 1miger pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents of this county; to provide stricter enforcement of the law requiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs. Art Seeley, County Agricultural Commissioner, accor irg :to ;news reports,; is sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional men for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. We're not doing the job we're supposed to do." I want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do: Name Address Phone 2. 3: o �. 4. s. 1 q3G Z. . 6 JL 3 — 37� 7. 17, s. lfl. ,/'�``"`.' f f�tC. 1.t_. �! ' "` f J, L _k_"".,_ s) .r 12. fvj' 57 1 �� foA /�) 13. 0 .... ` ' 115., CIO i 0/9 !411`/eA SLV, �y 16. �' bl. I 1 ts�! s .a J x_. : \� i �.L lai € ki 17. I.": % 2 rY �.. /`� sa o^ // "`'� ,Gy ! M-) /'o t j, `> ls. V I- 19, 9Cyf..i--x. +^ �. ":'.1 ..? '`} - `� Vit . , t`�•• ,:d�- a « • '.-_.- ✓. .':-'-) j�i, J _ • 'i f� i r 20f'!� 6 Y .. .. _....;..•. '21• 22. . . . . R, t .23. 25. v-, -- --- -------- -. ..----- ._...- ----- -..__._-� _]larch--22r.-!9!72-- i "I, the undersigned a resident of Contra Costa County . want an immediate end to the problem of killer dog packs ; in this county. I want the Contra Costa Board of Supervisprs to . ; provide the Department of Animal Control with funds to hire a fulltime person or persons to pursue the killer dog ;pack problems in this county until such time as free— running dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestrock, and the residents of this county "I want the county to provide strict enforcement of the !law requiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs, to provide personnel from animal control to assist with emergency animal problems 24 hours a day to require the use of tranquilizer guns for capture of dogs rather ; than hunting or trapping wherever possible. i ! "Art Seeley, county agricultural commissioner, according ito news reports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. i "I've been trying to get additional men for years, " Seeley ;has said, but the effort faces defeat at budget time. We 're knot doing the job we 're supposed to do. " "I want animal control to do the job they!re supposed to !do; j I 4 � s i s i _ June 13, 1972 �;ou?d .n to speal, brief ly today on two points -- the Preda tory P?:o' -a:n in Contra Costa Courrty, and the Squirrel Is'radication Program. o u sr. l t%--old like to sav- that I hone our hearing on these rather sensi- e sc:^j.^cts docs rot 6isinte rate into an emotional shouting match as has been the case recently in a number of other counties. Nothing gets solved under these ci?:cu:nstance:s, I. don't think there's any doubt- that these subjects are important; otherwise we wouldn't have Lhe People here that �„e have today. What we all must keep in :Hind is that tt:ere really isn't as great a division of "sides” on these subjects as one might think. ot example, contrary to what some might think, I personally do under- sLand the fact that the ranchers and farmers and other landowners in this �y count, have a predation problem. Where I basically differ wyth some people, trier., is in Lhe way this predation problem is Mein; handled. I feel. that livestock- p_•edntion in Contra Costa County is caused for the mast part by feral dogs, and to a lesser degree by wild predators. I think your statistics over the lest three years, in which only six coyotes were trapped in this county by the Federal trapper shop.* this. The Commissioner of agriculture has even stated ti;aL "Probably the most important function per- fc *�►ec by the trapper is Fteiping to stop t?Ie ser4.0us losses caused by the family dog," I also agree with present Aniim_l Control policy that the long-term answc-.r to the deg cr dog pZcl: pro:.?en in ourc^urrty rests with lceeping file family dogs ^:`f the st.r%!,:�Ls, and to this end this should be one of the :main fiinction., of ,animal ccntrol. But I aloo =eel that since there's obvi- ously an on--going dol; pr`d: tion nn?Iblem in this county -- NOtir -- that some- thilng i_lian our present anima' cortf'rol p.:cccdure:: is needed. • 0 Page 2. And I don't think the bringing in of a Federal trapper for two or three months out of the year, to set up ane run traplines, is going to, or ever has even come close to, solving this problem. It obviously hasn't worked over these last years that: we've had a Federal trapper in this county, as can be judged by the si.tutation that has brought us all here today. Forty-five foxes, 53 raccoons, 20 opossums, 59 skunks, six coyotes, one bobcat, and three beavers trapped over the last three years, to the tune of $5,461,33 in expenses, certainly wouldn't seem to me to be the kind of results one should be pleased with in a program such as this. I would like to respectfully recommend, then, that the following course of action be taken, -as away of bringing to an end the interwoven problems of dogs and wild predation in this county: 1. A full.-time person, fully trained in the tracking down and live trapping of both domestic and wild animals, be hired in place of the present Predator Control Agent. This person should be an employee of the Animal Control Department, and his only job should be the control of domestic dog and wild animal predation problems. 2. This person should work throughout the county, live-trapping the wild and the family dogs in areas where they are causing problems to ranchers, farmers, and city residents alike. 3. This expert should employ his skills on wild predators, only when a specific livestock problem exists, and a formal request is made, either by the land owner, or the livestock owner. He should then ascertain if in fact it is a wild predator causing the problem, or feral dogs. If a wild predator, it should then be live-trapped and relocated where it can hunt freely. If dogs, they should be live—trapped and taken to the pound. Tile Fish and Wildlife Service can su,:;.est places T;he.;:e gild predators aright safely be released. Page 3. 4. Stiff fines should be met by any citizen identified as owning one of these trapped "predator-dogs". This county is already greatly lacking in natural predators. This year, the Fish and Came has already reported a serious overpopulation of deer in Contra Costa County. This is a direct result of our lack of natural predators. There is.a serious lack of food developing for these deer, and it seems to me that it is only a matter of time until problems of disease develop, as nature seeks her own controls over overpopulation. The indiscriminate trapping of wildlife in Contra Costa County has not solved any problems in the past, and there is certainly nothing to show us that it'-1-1 solve any problems in the future. It CAUSED problems in the past, by helping to rid our county of the very creatures it so desperately needs. I respectfully submit that something better is needed, and I think what I have suggested is the better thing we need. In line with this, I feel it vitally important that u be granted now, so that such a program as I've described can be started immediately. GROUND SQUIRREL CONTROL Now., concerning the Ground Squirrel Control Program in this county. I talked this morning to Richard F. Peters, Chief of the bureau of Vector Control of the State of California. His department is directly concerned with the problem of bubonic plague in California, and since plague has been cited as the major reason for ground squirrel control, his depart-Ment is also directly involved in this area. Mr. Peters stated that, historically, ground squ rrels have appeared to be the pzr i ae focus of plague, r.�ainly because L•hey were so conspicuous. Page 4. Iiowever, it has been recently concluded that plague is, in fact, reservoired in the small wild mice population throughout the state. The fleas that carry plague are rather specific to these dice, and don't transfer readily to other hosts. When they do transfer, usually because of plague deaths in the mice, they move to wood rats, and then finally to other types 4 rodents, such as squirrels and chipmunks. As Mr. Peters stated, "The last expression of plague is squirrels and chipmunks." The attitude of the Bureau of Vector Control is: that eradication of ground squirrels is not necessary, and the policy should be one of suppression of ground' squir,:el .densities in specific areas of human exposure, such as in the direct proximity of human habitation or schools. They feel that such isolated., specific situations should be dealt with on a controlled basis. The Bureau of Vector Control also feels that the Metho-bromine gas control technique is the most direct -,.,ay to proceed. Mr. Peters said that the poison grain approach has never been appealing to his department. In line with this, I would like to suggest the following: 1. That the use cf poison grain for squirrel control in this county be ended irunediateiy. This technique is not specific to squirrels; it also kills rabbits, birds, and other creatures. As an example of tni.s, I give you Briones Regional Park. Because of grain used in squirrel control in this area, there are virtually no brush or jack rabbits left. The Department of Agriculture states that the poison grain is dyed yellow to keep birds from eating it. This, s submit, is ridiculous. 2. Ground Squirrel Control in the Stare and Regional Parks in Contra Costa County should be left up to State and Regional Parks personnel. These areas are not in the direct proximity of human Page S. habitation or schools. Park personnel, I'm sure, would be more than grilling to handle the control of these creatures, if needed. Some that I've tallied to have wanted this control for a long time. It is my understanding that parks in Alameda County have such control, and there appear to be no problems from this. 3. If squirrel erosion or squirrel crop problems should develop in specifil-c areas -- careful evaluation should be made -- and then, if, as a last resort, control is necessary, specific gas poisoning should be used, and then only to bring the squirrel population in that specific area down to a more manageable size. In conclusion, in this day and age of antibiotic therapy, providing diagnosis is early in the onset of the disease, there is absolutely NO reason for anyone to ever die of plague. Proper predator control, such as I've suggested, without the general slaughtering of all predators, allow our rapidly dwindling predator population in this county to Sroc•:, and in turn to provide a natural ground squirrel population control throughout the county. You don't have to get the last squirrel to suppress plague, and you don't have to trap the last predator to stop livestock depredation. And this, I Cubmit, should be the policy in Contra Costa County. Thant: you. Gary Bogue, Curator Alc;_ander Lindsay Junior Iiuseum Walnut Creek, California RECEIVED Hearing Before Contra Costa Board of Superviso s On Ge4l 1-F /lf 7aZ Continuance Of Funding For W. T. P A A S C H Predator And Ground Squirrel Program CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS In Contra Costa County C NTR osrA co. June 13, 1972 eY Deputy My name is Grover W. Roberts, Jr. and I am a Commodity Specialist with the California Farm Bureau Federation. I work statewide on livestock programs of interest to my organization and have also served as a Field Representative to the Contra Costa and Alameda County Farm Bureaus. I appreciate having this opportunity of providing a statement telling our concerns relating to ground squirrels and predators. Farmers and ranchers have an interest in wildlife management. They are currently providing a major portion of the game and wildlife habitat of this country. When ground squirrels and predators of domestic livestock and poultry are causing losses to farmers, nurserymen, homeowners, etc. , we feel that measures must be taken for control. Local population control is an essential part of the predator and ground squirrel programs. The use of effective methods of control should be under the control of qualified and responsible individuals such as we have with the Contra Costa Agricultural Commissioner's office in cooperation with the California Department of Agriculture. At a Predator Ecology Symposium held in Orland on March 1, Tom Nichols, Assistant State Supervisor, Division of Wildlife Services, Sacramento reported that the coyote is one of the most adaptable species of wildlife. Coyotes have been found in j metropolitan areas such as downtown Los Angeles where they adapt and live quite successfully. A three year study in 38 California counties has shown coyotes on the increase. • • -2- In fiscal year 1971, a total of 17,127 head of livestock, poultry and domestic animals were reported to have been killed in California by depredating animals. These depredations were recorded on a damage control request form used by field personnel. About 80% of the total agricultural and domestic animals reported killed were sheep, lambs, turkeys and chickens. Follow-up surveys indicate that this recorded depredation represents only 37% of the actual loss. Coyotes are the most important single predator. In 1970 they were responsible for 56% of all losses. The Division of Wildlife Services, which has an agreement with the State Department of Agriculture and some 30 counties, reported in its 1971 fiscal year annual report that the most humane, efficient and safest control techniques are used. More than 95% of the animal damage control programs is dependent on the use of trapping in California on both private and public lands. Without the effective control efforts applied by the professionally trained and supervised animal control specialists, annual losses in California could well be eight to 10 times greater. In the Union City area a farmer recently reported planting 15 acres of cucumbers on which ground squirrels ate seeds and the young plants as they emerged on three acres. This was a loss of 20% of his production because of ground squirrels. For this loss was the farmer given any extra consideration from county government, state government or the private sector? He was not. He is still required to pay his taxes on the land. He still hopes to make a profit on the remaining acres if the weather, insects and other pests do not interfere. Do the ground squirrels that caused losses to this farmer just cause damage to him or do they also cause damage to homeowners who live adjacent to the field? The answer is obvious. Ground squirrels are present in all kinds of situations. -3- I talked to the Alameda County Agricultural Commissioner and asked if ground squirrels are a problem. The reply was very definitely yes. Alameda County has a routine program for ground squirrels but in spite of this the Commissioner's office received the following calls concerning squirrels over the period December 2, 1970 to January 10, 1972, a period of about 13 months: Requests from commercial growers 36 Requests from non-commercial growers, having from one to 20 acres 32 Requests from homeowners 30 Requests from cemetery districts, golf courses, nurseries, schools, industry, etc. 26 124 Introduced by seven Senators, including Senator Nejedly of Contra Costa County, and 13 co-authors in the Assembly, totaling 20 legislators or one-sixth of total legislators, was SB 1177 on Wildlife Protection. This bill, which is still in the State Legislature, reads, "The Director may employ hunters and trappers throughout the state to control predating animals that are injuring or killing livestock." The Director may enter into cooperative agreements with the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture of the U.S. to enforce any standards and requirements in this state. Economic poisons or other toxicants determined by the Director to cause secondary poisoning of mammals and birds, shall not be used for the control of field rodents damaging agricultural crops unless three conditions are satisfied: -4- a) 4-a) A permit, signed by the Commissioner and a department biologist:, is first received from the Department placing limitations on the place and duration of the application, the concentration and amount of the toxicant used, the methods of application and identifying the rodent species targeted for con- trol. b) Such toxicants are applied in accordance with regulations adopted by the Director pursuant to economic poisons causing secondary poisoning in mammals and birds. . . c) Such toxicants are applied by a person licensed as an agricultural pest operator, a Commissioner or his agent, an employee of the Department, or by permittee or an employee is a permittee under the periodic supervision of a Commissioner or an employee of the Department. The bill also reads: The Director may possess and use economic poison formulated for the control of predatory animals only if such poison is used to assist the State Department of Public Health. . . There are three or four bills before the U.S. Congress concerning predators. In testimony before the U.S. Congress, Farm Bureau has testified that the banning of chemical toxicants and the action by the Environmental Protection Agency of suspen- sion and cancellation of registration of materials has created a situation that will require an alternative program for a transitional period. Research leading to an effective program will require at least five years or more. At the federal level the Animal Damage Control Act of 1972 is before the Congress. In testimony before the Congress, our policy was stated which reads in part, "Some measure of predatory animal control is necessary in order to achieve proper live- stock, wildlife and land management. It is also necessary to control predators that are carriers of infectious diseases such as rabies. " -5- The 5-The California Department of Agriculture has stated that animal damage control is increasingly recognized as an important and necessary phase of environmental preservation, natural resource management and its orderly utilization. Control of certain animal populations is necessary to confine their harmful effects upon agricultural production, other desirable wildlife and natural resources and public health to a tolerable level. The Division of Wildlife Services stated in its 1971 annual report that the alternative of allowing ranchers to conduct their own programs may depreciate the integrity of the environment, because these people are not technically trained and do not always have the latest knowledge of research developments in animal control methods. A quote, "Loss of livestock to predators affects everyone, making meat prices higher and reducing the tax base and the sheep industry declines." Richard Dana, Biologist, California Department of Agriculture. PR"CEIVED I CONTRA COSTA COUNTY . 4f/v"4 CLERK'S OFFICE V v'. T. P)AASCH Inter - Office Memo V. T. C'L.Rtl POARD OF SUPERVIS RS Date: June 13, 1972 A",T NTR ' 8 :45 a.m. 11 T ?_rQ_`_­* gi*n sor E. A - Linscheid a- From: Geraldine Russell, Clerk of the Board Subject: Mr. Leo Fallman, P. 0 . Box 757, Brentwood, owner of 1, 000 acres in the Orwood Tract, called with the following message: We are definitely opposed to the elimination of the rodent control activities of the county. Have spent 50 years in this area and feel T am qualified to speak on the subject . Squirrels and other rodents are very dangerous in the Delta islands . They are the cause of levee breaks which in turn causes flooding;. Rodents also cause serious peat fires . The animals bore holes In the dry canal banks and ditch banks and then an accidental fire which might burn surface weeds and do little damage gets into the holes dug by the rodents and burns as deep as 4 feet at times. These peat fires are difficult to extinguish and cause flooding. Rodents also are very detrimental to cultivation of the land because of the holes they bore and the colonies they produce in certain areas . Difficult to use tractors . Statements being made are really stupid. They have said farmers complain because of the amount of crops squirrels eat . They eat very little - birds eat more. The trouble lies in the area of which I speak. If the program were eliminated it would be disastrous. Beavers cause similar trouble. I have had personal experience. They almost caused my land to flood. I fell shoulder deep in the levee because of beaver tunneling. �dhen trying to drain our land we would open and clean debris and that night we would find it all blocked up again by beavers . Got so bad we had to apply to state to trap them, They sent a trapper and now we have no more trouble. I am not sure the squirrels to not carry rabies as well as plague. Skunks do. This idea of these do-gooders not wanting to control any animals . GR:ae Harry L. Silcocks 1143 Lambaren Ave. Livermore Ca 94550 June il, 1972 RECEIVED Board of Supervisors ,JUN 131972 Contra Costa County W. T. P A A S C H P. 0. Box 911 CLERK SOA OF SUPERVISORS Martinez, Ca. 94553 L NT A co °• PUW Gentlemen: It has come to my attention that the Board of Supervisors will on Tuesday, June 13, 1972, discuss predator and ground squirrel control problems. Although I reside in Alameda County, I would like to comment on the above mentioned problems. The most recent figures I have obtained from the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Division of Wildlife Services for Contra Costa County are for FY 70-71. These figures show that 2 coyote, 1 bobcat, 6 fox, 29 racoon, and 4 skunk were taken, with the cost to the county being $1.962.00. According to the California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service the sheep and lamb inventory for Contra Costa County for the same period was 8,600 head. To quote from a letter from Mr. Art Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner "The livestock losses reported to Wildlife Services for Contra Costa County in fiscal year 1970/71 were, 11 sheep lost to coyote. ttIdotice that no losses to other predators were reported. Thus 11 sheep out of 8 600 were lost to predation, at a cost to the county of 1,962.00, with the trapper taken 2 coyote. If the livestock industry in Contra Costa County does suffer serious losses to predation one would think they would report such losses at the time of occurance in order to both document and justify predator control programs. If the losses are not reported until some months later one would wonder if they did in fact occur, or if a random figure is being used in order to justify a predator control program. I would like to urge the Board of Supervisors to ask those who want to renew the predator control program what losses they have suffered from causes other than predation so as to determine predator losses in relation to total losses from all causes. The only studies that have been conducted by the BSFIf (Reynolds and Gustad Study) show the following �� Alt (2) relationship between total death to causes other than predation (TDTCOTP) and total death to predation (TDTP) when expressed as a percentage of total inventory. TDTCOTP TDTP Colorado 1966 10.6 6.7 Texas 1967 11,0 3.6 Montana 1967 26.8 , 4.5 196$ 17.1 6.7 1969 30.6 5.6 Wyoming 1966 14.0 - 5.8 1968 15.8 4.6 1969 18.5 7.9 Average 16.0 5.3 I feel the above figures speak for themselves. Insofar as ground squirrels are concerned, my concern is the use of chain reacting poisons such as 1080, which often times kill an animal that was not the target animal. I therefore urge the Board of Supervisors to carefully evaluate the total effects that might result from any poisoning program that may- be instituted in Contra Costa County, and to also carefully evaluate the total losses suffered by the livestock industry in relation to predator losses and costs to the county before renewing any predator control program in Contra Costa County. sincerely yours,_,% l I*ry L. Si cocks p .TQ�1' ANIMAL Tri R GRu.; 7 SQUIRREL ERAI;IGATION P:- tGRAM `x �Y T CEIVED Arthur Z, sl ey l 1y7, ;r gri cultural Cc�Waiss oner: W. 'T P a A S,C H Sealer Weights � 'Measures c�E OA F'SUP.ERVMORS. :z N COSTA ` .[AIRMAN AND. OTHER MEMBERS- OF THE. BOARD:,, By, - eputy . . M Per it would be he pful to everyone 11:- I supplied some back ground..informat on on these two programsr followed ,by a feVr comme_zts .on why- and .how they operate , and then the �-ature as 'l envision t, LET'S FOCUS .-FIRST:--.ON -THE 'TRAPPER PROGRAM: . . Uin county contracted with- the 'federal _governmen- gar v l ?r6 {June `l) when the county employed its- own rape-^. In Then I ' came tu ' s county,< the`, employee was; working fu1= ;tstrapper and continued as such .until he was killed i n 1 .JL^e i1� ) in a:- car accident. 3ecGase yearly records then indicated or' " = ^ y 'a: ref, ^o -;tes and' x p e aLors .wee.e be rg taken I de cided not to �iil the vs:_:a posizio__, however,- ,in 1963 , four years later, - ..reports of live- sto .,stock d. L.-edat-z ory had increased to the po:intL that the 'Board of Supert-isors and -I ,were receiving, a considera-blez number of requests for t apper asslstance.� along with criticism;for. the cc�'_.ty's not having afua time, 777 experier_ced trapper. - In addition' .tnere ,vas :.'..s,_ ��nsiderable- concern_ by the 'County and State.<Depar g encs. f PU1_ . Health over the high : ncidence of rabies being fo end` in skunks. Lie a` full time trapper -!aas being requested. by the' __v --..o, producers , I agreed ':;n��; to support a request for a �d . -ogram of six months a3cr' year, with the , county _.ta__dard practice .-Pay-!n rds. and .the s Late and. federal ___ 'i. �s. prepared `.for.,deliV6ry- at a Publzc'_Hearing of the Boa^c c Supervisors .;field;June S3, 19?z. . -2 • governments paying the other one-third. i�rperience later indicated that skunk control did not appear to be overly effective, and I therefore recommended to the Board of Supervisors in 1964 that the program be reduced to three months. As depredation is greatest during the winter and early spring months when the lambs and calves are being born, it was mutually agreed that this would be the best time for the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to send in an experienced trapper. The program had continued on as a three month service contract until last year when it appeared to me from an analysis of the trapper's report that we were experiencing less depredation than usual. With due consideration being given to the cost-benefit ratio , we met with representatives of the sheepmen, and the U. S. Division of Wildlife Services , after which I decided the yearly program should be terminated, and this was done on October 30, 1971. The cost to the county was only $95$.74 out of a planned expenditare of $2 ,658 for the fiscal year of 1971/72. At that time an agreement was discussed with the State Supervisor, U. S. Divis_on of Wildlife Services,whereby future services of the trare�^ might be obtained on a more limited "problem-solving basis". it 'should be pointed out that further limiting of the trappar's services and the reduction in the program cost were done orior to the appearance of local newspaper articles on the s c� which stimulated public interest and brought about the I this public hearing. For the future , I envision a program similar to the one we have except that it be carried out on an "as needed" basis. By that I mean contracting for the services of an experienced _3- trapper ;.he year following livestock depredation that begins to ser-Iosly affect the ranchers. The reason for this proposal is that it does not seem wise to set a definite time interval between contracts , as this might permit a large build-up of coyotes. The objectives of carrying out a trapping program are expressed in the Division of Wildlife Service's policy which states: "It is an objective of the Bureau to reduce animal depredation as selectively as possible, and to direct control at the depredating individual or local depredating population. The animal damage control will be conducted to achieve definite planned goals: (1) Protection of human health and safety (2) Protection of urban areas (3) Protection of forest and range (4) Protection of crops and livestock. " It should be noted that the use of traps has been the only method authorized by my department for the taking of animals. It is my belief that if government does not provide . limited assistance, it is quite likely that farmers, ranchers and others faced with wildlife depredation problems will be forced to handle the matter to the best of their ability. The results could Drell be the indiscriminate or haphazard use of poisons ,and this would bring about the killing of many non-target species. It 4LB my belief that we should continue utilizing the services of an axperienced trapper, on an as-needed basis, and only for ani.*:.,als that are causing depredation. GROT.]i .L; -•PUDIC:'i'_0N PP,.OG_ AD! Souir--el control and/or eradication programs in California date bac: so ae years ., in fact y in 1874, almost 100 years ago , an -4- abatement- law was passed by the State Legislature making the ground squirrel a public nuisance and subject to eradication. in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. In 1889 , with the county population of slightly over 13 ,000 people , ranchers gathered in the old Oak Grove schoolhouse at Ygnacio Valley and this was the start of a squirrel control program that has continued for ,83 years. While the farmers' original intent was to protect their crops , bubonic p=lague entered the picture in 1903. By 1927 fifteen persons in this county had contacted the disease , with thirteen cases resulting in death. During the period of 1908 through 1943 the U. S. Public Health Service recorded that Contra Costa County had 1,726 cases of animal plague. By the late 1940's the County Agricultural Commissioner's office had nine squirrel inspectors , each in charge of a district, each inspector being responsible for enlisting the cooperation of the landowner and supervising the application of rodenticides , and collecting fees for the materials. used. During my first year in this county as Agricultural Com— missioner, we made a complete evaluation of the program, and it seemed to me that if. the county was ever to get out from a never—ending program, it would have to be changed. The Board of Supervisors agreed with my recommendations and in 1954 we altered the program to make it a more forceful one. ': e :eve estimated that from 1919 until 1954, the county had expended around $1 ,600,000, with the ranchers' share being $705 ,2'81. 3n 19-�7 ; � e county and the ranchers were treating 2$9,$$6 acres. The county has only 470 ,400 acres , so it can read-.1-1y be seen th az the i feszed area being treated was 61% of the total acreage. r5 • low after approximately eighteen years only 3h man years are used on the program, with only a small amount of help required from the landowners. We estimate that 416 ,219 acres , or 80% of the to Lal acreage , are free of this rodent. The areas vinere bubonic plague had been the concern of health departments are free , or virtually free , of ground sgUirrels. Yearly cost for the program is now set at $73 ,000. While the citizens of Contra Costa County have the opportunity to see what can easily be termed the completion of its program in the foreseeable future , say five to ten years , this is certainly not true in most counties of the state , simply because of the lack of full rancher cooperation and because of the type of nrogra_m the counties have made available. Ground squirrel populations are quite high in most California counties and due to the type of programs the ranchers , irrigation districts and road departments must suffer with the problems and yearly losses caused by these rodents. perts in vertebrate pest control have long recognized the ground squirrel population's "recuperative powers" when continual suppressive action is slackened or discontinued and the squirrels ' migratory habits which enable them to spread over wide areas of rangeland and onto adjacent residential properties. Perhaps we should list the advantages and disadvantages of haw;; a large ground squirrel population. T' t[G 9D?:�_lT TE5 1. To some people , there is pleasure in seeing ground squirrels as Da---L. of t_:e ecology. The viewing of mese animals is , of course , greatly limi pec to areas bordering public access , and does not include those areas far back on ranching properties. a 2. Where is no doubt that some animals feed on ground squirrels as part of their diet , however, it should be pointed out that there is no scientific evidence to support any contention that other wildlife will be adversely affected by their absence from Contra Costa County. DISADVANTAGES: 1. Ground squirrels can carry several diseases transmissible to man, the most important of course is bubonic plague , and these diseases will continue to constitute a great threat to .human and animal health as long as squirrels are p-resent. 2. The economic implications to agriculture is that if the ground squirrel population is allowed to go unchecked, the squirrels will soon once again be causing appreciable losses to crops and livestock producers , as well as causing soil erosion, damage to levees , ditchbanks , roadbeds and buildings. The average annual loss from ground squirrels in California is calculated at eight million dollars. 3. All future control efforts will be at greatly increased costs if the present eradication program is curtailed or abandoned. 69. ..$' C12 e-1 cr 1 O I � fl 0 ri C C o 'oo , 0 0 0{ o °% .` 4, . W 'ag ;d O Z a) %0 0 F Wto M W 11\ +H C=� 1O m M � ON O r-t O O to O r-! �. q � 5 c0,�t W Vo P4 � N 0) v 0w H 43 CH H� p 13 � ° 0o pa r-I© .n a o o� n � -r - z 0 L El —t C z E-+ vnd co PQ L j K '0 m m O o r! O CM o tai CNI M, rb co0) ., r T 4 to m O m O O H o• o �: o cs Olt c :� H . .° CL` a) c: � .� 0 co az o k 1000 Cd ai o - S4 o C °4J " �' al °°.4)0) W o 71 az E 4o 14 a) +3 ,� bO 0 q * >, 14 cd a 1�1 a xrOi 4.114> $4 .Y "'LO3 4.),co 1 0 s o o -ri p. 0 r-I 0) � 9i 'q H «-1 00 N G. .3 as 4t G c3 ti a O m 43 F4 ILI Cd 4.> El 4-1 > 42ro g o CO .X 4.') cd a) a) H $4 M O rt t!2 iJ o 0 0 . U > b0 N bD O U >, .r-1 O;ri a` 0' .^3 >s 3o 0 'd p 00 •ao •r-! y �* z fO td P. X O py H 1. ts .� r 4 0 i i APIOndicei 121 3 , Appendix 1 DIVISION OF WILDLIFE SERVICES POLICY Definition trol of birds or other animals threatening human safety, such as birds in the vicinity of Animal damage control, as performed by airports; and the Bureau, is defined as the management (2)Protection of urban areas, where it is nec- of damaging bird and mammal populations essary to reduce and control hazards, dam- at levels consistent with the needs and ac- ages, and economic losses in residential and tivities of man. This includes environmental industrial situations resulting from mice, manipulation, reduction, the use of repel- rats, bats, and nuisance birds; and lents and cultural methods. It is a coopera- (3)Protection of forest and range where con- tive venture, conducted or supervised as au- trol is necessary to attain the management thorized and directed by Federal law and objectives of forest and range management, carried out in compliance with applicable such as reforestation, range restoration, wa- State and local laws or regulations. It ex- tersheds, and wildlife management where eludes those species that are harvested or the social and economic benefits in these ob- otherwise managed by the State fish and jectives are judged to offset the costs of ani- game departments. However, upon request mal control methods and the loss of the con- and in agreement with the State game and trolled species; and fish department, the Bureau may conduct (4) Protection of crops and livestock where control on problem individuals or relatively control is necessary to reduce damage to small groups of species that are under State growing and stored agricultural crops, and management. to protect livestock from depredation and Objectives wildlife-borne diseases,again where econom- ic and social benefits are judged to offset all The Bureau's animal damage control pro- costs. gram will be designed in a manner which The animal damage control program.will will insure the maintenance of the varied be conducted when and where there is a native wildlife and wildlife habitats of the demonstrated need, as determined by the United States. In conducting this program, Bureau,after a careful review of all available the Bureau also must be mindful of its re- evidence. It will be developed and super- sponsibilities . for protecting wildlife re- vised by professional personnel who are sources. aware of the ecological, social, and economic It is an ohicrtive of the Bureau to reduce aspects of wild animal population manipula- animal deln-edations as selectively as pos- tion. This progr:un will he sclsxtive and hu- sible, and to direct control at the depredat- mane to the extent possible and will utilize ing individual or local depredating popu- research findings and advances in control lation. Animal damage control will be con- technology. ducted to achieve definite planned goals: Field testing of appropriate new animal (1) Protection of human health and safety, contr6l products and techniques selected through animal control to reduce trans- from those produced by the Bureau and pri- mission of wildlife-borne diseases; and con- vate industry will be accomplished in cooper- 122 Predator Control—1971 ation with other agencies and private in- agencies, organizations, and individuals re- dustry. questing assistance in those States where a The Bureau will maintain a continuing master cooperative agreement has been exe- training and education program to reach all cuted. Ideally, a master agreement with a employees to make certain that they are.cur- State should involve the State fish and game rent, not only current with the most recent "department, the State health department, concepts and technological developments in the State department of agriculture, and the animal damage control work, but also with State extension service. Maximum flexibility :other aspects of resources ecology so that in use of personnel, appropriate control they can discharge their full responsibilities. methods and .maximum responsibility for � An annual work plan for animal control program conduct will be sought when agree- i will be developed for each cooperating State. ments are negotiated. The Bureau will con-' The work plans will be related to land use, sult with and inform cooperators on a con- planning, and zoning. The work plans will tinuing basis. be correlated with the plans of the Forest Determining the need for animal damage Service and the Bureau of Land Manage- control is not the sole responsibility of the ment so that they will be consistent with their Bureau. Increased reliance will be placed on multiple-use concept. The plans will also be the land and resource managing agencies; correlated with the management objectives on public health organizations; on industry of other State and Federal agencies. They and agriculture; on State fish and game de- will also be related to the management objec- partments; other cooperating agencies and tives of the landowner, administrator, or les- organizations; and on their responsible see, where meeting these objectives is con- officials and elected representatives, to con- j sistent with Bureau policy. The plans will set tribute to the determination of when and I forth specific planned objectives. These where there is a demonstrated need for con- plans on plans will be carefully and promptly re- trol within their areas of jurisdiction or con- viewed for adequacy within the Bureau. cern. The final determination, however, as Annual reports and other periodic ap- to its participation in a requested control j praisals of program progress will relate to project will rest with the Bureau. Decisions I and report on the planned objectives set relating to animal damage control may be forth in the State plans. appealed through appropriate agency chan- j The Bureau will maintain firm supervi- nets. i sion over the conduct of its animal damage The Bureau will encourage an in- control program at all levels of supervisory terchange of information between private authority and will enforce strict adherence to and commercial pest control operators and the policy, regulations, and rules set forth. this Bureau to assist the operators in their Field inspections will be conducted to assure efforts to maintain and improve professional compliance. competency. The Bureau will avoid direct competition with commercial operators in situations where they can provide coin Cooperation parable and competent services, and where wildlife values are likely to be adequately Operational animal damage control will be protected by these operators. conducted in accordance with cooperative Bureau animal damage control personnel agreements between the Bureau and other will not solicit the initiation or expansion of r I /1 f�firnduit 123 / control programs. 'These personnel will, State health departments, or other govern- however, report progrvn progress to cool- mental agencies. The iltu.esus does not ap- crators and will be available on request to prove of the bounty system and will riot en- discuss, interpret, and demonstrate practices gage in or encourage its use. and techniques. When toxicants and control devices are required, they will be used in such a mann-er as to minimize hazards to non-target species. Operations Only Federally registered chemicals will he utilized in control programs,and only by the Animal damage control may be conducted methods of application approved by the Fed- by the Bureau on a direct, operational basis cral Committee on Pest Control. Warning or by using educational or extension tech- signs will be used where control techniques niques. The operational services of the Bu- might present a hazard. reau will be available only where needed and Animal damage control programs will not only upon the request and with full approval be conducted within or adjacent to the of the landowner, or operator, duly con- ranges of endangered wildlife species with- sticuted officials, or responsible land or re- out the specific written approval of the Di- source managing agencies. Direct oper- rector of the Bureau. All applicable pre- ational control may be conducted under cautions, such as pre-control surveys will be those circumstances where techniques re- exercised to minimize hazards to endan- quire professional skill. gered species. Alternate methods of control A written justification must be prepared will be employed if the most effective control whenever it is necessary to remove bear or method for the target species presents a haz- lion damaging or about to do damage to and to the endangered species. If this still livestock or natural resources. In emer- does not offer adequate protection to endan-. gencies, such justification may be submitted gered species, control work will not be un- immediately following removal. These-spe- dertaken. cies are generally game animals, under the The Bureau will use "mobile forces" protection of State game laws. Moreover, teams, comprised of highly skilled animal they are particularly prized parts of the Na- damage control personnel to utilize fully its tion's wildlife heritage. Consequently, there . supervisory and manpower capabilities to must be a documented reason, based on the maximum benefit of the program. These damage or actual threat, for taking them. teams, consisting of men regularly assigned This will be accomplished in particularly elsewhere, will be available to work in- close cooperation with the State fish and tensively in any area of the Nation in re- game departments. sponse to emergency or critical situations. The educational or extension approach Technical assistance in bird control will be will be encouraged whenever possible. The provided by the Bureau where there is dem- Bureau will provide information and recom- onstrated need and when effective methods mendations on safe, selective, and efficient are available. The Bureau will provide bird animal damage control techniques to re- control information, technical advice,and as- questing individuals'or organizations, sistance on request to the extent of its capa- Animal damage control may also be con- bilities. Commercial• pest control organ- ducted in cooperation with commercial pest izations will be encouraged to conduct control firms, the Federal Extension Service, needed bird control operations where such 124 Predator Control—1971 i control is heeded and justified in t}ie judo- made available peri(Aically, and close coor- Mrnt of the Bureau. dination will be maintained with manage- ment anage ment and control personnel, and with pri- Research vatc industry. s. The Bureau will maintain a strong and continuing research effort to find new, im- proved, selective and humane control meth- Details for implementation of this policy ,ods. It will conduct studies in animal ecology will be contained in a revised field manual. and life' history biology, seeking alternate and in subsequent policy directives as appto- . methods of control.Research findings will be priate. 3. t 1� �• A REVIEW OF TRF. USE OF TOXIC MATERIALS FOR ANIMAL CONTROL IN CALIFOPJ IA ' The California Department of Fish and Game became concerned over the use of poison grain baits to control field rodents many years ago. We became increasingly concerned over ground squirrel control programs with the intro- duction of aerial application techniques. We have evaluated side effects of both hand baiting and aerial baiting of ground squirrels. When the* aerial application techniques were being developed we worked with the University of California and the agricultural commissioner in San Luis Obispo County in evaluating this use practice. We evaluated the aerial application of 1030 treated oat groats on several ranches, and since then have monitored several operational ground squirrel control programs. We have not found a situation where there were significant losses of nontarget species caused by either type of application. Our evaluations to date have been primarily involved with searching treated areas for carcasses and assessing effects on populations of selected bird species. We have not assessed the effects of 1080 programs on the more secretive species, however, we hope to do so in the future throu&'n, the use of radio teleretiy. The Department does not advocate the use of any poison. We do, however, recognize the necessity for ground squirrel control in certain areas. In these cases we have urged that the material used be the one that is least hazardous to nontarget species. The experience tine have to date ind.icatcs that of all the satisfactory rodent poisons available today, 1080 (1 and 2 ounce formulations) is the least hazardous to birds and game animals. This material is, however, highly toxic to all members of the dog and cat --family including coyotes and bobcats. i Prep2..�s by iic:rb Eagen C�_li�c riu I)`rart;r..crt of Fist: and Gam* P^ztS.cwdes _ � , _ sem.... �., I,nves'%-Zati.ons, Feueral Aid in Wilcili=e Restoration Project rWl-R, Ai.iotis , 1971. -2- The Pesticide Investigations Project made assessments of the hazard of San Luis Obispo County's experimental rodent control program during 1966 and 1967. It was our general conclusion that the program of aerial appli- cations of bait was not more hazardous than conventional hand baiting techniques. Our conclusion was based primarily on observations of birds made before and after treatments. Emphasis was placed on quail population counts. This species was selected because they have a limited home range and have ample opportunity to pick up grain baits. Quail were also collected from the treated areas to determine whether they had ingested the baits. Carcass searches were made in treated areas. No dead birds were found that were attributed to the control program. Food habit analyses showed that none of the quail collected had toxic baits in their crops. Tissue analyses of a sample of the quail collected was negative for the presence of 1030. The linitations of our understanding of the hazards of squirrel control programs involving the use of 1080, and other rodenticides as well, must be recognized. Ile have not attempted to make a detailed study that would provide an assessment of harm to the many species that are exposed to these toxicants. It is quite difficult to make field evaluations of effects on a vide variety of species particularly those that are secretive in habit and low in abundance. In assessing the hazard of 1080 programs to wildlife, consideration should also be given to the hazards of those materials that could be used in place of 1080. Both strychnine baits and zinc phosphide baits contain eight to Oen times more toxicant than do 1080 baits. The baits with greater amounts of rodeaticides are more toxic to most species of birds. From toxicity data we have.develoned, and from observations of field applications it has become apparent that of the three materials now used in ground squirrel control programs (strychnine, zinc phosphide, and 1080) _3_ that 1060 presents far less hazard to nontarCet species th.•n 4, a otrcr talo. Birds are fairly resistant to 1080 and highly susceptible to zinc �:rosir..Ze. Some birds are much more susceptible to strychnine than other4, tie are particularly concerned about the use of ctrychnine in the condor rr.:ge and have opposed its use in these areas. Condors are quite susceptible to strychnine and appear to be relatively unaffected by 1080. There h.:ve been cases of condors being poisoned by strychnine. Condors have been observed eating ground squirrels poisoned by 1080 but there hasn't been a recorded case of a condor being poisoned by 1080. -- Wa are worning with other agencies to assess the effects of rodent control programs on the kit fox. Although some colonies of these animals are currently found in areas that have a history of rodent control activities, we want to be sure that adequate consideration is being given to the pro- tection of this fox species. A1;,errate means of ground squirrel control have been either successful but prohibit•=vely expensive, or unsatisfactory. Gassing with carbon bisul:ide, or me by. b_;,:=:;ce is quite effective, but far too expensive for any extensive field use. Biological control (depending on natural predators) has gereraiLty ended kith higher squir_el populations than before. Trapping has not beer. satisfactory and is prohibitively expensive. One disease that seems to decimate ground squirrel colonies is bubonic plague. However, this disease is far too dangerous for any attempt to use it as a control. One of the basic reasons for a ound squirrel control in some areas in California is to eliminate reser vci_s.of bubonic plague. Bubonic plag.:a is ende=ic in ground squirrel populations -. s=.a areas. Resea--ch to develop safer and Wore effective poisons for rodent control is being carried on by the U. S. Fish and ti ildl.ife Service. The -4- University of California is doing some research in attempting to develop a pelleted bait that would attract ground squirrels. However, their research is hampered by lack of funds. Aspects of pelf eted baits that makes them appear to be ideal is that they can be made to appear unattractive to birds. 2:ost i.mortant they can be made so they disintegrate within 24 to 48 hours after being put out. This would eliminate the problem of leaving toxic baits available for long periods of time. Hazards to human populations appear to be far less with 1080 than with either zinc phosphide or strychiiine. As you probably know, 1080 can only be used under the direct supervision of competent trained officials of county, state or federal agencies and licensed pest control operators. Should the use of 1080 be prohibited, the alternate poisons, strychnine and zinc phosphide, would be employed. Under present regulations, anyone, whether trained or not, can use these materials. Ground squirrel control programs now handled by the county agricultural co=.ssioners would probably revert back to the ranchers and farmers, most of whom are untrained in ground squirrel control or the handling of hazardous materials. The hazard to human health and nontarget wildlife would be far greater under such cir- cumstances. With the exception of Compound 1080, there is little control over the sale or use of poisons used as rodenticides in California. Most poisons (except 1020) used to control mem-Qlian predators or rodents in California may be 2? rchased merely by signing a poison register at the retailers. County agricultural commissioners ir. most counties sell rodent baits treated with strychnine, zinc phosphide or an anticoagulant, to anyone with a rodent co -:.rol problem. -5- Most of the toxic rodent baits used in California are for rodent control programs of the U. S. Fish and liildlife Service, U. S. Forest "Service and the county cgricultural departments. These people are well trained and careful in their use of toxic materials. Some toxic material is used for ma=al.ian predator control by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a few county agricultural departments. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service no longer uses 1080 in California for predator control. The California Department of Fish and Game has not engaged in predator control for many years. However, we favor the type of control that selects the predator causing damage.--this can usually be done by the use of traps. STATE OF CALIFORNIA RONALD REAGAN, Governor CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 1220 N Street Sacramento 95314 august 31, 1971 TO: COUNTY AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONERS FROM: Division of Plant Industry SUBJECT: Vertebrate Pest Contol in California This report is being sent to you for a reference on Pest animal Damage Control. The scope of the report includes predator-prey relationship, toxic baits and wildlife, the government's role in vertebrate pest control, and the economic relationship of some vertebrate pests. It is the object of this report to furnish information to the County Agricultural Commissioners and their staffs which may be used to pre- pare rebuttals and explain the necessity of pest animal damage control in their respective counties. Richard H. Dana State Weed and Vertebrate Biologist Special Services VERTEBRATE PEST COMMOL IN CALIFORNIA by Richard H. Dena This paper is issued to assist county agricultural commissioners with information for the public on the need and reasons for vertebrate pest control. It is not meant to be defensive or to promote vertebrate pest control. The objective is to give a clear total picture of how animal control fits into the ecology. It is easy for those to criticize who do not bear the burden of responsi- bility for solving vertebrate pest problems, which are often baffling in their complexity. Some criticism must be expected and some may be deserved, but criticism should be fair and made only with broad knowledge tempered with appreciation of the difficulties that are involved. Cbarges of any kind should be based upon scientific evidence. In may judgement one of the greatest handicaps to the conservation of wildlife in America today is the lack of harmony and concerted effort that results when individuals or groups who may be sincere but misinformed and misguided becloud issues and adopt captious and dictatorial attitude toward those charged With carrying on wildlife administrative work. Predator-Prey Relationships Popular belief tends to exaggerate the importance of predation since it is spectacular in comparison to disease, starvation, climate, or other factors that continuously influence all life. There is also a widespread tendency not to fully recognize the great influence that civilization has upon nature. Ideas related to primitive nature and wilderness are often too literally applied to developed areas. Application of natural laws to the predation problem is complicated by several firmly established prejudices and unsound ideas. For example, there is 1 State Weed and Vertebrate Biologist, Division of Plant Industry, California Department of Agriculture, September, 1971. - 3 - Stated simply, Errington concluded that predators had little if any real effect upon rodent and rabbit populations. He expressed this, and more general conclusions, as follows: "-------- there are just too many instances of lagomorph populations apparently conforming to patterns, even despite pronounced differences in numbers of such able hunters as horned owls and foxes." -------- "a great deal of predation is without truly depressive effect". "On the Whole ------ something of a scaling down of emphasis should well be in order, notably appraising the role of direct predation in the population mechanics of higher vertebrates." Errington's views are strengthened by published results of a number of investigations. In Illinois for example, a ten year study (Mohr 1947) disclosed that the regular 3 to 4 year cycle of meadow mice and a newly discovered domestic rat cycle both proceeded without any apparent relation to fox populations. Foxes were at an unusually high level when both rats and meadow mice reached a cyclic peak in population in 1946. Henry Fitch carried on a series of studies in range ecology, including relationship of coyotes to wild and domestic species, he found that coyote preda- tion is not a determining factor in population trends of rodents and rabbits. In a detailed study of kangaroo rats, Fitch (1948x) found that great changes in numbers continued over periods of years without apparent relation to fairly stable predator populations. Similarly, in a study of cottontail rabbits (Fitch 1947) there was no direct evidence that predation held cottontails at any given level during a 12 year study, and "the reduction of coyotes (in 1939) to a fraction of their former numbers did not result in any noticeable increase in rabbits." Concerning California ground squirrels (Fitch, et al, 1946) it was found that "the cumulative effect of several kinds of predators-----might have an important stabilizing influence." Among the several predators named, coyotes VERTEBRATE PEST COMMOL 'IN/ CALiF=(IA by J Richard H. Dana This paper is issued to assist county agricultural commissioners with information for the public on the need and reasons for vertebrate pest control. It is not meant to be defensive or to promote vertebrate pest control. The objective is to give a clear total picture of how animal control fits into the ecology. It is easy for those to criticize who do not bear the burden of responsi- bility for solving vertebrate pest problems, which are often baffling in their complexity. Some criticism must be expected and some may be deserved, but criticism should be fair and made only with broad knowledge tempered with appreciation of the difficulties that are involved. Charges of any kind should be based upon scientific evidence. In my judgement one of the greatest handicaps to the conservation of wildlife in America today is the lack of harmony and concerted effort that results when individuals or groups Who may be sincere but misinformed and misguided becloud issues and adopt captious and dictatorial attitude toward those charged with carrying on wildlife administrative work. Predator-Prey Relationships Popular belief tends to exaggerate the importance of predation since it is spectacular in comparison to disease, starvation, climate, or other factors that continuously influence all life. There is also a widespread tendency not to fully recognize the great influence that civilization has upon nature. Ideas related to primitive nature and wilderness are often too literally applied to developed areas. Application of natural lags to the predation problem is complicated by several firmly established prejudices and unsound ideas. For example, there is 1 State Weed and Vertebrate Biologist, Division of Plant Industry, California Department of Agriculture, September, 1971. - 2 - a widely accepted belief that coyotes prevent over-abundance of rodents. Over half a century ago a Government Bulletin (Iantz, 1905) listed rodents eaten by coyotes and jumped to the conclusion that coyotes had "enormous importance in maintaining the balance of nature". This conclusion was quoted and requoted until it became generally accepted through sheer force of repetition. It seemed so plausible that it was taken for granted. No serious scientific study of the long-time effect of predation on a given population of rodents was made. When a cycle of rodent abundance happened to coincide with a scarcity of predators, caused by intensive control, people accepted it as proof of the conclusion and overlooked times when reverse conditions occurred. Thus was developed a general popular belief that the number of rodents were determined and limited by the number of predators. In scientific circles the reverse was known to be the case. Elton (1939) and others proved that the supply of rodents and other food was a major factor in limiting sub-arctic predator populations. Some scientists, however, continued to go along with the popular notion that predation had a dominant suppressive effect upon rodent populations. More recent research has thrown increasing doubt on the validity of such conclusions. This changing view was typified by Elton (1942) when he stated, "It would not be right to decide now that enemies and parasites exert no control over -the number of voles. But it certainly seems less likely than it did ten years ago that they are a dominant influence." Scientific evidence strengthening this new viewpoint did not become generally apparent until Errington published his monumental analysis of predation and vertebrate populations (1946). Unfortunately, his study was written at such a scholarly level that it developed somewhat of a barrier to full understanding by many readers. Hence, his conclusions do not have the wide circulation or acceptance they deserve. - 3 - Stated simply, Errington concluded that predators had little if any real effect upon rodent and rabbit populations. He expressed this, and more general conclusions, as follows: ------ there are just too many instances of lagomorph populations apparently conforming to patterns, even despite pronounced differences in numbers of such able hunters as horned owls and foxes." -------- a great deal of predation is without truly depressive effect". "On the whole ------ something of a scaling down of emphasis should well be in order, notably appraising the role of direct predation in the population mechanics of higher vertebrates." Errington's views are strengthened by published results of a number of investigations. In Illinois for example, a ten year study (Mohr 1947) disclosed that the regular 3 to 4 year cycle of meadow mice and a newly discovered domestic rat cycle both proceeded without any apparent relation to fox populations. Foxes were at an unusually high level when both rats and meadow mice reached a cyclic peak in population in 1946. Henry Fitch carried on a series of studies in range ecology, including relationship of coyotes to wild and domestic species, he found that coyote preda- tion is not a determining factor in population trends of rodents and rabbits. In a detailed study of kangaroo rats, Fitch (1948a) found that great changes in numbers continued over periods of years without apparent relation to fairly stable predator populations. Similarly, in a study of cottontail rabbits (Fitch 1947) there was no direct evidence that predation held cottontails at any given level during a 12 year study, and "the reduction of coyotes (in 1939) to a fraction of their former numbers did not result in any noticeable increase in rabbits." Concerning California ground squirrels (Fitch, et a1, 1946) it was found that "the cumulative effect of several kinds of predators------might have an important stabilizing influence." Among the several predators named, coyotes - 4 - were relatively unimportant accounting for approximately 1/17 of the annual increase of squirrels (Fitch 1948b). A six year study (1954-1959) of the effects from coyotes on pocket gopher populations was made by W. B. Robinson and V. T. Harris and reported in the October 1960 issue of the American Cattle Producer. The study revealed that the coyotes were not a factor in suppressing gopher populations as presumed by many people. Howard's work (1939) on pocket gophers concluded that predation has little, if any, effect on the population. In 1941 Charles C. Sperry reported on his examination of 8,339 coyote stomachs collected in 17 western states in all months of the year over a five- year period. He found that 33% of the items eaten were rabbits, 18% were rodents, and the two together made up 51% of the coyotes' food. In addition to these investigations many observations have been made which support the view that predation has little or no appreciable influence on most rodent and rabbit populations. A few representative cases from the files of the Fish and Wildlife Service are given here. In 1891 and 1892 E. W. Nelson noted that "Jackrabbits and ground squirrels swarmed over the whole southern part of the San Joaquin Valley, and coyotes were more abundant there than he had ever seen anywhere else, apparently without making the slightest impression on the number of rodents. Previous to that time there had been no predator or rodent control except local rabbit drives and coyote bounties. Another report (Green 1940) stated, "It was necessary to start ground squirrel control work on the Covelo Indian Reservation and on the California National Forest in 1915; coyote control work did not start until 1920. The few squirrels left after the rodent control work in 1918 in these areas were not held in check by coyotes during 1918, 1919 and 1920. It was necessary to carry on rodent control work again in 1920 and 1921." - 5 - Nowadays, it is much more generally appreciated that animal populations comprise dynamic systems and that killing may remove an expendable surplus without affecting total population size. Artificial predation may. even alter the age structure of an animal population without reducing the total number of individuals which optimally can be supported by the environmental resources. It is often claimed that many of our vertebrate pests would not have reached pest status had man not systematically killed off their natural predators. The assumption is made that these predators once controlled the numbers of their prey. Yet, evidence shows that predators take only a doomed surplus of their prey, turning to other food when catching becomes difficult. Experience in supressing both rodents, lagomorphs and predators has clearly shown that each species produces a surplus every year, and that cropping of that surplus stimulates reproduction. Many control efforts have been little more than predator cropping. If the number of animals removed does not exceed the reproduction, it is quite possible that only the surplus was removed and they would have been lost from natural casues if there had been no control at all. Most predator and rodent species raise enough young each year so that it is necessary to remove more than 506 of the population before the basic breeding population has been reduced. When population densities increase the fecundity rate goes down; therefore, predation may aid the rodents and lagomorphs in maintaining a vigorus healthy population. Toxic Baits and Wildlife Studies show that animal populations respond to increases in the food supply. A low population may increase rapidly when a liberal food supply is available. The introduction of crops into California replaced the natural food - 6 - supply and resulted in a great increase of rodent and lagomorph pests. This condition made it necessary to develop effective control methods to reduce their numbers. Many poison formulas and other methods Were tried in an effort to protect crops. There are several factors which lead to satisfactory rodent control without presenting a hazard to game birds; the coloring of bait serves as a repellent to birds; the type of grain baits used are not ordinarily preferred as food by birds and would rarely be taken except under extraordinary circumstances, such as where they have become accustomed to grain around farmsteads or other feeding areas. Proper timing as to the peak of rodent activity and period of good bait acceptance helps to remove the potential danger of poison baits being exposed over a long period of time, as under such circumstances the rodents consume nearly all of the exposed bait within a few hours. Studies have been undertaken to determine the effect of rodent baits on valley quail. 2 A study of the valley quail and the effects of rodent bait on the bird population revealed that strychnine treated grain as used by the Agricultural Commissioners (i.e.$ five ounces trychnine per 100 lbs. of grain) did not affect the birds. Studies and observations made where 1080 oat groats were used for ground squirrel control by aerial broadcasting in areas of large quail populations demonstrated the baits were completely ignored by the quail. ? Pierce, C. C. and Clegg, M. T. - "Strychnine Sulphate, Its effect on California Valley Quail" - Public Health Reports, Vol. 30, No. 50, December 10, 1915, pages 3601 - 3604. Same found also in reprint No. 314 from said reports issued in 1916. - 7 - • Green (1947) reports "Gallinaceous and other seed eating birds were fed the standard rodent control bait consisting of one ounce of 1080 to 100 lbs. of grain. Gamble quail, mourning doves, ducks, and Brewer's blackbirds had to be forced-fed since a taste or other warning factor caused them to refuse lethal doses in many cases under voluntary feeding". The Denver Wildlife Research laboratory fed meat-eating birds with meat containing dosages of 1080 that have been used for predator control. One experiment groups of vultures consisting of 104 black and turkey vultures consumed a 27 lb. goat carcass carrying five time the normal concentration of 1080 without any fatalities. Twenty-nine of the same black vultures then ate a 29 lb. goat carcass similarly poisoned with only one fatality. The use of 1080 treated meat baits for predatory animal control is not currently being used in California. Karl B. Koford (1953) University of California, stated, "So far, neither condor nor turkey vulture have been found to be killed by eating squirrels poisoned with 1080 - turkey vultures would have to eat as much as 40 times its own weight in poisoned squirrels before it would probably be killed". Considerable interest has been fomented by certain segments of the public over eagles. Eagles are seldom able to gorge themselves with a lethal dose of 1080 meal of standard strenght. In extensive food habit studies by the Fish and Wildlife Service it was found that the average eagle gullet contains 10.7 ounces of food when full. The heaviest gullet of a series of 23 listed as "full", "very full", crammed" and "gorged" contained 22-7/8 ounces, which may be considered as the maximum amount that an eagle would voluntarily eat in one Green, Dor D. Effects of New Rodenticides upon Beneficial Animal Life. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Predatory and Rodent Control. Rodent Control Memo. #138. A/Koford, Karl B. , Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California. The California Condor Research Report #4, National Audubon Society. - 8 - meal. With this in mind, four experimental eagles were forced-fed standard 1080 meat to the amount of 11, 13, 16 and 22 ounces respectively. The one receiving 16 ounces was the only fatality; the others recovered with no apparent after effects. Subsequent experiments show that repeated ingestion of sub-lethal doses causes the development of a considerable tolerance to the poison. These experi- ments supplemented by many field observations show that there is little danger to raptorial birds as the result of 1080 poisoning operations. In similar tests, hawks proved even more resistant than eagles. In one test, four hawks; American roughleg, ferruginous roughleg, prairie falcon and Marsh hawk, were accustomed to a diet of horse meat for over two weeks; fasted 118 hours; and then offered a meal of standard 1080 meat. Each ate less than one ounce, refused the balance and survived with no symptoms. The refusal of many species to eat full meals of 1080 is an important safety factor. The exact nature of the "warning factor" in 1080 is not known. Possibly it is taste, or it may be some physiological reaction that is quickly felt due to the rapid solubility of 1080. In any event, it proves to be a valuable aid against unwanted poisoning of beneficial species. J Marsh reports in "A Guide For Aerial Baiting of Ground Squirrels" (1967), that "Members of the California Fish and Game Department have monitored aerial baiting programs and have yet to find evidence that valley quail or other game birds are poisoned by this method of"bait application". Eldridge Hunt, Wildlife Management Supervisor, (1968) reports, "The Pesticide Investigations Project made assessments of the hazard of San Luis Obispo County's experimental rodent control program during 1966 and 1967. It Hersh, Rex, Department of Animal Physiology, University of California, Davis; Proceedings of Third Vertebrate Pest Control Conference, 1967. • - 9 - was our general conclusion that the program of aerial applications of bait was not more hazardous than conventional hand baiting techniques. Our conclusion was based primarily on observation of birds made before and after treatments. Emphasis was placed on quail population counts. This species was selected because they have a limited home range and have ample opportunity to pick up grain baits. Quail was also collected from the treated area to determine whether they had ingested the baits. Carcass searches were made in treated areas. No dead birds were found that were attributed to the control program. Food habit analyses showed that none of the quail collected had oat groats in their crops. Tissue analyses of a sample of the quail collected was negative for the presence of 1080." An investigation was undertaken during 1968 by California Fish and Game, California Department of Agriculture, and Monterey County Department of Agriculture personnel to determine the effects 1080 baiting for microtus control on bird life of the area. The area, adjacent to the mouth of the Salinas River, was censused and 19 different species of birds were recorded including waterfowl, upland game birds, and raptors. Post census indicated no dead or sick birds. The various species of birds previously seen were all present. - 10 - In spite of 1080's poor reputation with the public, much of this based on misinformation or deliberate distortions of its characteristics, it was and is a chemical which could be used selectively for control of coyotes and certain field rodents. Accusations are often made that 1080 is carried in the food chain. Two facts indicate that sodium monofluoroacetate is not carried through the fcod chain. 1. Animals can metabolize sodium monofluoroacetate via nontoxic routes and can excrete monofluoroacetate and its toxic metabolite fluorocitrate; and 2. Although secondary poisoning has been documented, tertiary poisoning has not been documented. Research has revealed that soil bacteria of the genus Pseudomonas, adaptively decompose sodium monofluoroacetate; fluoride ions and glycolate (HOCH 2 COOH) are formed. In tests conducted, the compound exhibited no measurable toxicity after two weeks when applied to soils at 10 parts per million, and exhibited no measurable toxicity after 11 weeks when applied to soils at 50 parts per million. Plants also decompose sodium mono- fluoroacetate. Any sodium monofluoroacetate which isleachedfrom baits is not likely to be carried far by the leaching water, but to be held in the upper soil layers. Researchers reported, "Analyzeu water from streams in a sodium monofluoroacetate treated area for 5 months following the appli- cation of sodium monofluoroacetate rodent bait and did not detect a trace of the chemical." Allegations that rodent control and pesticides use were suspected for • • the decline of the San Joaquin kit fox have been made. There is no evidence to support this. The major influence upon the San Joaquin kit fox's population decline has been the conversion of native habitat to agricultural and industrial development. Within the past 10 years there has been a 34% reduction in the amount of native habitat and it is assumed that this has resulted in a somewhat comparable reduction in the kit fox population. Prior to its status as a protected forbearer, the kit fox was exposed to indiscriminate killing. Kit foxes are particularly vulnerable to night hunting with varmit-calling techniques. Other factors that influence the decline of the kit fox populations are disease. Rabies epidemics have been reported among the foxes, as well as fox distemper. The incidence of road kills by automobiles is another contributing factor. Trapping of these animals for fur may have had a much greater influence on fox numbers than is realized. 12 - THE GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN VERTEBRATE PEST CONTROL The early history of California recorded by Bancroft and others shows that ground squirrels were an important pest of attempts to produce agricultural products of the soil. They were classed with grasshoppers or locusts as being the important pests of farms and gardens in the days of the mission fathers. The digger ground squirrel constitutes the one rodent demanding the greatest attention to bring about effective control. We have, in the case of the digger ground squirrel, an excellent example of adaptation to changing conditions brought about by civilization and especially by agriculture. These animals subsisted upon a native food supply available to them for countless generations. The development of agriculture cleared the ground and put in crops which were a vast improvement over their native forage. Hence, the ground squirrel instead of being reduced and eliminated by the changes brought by agriculture, found in the new crops a better food supply. Faced with heavy losses, farmers sought relief by trying with varying degrees of success several economic poisons. Early poison methods consisted of various non-selective procedures and highly hazardous toxicants. The so-called "Dead Shot" formula was used more than any other material during the 80's and 90's and was a combination of a high concentration of strychnine and cyanide on wheat. Wheat is regarded as disastrous to wildlife, particularly small birds, but at that time no regards were made for this damage. A later development was phosphorus which was more vicious than strychnine and cyanide combinations and immensely fatal to domestic livestock and poultry. In spite of all attempts, lack of "know how" and lack of cooperative effort among the landowners made it a hopeless task. The aid of various i • - 13 county and state government agencies Was sought, which generally culminated by the county board of supervisors placing a squirrel bounty of a few cents for each squirrel destroyed. But here again, lack of uniformity prevailed and where one county established a bounty another would refuse to take similar action. There was often a variance in the amount paid, therefore the taxpayers of one county might be paying bounties for squirrels killed in another portion of the state. Some hope was placed in the campaign of the U. S. Public Health Service and the U. S. Biological Survey at the time the bubonic plague was discovered in ground squirrels. A law had been enacted in California in 1909 giving authority to local health agencies to enforce ground squirrel control. During 1917 state law prescribed rodent control as a special function of the established agricultural regulatory agencies. The county boards of super- visors could delegate rodent control work to the county horticultural commissioners operating under the guidance of the State Horticulture Commissioner. These two agencies later become the County and State Departments of Agriculture. After this great step forward experimental work was carried on and good sound control methods were developed. As new and hazardous forms of lethal materials became available, it was necessary to establish safeguards by law to prevent their getting in to hands of unauthorized persons, thereby avoiding injury or misuse. Some of these materials were much more efficient than the toxicants previously used but could and still can only be used under the direct supervision of official personnel. Supervision of vertebrate pest control by highly trained official personnel has virtually eliminated shotgun methods of control practiced in earlier days. These methods were often extremely lethal and non-selective to all forms of wildlife. - 14 County agricultural coemnissioners and California::Department: of Agriculture personnel are constantly looking for improved methods of application;,and:to:the introduction of new:inaterials -with greater:specificity... . Progress -is:being;rade through cooperation with other agencies in making field.'rodent rodent corntrol_ compatible with wildlife conservation practices.. - 15 - BCONOWC RBIATIOMBHIF California has slightly more than 100 million acres of land, 40 million of which is considered farm land of one type or another. On the farm lands of this state, 289 co ercial crops are produced. Each of these crops is subjected to damage by some species of vertebrate pests. The following animals are of major concern in causing crop depredations: ground squirrels, gophers, meadow mice, jackrabbits, rats, kangaroo rats, muskrats, deer mice, badgers, fox squirrels, rats, woodrats, and various others. From 5 to 6.5 million acres are treated for field rodent control by the county agricultural comissioners annually. Up to 385 tons of grain baits and 120 tons of fumigants are involved, at a cost of over one million dollars per year. The total economic damage frog all field rodent pests in California has been calculated at 32 million dollars during 1968 by the California Department of Agriculture. Hamilton (1939) estimated that field rodents caused an annual loss to agriculture and forestry in the United States of between two hundred million dollars and three hundred million dollars. Depredating bird damage to agriculture amounts to nearly eight million dollars annually. Of this amount California's growing starling population caused at least two million dollars damage. Ground Squirrels The average annual loss from California ground squirrels alone is calculated at eight million dollars. In 1918, before an intensive ground squirrel control operation was undertaken, the estimated losses approved by the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, were 30 million dollars. These estimated crop losses do not consider the health menance due to bubonic plague 26 infection, endemic in ground squirrels and other field rodents in .certain counties of California. The need for control of ground squirrels in California has been set forth by Dr. Grinnell and Mr. Dixon in the article titled "California Ground Squirrels" and published in the Monthly Bulletin State Commission of Horticulture, Volume 7, pages 597-708, November - December, 1918. Passages relating to the. California ground squirrel are quoted (beginning page 604) as follows• "A few years ago it came into prominence as a proven disseminator of the dreaded bubonic plague, and it has become notorious for its exceeding destruc- tiveness to cultivated craps." "Ground Squirrels breed upon cultivated or waste land from which they invade the cultivated fields within reach as well as such other lands as are not already populated." On Page 704 "on open range and pasture lands these squirrels feed largely on alfilaria and bur clover, two of the most valuable forage plants in the state. The squirrels are then serious competitors for subsistence against the flocks and herds upon which man depends for his owns support. On cultivated ground these squirrels feed upon or destroy in other ways grain and fruit crops to a very large extent where present even in numbers not above those reached on wild land. The tendency seems to be to increase to extraordinary numbers on cultivated lands unless effectively checked by man." On Page 705 "Ground squirrels reproduce rapidly. In California the average number of young in a litter is 7.2 with 4 and 12 as extremes. There is but one litter reared each year, and the young begin to appear above ground about the first of 17 - May. The sexes are equally divided in a given population and it is believed that each female breeds the first season of her life; that is when she is slightly less than a year old, and that she has an "expectation" of rearing four more litters in case she lives to the of old age. Thus a population of 10 per acre in March may be expected to increase to 50 per acre by the last of May", and finally, 0n Page 707 "It is hoped the facts and inferences set forth will convince the reader that the problem is not a simple one (referring to ground squirrels) and cannot be solved by casual half-hearted measures". The ground squirrel will eat almost anything. They feed upon practically all of the fruits, including walnuts, almonds, apricots, peaches, prunes, apples, oranges and certain vegetable crops and upon all of the grains. They are particularly fond of green almonds and can be very destructive to applies. Squirrels often do great damage to young orchard trees by gnawing the bark. The losses to the grain and grazing interests from squirrel depredations are equally great. In pasture land each squirrel will destroy approximately seven square feet of pasture in just the construction of his burrow." A study conducted at the San Joaquin Experimental Range by W. E. Howard, K. A. Wagnon and J. R. Bentley titled "Competition Between Ground Squirrels and Cattle for Range Forage", demonstrated that heifers on squirrels - free pasture averaged a daily gain of 1.03 (1951) and 0.75 (1952) pounds more than did the heifers on the pasture containing squirrels. 1 Grinnel and Dixon (1918) calculated that 200 ground squirrels"consume" 1The Monthly Bulletin, Ca=ornia State Commissioners of Horticulture, Vol. Via, November - December, 1918. Nos. 11 & 12. the same amount of range forage as a 1,000 pound steer. Fitch and Bentley (1949) studying the effects of range rodents on forage cover at the San Joaquin Experimental Range, found that six ground squirrels confined to a half acre enclosure decreased potential forage yield by 529 pounds - more than 10 times the amount the squirrel may have eaten. The Beechey ground squirrel has long been known to eat the eggs of ground nesting birds. Horn reports observing a ground squirrel robbing a mourning dove's nest in a low blue oak tree in Santa Clara County. From "The Condor" a magazine of Western Ornithology, February 3, 1938, Vol. XL. "California Ground Squirrels Rob Nest of Valley Quail: A California ground squirrel, Citellus beecheyi, Was observed robbing the nest of Valley Quail, Lophortyx califoarnica vallicola, on the San Joaquin Experiment Range in the Sierra Nevada Foothills about 20 miles east of Madera, California." Reported by John T. Emlen Jr., Division of Zoology, University of California at Davis and Ben Glading, San Joaquin Experiment Range (U. S. Forest Service). JIn a study on the nesting of California Valley Quail by Ben Glading in 1937 at the San Joaquin Experiment Range it was concluded that 30 percent of the unsuccessful nests resulted from ground squirrel depredations. The study was made on a total of 96 nests. Meadow mice cut green alfalfa and burrow around the roots and destroy the plants to such an extent that fields often have to be replanted. They injure standing grain, damage hay in stacks, gnaw barks and roots of trees, eat root crops or bulbs. During 1957-1958 mouse outbreak crop loss in the Klamath Basin 2 Records of Poison experiments in determining effects of ground squirrel poisons on Valley Quail as conducted by the Associated Sportsman's Clubs of California in cooperation with the U. S. Biological Survey and California Fish and Game Commission. Submitted Sept. 1925, by F. E. Garlough and Joseph Keyes and reproduced in Bull. 1025 (Mimeo. circular - U. S. Biological Survey) July 30, 1938. 19' was estimated at five million dollars. During 1964 a ten acre cherry orchard near Lodi with seven year old trees was infested With meadow mice. Before the owner became aware of the mouse infestation the mice had severely girdled the roots and crown, resulting in a loss of fifty percent of his trees. During 1964, on the coast and in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, fields of sugar beets suffered up to thirty percent damage resulting from mice. Also, during this period extensive damage by microtus occurred to artichokes in the Castroville section of Monterey County. Approximately 3,000 acres representing one-hall of the artichoke crop received an over-all damage amounting to ten percent. Some fields had to be replanted. It has been estimated that 100 mice per acre in a meadow can consume over a ton of green vegetation, which would have made about a half ton of dry hay. It was also estimated that as few as ten mice per acre on 100 acres of meadow would eat eleven tons of grass or five and one-half tons of cured hay per year (Eadie). Jackrabbits are found throughout all the agricultural areas of California and breed from early spring to late summer. The food of these animals consists of most available vegetation. Any plant part of a great variety of trees and shrubs may be eaten. It was estimated thirty Jackrabbits may eat as much forage as one sheep or 148 may eat as much as one cow. Jackrabbits near cultivated areas may do much damage to all kinds of farm crops. Vegetables, hay, grain, alfalfa, fruit trees and vines may be attacked. The rabbits leave the sage brush areas in the dry summer months and migrate toward the green vegetation of the cultivated districts. This concentrates their numbers and is often disastrous since a whole field of vegetation may be destroyed overnight. Pocket Gopher. Most of California with the exception of some rocky and swampy areas is inhabited by pocket gophers. It is a pest that cannot be 20 - tolerated either in large commercial orchard e or hose gardens. Its damage is greatest in never orchards because young trees are less able to survive attacks on their root systems. In alfalfa the damage results not only from the roots being eaten but also from the fact that mounds of earth are thrown up covering considerable areas of the growing crops and later obstructing the harvest of the remainder. Up to 1,500 distinct earth heaps to the acre have actually been counted on fields of average infestations. Enclosure studies in California have shorn that pocket gophers may destroy as much as tventy-five percent of the annual-plant, green forage on an area. (Eadie). Rats. (Rattus rattus al exanA inns, Rattus norwegicus, and Rattus rattus rattus) It has been estimated that the rat population is equal to the human population. (Stover 1952). If rats equal the number of persons in the United States and if each rat ate ooze ounce of food per day, the daily needs vould be about 4..690 tons. If they ate only vheat at $1.00 per bushel, the total annual levy would cost 57 million dollars. It is well known that rats consume mulch food intended for man and domestic animals that they often take high price foods and they foul or damage far more than they eat. Bence rats are expensive nuisances. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife states that each rat costs $10. The breakdown is as follows: a rat eats forty pounds of food yearly -- cost $3.00. A rat contaminates other food -- cost $6.00. A rat damages property -- cost $1.00. Loss from rat borne diseases -- cost unknown. ELng roo Batsp Kangaroo rats are a pest mostly on rangelands in drier areas of California. They gather far more seed than they eat and catch for the rest I • - 21 of the year. Much of the seed stored underground is too deep to germinate. Dr. Walter Howard, Vertebrate Ecologist of the University of California at Davis, ran experiments to determine the efficiency of kangaroo rats in collecting range plant seeds. One rat turned loose in a closed room ate an average of 3,500 rose clover seeds a day. One night the rat picked up an additional 16,000 seeds to store in his nest. This would add up to about one pound of seed a week according to Dr. Howard who ran these tests to find out how impor- tant the need is for control. A number of studies have been conducted on kangaroo rats on agricultural and grazing lands. The fact that these animals feed extensively on available grasses leads directly to a consideration of their importance in relation to grazing. During years of drought periods kangaroo rats might be of critical importance to grazing areas because they reduce the carrying capacity of the range. With only two kangaroo rats per acre, it was estimated that on fifty square miles of range they would consume enough forage to support twenty-eight steers. Since a high proportion of the forage taken by rats is grass seed, it has additional significance in terms of future grass production. Of the amount of seed stored, investigations have shown that during the fall and winter months bushel quantities are coamDon; they gather and store practically all of the seed within a radius of 100 yards from their burrow. A study of kangaroo rats in California showed that they ate or destroyed sixteen percent of the annual-plant green forage on the plot. Peromyscus. These pests are seed eaters and cause damage to cereal grains and fields planted to watermelon or cantaloupe. They cause extensive damage and influence in the reforestation programs by consuming the falling. or planted 22 _ tree seeds. Some- of the seed taken by them are stored but few are allowed to: remain and sprout. They are regarded. as the greatest enemy of artificial. reforestation in such areas. - 23 - PERTINENT FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN RELATION TO VERTEBRATE PEST CONTROL 1. Field rodent control in California is a necessary pest control function established by law, for purposes of preventing destruction to agricultural crops and protecting human health. 2. Organized field rodent control programs are supervised by agricultural regulatory officers. These officers are qualified to serve only after examination by the State Director of Agriculture. 3. By virture of their training these officers are quick to adopt improvements in procedure developed from research and careful investigation and to adhere to necessary safeguards in the conduct of pest control work. 4. Sodium fluoroacetate (1080) bait is exposed by trained personnel operating under well defined instructions. Due to the initiative of agricultural regulatory officers, experienced in extensive use of lethal agents, the handling of this material has been restricted and supervised to far greater degree than any other rodenticide. 5. Competent observations by Department biologists, county agricultural officials, and individuals owning or controlling large acreages indicate the injurious effects on wildlife to be insignificant. A beneficial effect following reduction in squirrel population is frequently reported. 6. An effective lethal agent properly applied in accordance with scientific principles does reduce ground squirrel population to a major extent, thereby automatically reducing exposure of additional lethal agents with consequent reduction in harmful effects actual or theoretical to wildlife. 24 - 7. Agricultural Commissioners and Vertebrate Pest Control personnel of the California Department of Agriculture through their experience, education and association are naturally ardent conservationists. They are in a position to encourage conservation of wildlife to as great an extent as any similar group of officials or laymen. They are doing and will continue to do a great deal of practical conservation Work. 8. Wildlife is admittedly destroyed by such factors as hunting, trapping, disease, automobiles on highways, unfavorable climatic and food conditions, predatory enemies and various other elements. It is a primary tenent of civilization that it is man's right to protect his life and health against disease and to protect his property against loss or pest damage. It sometimes happens that in his endeavor to do this an occasional unavoidable loss to wildlife occurs. There is, however, nothing to indicate that this accidental element encountered in necessary pest control operations causes any significant losses to wildlife population other than the target species. SELECTED REFERENCES Andrewartha, H. G. 1963. Introduction to the Study of Animal Populations. University of Chicago Press. pp. 3-281. Atzert, Stephen P. 1971. A review of Sodium Monofluoroacetate (Compound 1080) - Its Properties, Toxicology, and Use in Predator and Rodent Control. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Division of Wildlife Services. pp. 1-36. Bartholomew, G. A. and J. W. Hudson. 1961. Desert Ground Squirrels, Scientific American. 11-61: pp. 107-116. Bentley, W. W. 1967. The Control of Rodents. WHO Chronicle, Vol. 21, No. 0: pp. 363-368. Brown, R. Z. 1953. Social Behavior, Reproduction and Population Changes in the house mouse (Mus musculus L.) Ecol. Monogr. 23(3): pp. 217-240. 1967. Biological Factors in Domestic Rodent Control. U.S.P.H.3. Pp• 1-32. Christian, J. J. and D. E. Davis. 1956. The Relationship between adrenal weight and Population Status of Urban Norway Rats. J. Mammalogy 37(4): pp. 475-486. Clark, C. H. D. 1949. Fluctuations in Populations. Journal of Mammalogy, 30:1: 21-25. Cockrum, L. E. 1962. Introduction to Mammalogy. University of Arizona. pp. 3-455. Cummings, Maynard W. 1971. Progress in Predator Control Methods. California Wool Growers Association Annual Convention, pp. 1-9. Dana, Richard H. 1962. Ground Squirrel Control in California, Proceedings Vertebrate Pest Conference, Sacramento, California. pp. 126-143. Dana, R. H. and D. H. Shaw. 1958. Meadow mouse control in Holly, California Dept. Agr. Bull, 47: 224-226. Edie, Robert W. 1954. Animal Control in Field, Farm and Forest. The MacMillian Company. Eisenberg, J. F. 1967. A comparative Study in Rodent Ethology with Emphasis on Evolution of Social Behavior. I. Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum, Smithsonian Institution, Vol. 122, No. 3597: pp. 1-51. Elton, Charles. 1939. Animal Ecology. MacMillan Company, New York. p. 209. 1942. Voles, Mice and Lemmings. Problems in Population Dynamics. University Press. Oxford. p. 496. Errington, Paul L. 1946. Predation and Vertebrate Populations. Quest. Review of Biology. 21: 144-177 and 221-245. Fitch, Henry F. 1947. Ecology of a Cottontail Rabbit (Syvilagus auduboni) Population in Central California. California Fish and Game. 33:3: 159-184. 1948. A Study of Coyote Relationships on Cattle Range. Journal of Wildlife Management. 12: 73-78. 1948a. Iiabits and Economic Relationships of the Tulare Kangaroo Rat. Journal of Mammalogy. Vol. 29, No. 2-48: 5-35. 1949b. Ecology of the California Ground Squirrel on Grazing Lands. American Mid. National. 39:3. Green, Darr D. 1947. Effects of New Rodenticides Upon Beneficial Animal Life. U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Division of Predator and Rodent Control. Memo. 138. Hall, E. R. 1927. An outbreak of House Mice in Kern County, California. Univ. of California Pub. Zool. 30: pp. 189-203. Hatt, R. T. 1930. The Biology of the Voles of New York. Roosevelt Wildlife Bull., Vol. 5, No. 4: pp. 509-670. Horn, E. E. 1938. Factors in Nesting Losses of the California Valley Quail. Third North American Wildlife Conference Proceedings: pp. 741-746. Howard, W. E. 1958. The Rabbit Problem in New Zealand. New Zealand Dept. Sci. Industrial Research Information Ser. pp. 16-47. Howard, W. E., K. A. Wagnon and J. B. Bentley. 1959. Competition Between Ground Squirrels. and Cattle for Range Forage. Journal of Range Management. Vol. 12, No. 3, May 1959. Howard, W. E. and Henry E. Childs, Jr. 1959. Ecology of Pocket Gophers with Emphasis on Thomomys bottae. Hilgardia, 29(7): 277-358. Howard. W. E. 1960. Innate and Environmental Dispersal of Individual Vertebrates. The :+merican Midland Naturalist. Vol. 63, No. 1: pp. 152-166. 1965. Principles of Vertebrate Animal Control. Congres, De La Protection Des Cultures Tropicales (France). pp. 627-629. 1967. Some Ecobehavioral Problems to Mathematical Analysis of Evolution. The Wistar Institute Symposium Monograph No. 5. pp. 103-106. Hunt, Eldrige. 1968. Letter to Willard Greenwald, Regional Manager, August 19, 1968. Jacobsen, W. C. 1962. The Pest Animal Problem. First Vertebrate Pest Control Conference Proceedings. Feb. 6-7, 1962. pp. 17. Kellogg, Eugene S. 1932. The California Ground Squirrel Control Program. Special Publication. No. 109. California Department of agriculture. Kendeigh, S. S. 1961. animal Ecology University of Illinois. Knowlton, Fredrick F. 1969. Preliminary Interpretations of Coyote Population Mechanics with some Management Implications. North Central Section of Wildlife Society, Minneapolis, Minn. pp. 1-20. Koford, Karl B. 1953. Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California. The California Condor. Research Report No. 4. National Audubon Society. Lantz, David E. 1905. Coyotes in Their Economic Relations. U.S.D.A. Biological Survey Bulletin No. 20, Government Printing Office. pp. 28. Loewenberg, B. J. 1959. Charles Darwin: Evolution and Natural Selection. Beacon Press, Boston. pp. 1-438. March, Rex E. 1967. A Guide for Aerial Baiting of Ground Squirrels. Proceedings of Third Vertebrate Pest Control Conference. San Francisco. March 7-9, 1967. Meacham, Charles. 1970. Preventing Wildlife Depredations, A Future Look, National Wool Grower, May 1970. pp. 14-33. Mueggler, W. F. 1967. Voles Damage Big Sagebrush in Southwestern Montana. Journal of Range Management, Vol. 201, 3-67, No. 2: pp. 88-91. Nielson, Darwin and Dave Curle. 1970. Predator Costs to Utahts Range Sheep Industry, National Wool Grower, December 1970: pp. 14-22. Presnall, Clifford C. The Predation Question - Facts vs. Fancies. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. l ✓ RECEIVED .s t j N i ^1972 Board of Supervisors W. T. P A A SC H County Administration Bldg CLERK SOAOF 0 s ,SUPCo,►�«►R. Martinez, California 94553 1 By oep"tx Gentlemen: RE: YOUR MEETING OF JUNE 13 AT WHICH YOU WILL. CONSIDER THE MATTER OF POISONING AND TRAPPING CONTRA COSTA WILDLIFE Wildlife admittedly can be a problem and we know that you have certain responsibilities in this area. However the balance of nature should also be maintained and the conservation of our wildlife is a vital factor you should consider. We hope that you will minimize to the greatest extent any trapping and poisoning of Contra Costa wildlife. Thank you very much. Sincerely, lr MR. AND MRS GEORGE HUBERT 2173 Ptarmigan Dr #2 Walnut Creek, California 94595 June 8,, 1972 I • 47 ' . DIABLO RANCH 1453 Northgate Road Walnut Creek, California 94598 June 9, 1972 Hereford Cattle Arabian Horses �.ECEIVED tj rj I ^ 1972 Board of Supervisors W. T. P A A S C H County Administration Building CLERK eoAo OF SUPERVISCas Q ON , ACO T Q- Martinez, California aY Gentlemen: Re: Ground Squirrel control I am completely in accord with the present control on these animalsq please do not abandon it! If you could ride over this mountain as I do, and see the colonies of holes dug by these creatures, and later see them turn into raging gulleys during the winter rains, causing terrible erosions you would know. These mangy squirrels eat all dropped seeds in these inhabited areas, so that reseeding becomes a waste of time and money. During the past number of years, control of these creatures has become better and better, but in just one season, if just one area is overlooked, the increase of these ground squirrels becomes unbelievable. Are we to intelligently tackle this problem with continued abatement, or are we to just drop everything with no other solution than a "no no". I sincerely hope not! Sincerely DIABLO INCH (Mrs. ) Anae ,% Kerley owner r ! AEK/a ' �U 1�L�jr�c�tu.�-•tGf.1 At. and y Oza Set9 in RECEIVIR) J 3979 60tvan-cd: " 11 1 M o -" 472 Y f aystt eati f. 94549 W. T. P A A S C H CLERK 11310 A Or SUPCRVls4RS r Ae-- a;ovz. oi Zr, 1101 Spruce Street Berkeley, California 94707 June 5, 1972 Board of Supervisors ��EIVED j 11 1 m P, —'972 Contra Costs County W. T. P A A S C H ER Martinez, California laz=V ISORS Gentlemen: Although presently a resident of Alameda County., my husband and i own property in Orinda and intend to move back there soon. Therefore I feel that I have a right to protest the harsh animal control programs that Contra Costa County is currently engaged in. The indiscriminate poisoning and trapping of wildlife is cruel., expensive and from everything I have read and heard totally unnecessary. Another shameful activity is the wholesale picking up and impounding of domestic animals. Several friends of mine,, living in Kensington and Orinda, have told me of witnessing dogs and cats being snatched from their own yards and taken away by pound personnel Such callous inhumanity toward wildlife as well as disregard for the feelings of both domestic pets and their owners is deplorable and causes one to question the desirability of living in such an oppresive area. Sincerely yours, C � s Cleland) • r FR TVD -1972 June 5, 1972 AASCHCFSA ERVISORSDeputyBoard of Supervisors Administration Building Martinez, Calif. Supervisor Moriarity: Re: Meeting of June 13th to discuss whether to continue predatory animal trapping. I agree with Mr. Gary Bogue and think it should be stopped immediately! I also have something else to say and that is Henry Clarke is overstepping his boundary in preventing volunteers from working at the Animal Control Center on Sundays. Why can't volunteers do this if they choose to? That is the most ridiculous idea in assuming that the volunteers :Grill be 'staking over" as he stated. Why isn't he worried more about the welfare of the animals, instead of volunteer workers trying to "run things". I think the Board of Supervisors should do something about this situation instead of letting Mr. Clarke "run things". Thank you, Mrs. Helen G. Rice �- 2049 Walnut Blvd. �sx�c Gd � Walnut Creek, Calif. 94.596 �.— 1445 CIVIC DRIVE - WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 - 415 - 935-3300 RECEIVED 11it.; ? -1972 FROM THE OFFICE OF Gary Bogue W. T. P A A S C H CLERKBOO RDS OF SUPERVISORS QCO y �epaty i Alexander Lindsay Junior Museum 1901 First Ave. Walnut Creek, Calif. 94959 W.T. Paasch, Clerk Administration Building, Room 103 Martinez, Calif. 94553 June 5, 1972 Dear Mr. Paasch, Thank you for inviting me to attend the open hearing on predatory animal control and squirrel eradication programs to be held June 13 at 2 p.m. 1 am very much interested in what will come out of this hearing and shall certainly attend. Cordially, Gary Bogue Curator GB/j I e .c Gc1. 7'l-1��f� CONTRA tOSTR COUNTY FAR BUREAU Affiliated with the TELEPHONE 685-8261 ROA CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION 5554 CLAYTON ROAD and the AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 94521 May 30, 1972 RECEIVED .,�JN 1 -1972 Supervisors W. T. P A A S C H Chairman Board of Su P CLERK BON=0FSUP,9,RV1S0R$ Contra Costa CountyAdministration BuildingDeoatr Martinez, California 94553 Gentlemen: The Contra Costa County Farm Bureau, a general farm organization, which includes membership in all of the commercial livestock and crops produced in the county and which has a membership of 1181, passed on a motion at its regularly scheduled board meeting on May 24th, "that there be a continuing ground squirrel control program and a predator control program on an 'as needed' basis's. There are about 315,000 acres which are used by agricultural producers in the county and represents over two--thirds of the total acreage in the county. The agricultural industry has a gross dollar value of over $30,000,000 annually in Contra Costa County. The agricultural industry provides many jobs directly and indirectly. Agriculture's job is to provide food. We are finding that coyotes on a statewide basis are on the increase rather than decrease and the coyotes are now found in places they have not been found for many years. Since coyotes adapt very readily to living within populated areas, it is our feeling, and especially with the losses that coyotes can cause to livestock and poultry, that the county must continue trapping as a method of controlling coyotes. We are not asking that the county have a full ..2.. time trapping program but that a program be provided for the trapping of coyotes during the period of the year they cause the most damage and this is during the fall when young lambs and calves are born. It takes an experienced trapper to capture coyotes. Contra Costa County should continue participating in the cooperative program of the state and federal governments. Ground squirrels can cause many kinds of damage and do much destruction. Ground squirrels have been a problem for many years in Contra Costa County and continual work is necessary in order to control these rodents. The California Department of Agriculture has indicated the annual loss from ground squirrels in California is about $8,000,000. The amount in Contra Costa County can be considerable if the squirrels are not controlled on a continuing basis. On pasture lands squirrels feed on forage plants that are produced for domesticated livestock. Squirrels feed upon and destroy grain and fruit crops and will in- vade gardens in populated areas if not controlled. They can do damage to irrig. ation systems. Ground squirrels increase rapidly unless they are continually held in check. The Contra Costa County Farm Bureau feels that ground squirrels must be controlled in Contra Costa County if agriculture is to continue as one of the leading industries. We therefore request vodator and ground squirrel program, which are also recognized for their health prevention aspects. If you have any questions concerning our feelings, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerel yours, r Mike Vukelich, County President cc: A. Seeley, Agriculture Commissioner R. Foskett, Livestock Chairman CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Inter - Office Memo Date: May 31, 1972 To: Supervisor E. A. Linscheid From: Geraldine Russell, Clerk Subject: Mr . James A. Schroeder , Executive Director , Wildlife Alive , 1 Maritime Plaza, San Francisco 94111, telephoned the office and requested that he and the following persons be permitted to speak at the June 13 hearing on predatory animal control and rodent eradication : Mark Palmer Berkeley Endangered Species Committee Berkeley Ecology Center, Berkeley Bruce Keegan, Chairman Wildlife Subcommittee of the Sierra Club Bush Street, San Francisco Marilyn Goode, Chairman for Sonoma County for Wildlife Alive I advised Mr. Schroeder that it was a public hearing and all persons wishing to speak would be heard insofar as discussion did not becomerepe:ttous but that I did not plan to list each individual on the Board calendar . Mr . Schroeder inquired as to whether a time limit would be imposed on the speakers and indicated that the above-named would require approximately five minutes each for their individual presentations . GR:lk cc : Mr . Seeley GREEN PASTURES P. O. BOX 421 DIABLO, CALIFORNIA 94528 Aar# 20, 1972 A.. A.L.imcheud, n� .cvcc Av .F.tdbu�rg, a. 9565 9eaA A,4 L.inicheid :- ThZdpwpe&j# ownm w.i,ehee to go on neco,rd as in Pvot o� Ae Coun;tV pWgAaM #o contW l ground eguinne 4 ! Since I wall be on Cape Cod on Pune 13Ay I w.c ll be unable to be paeaeni .in pemon a;t Ae. meeting the Supeavi solo mi,Ll hold on the ,dub eci o� con t wl o� pedabAy aw)=Za, etc. Norwevea I hope my hue- bano� Pvu-,a.yen. FAanh �AcShe4mh w.%!.l be on hand. Our. popeatry .rte Aidd led WiA Ae JgUVu.els and #heir. ho.lw. Nolo I have a veary va l mb le mate with a sprained ankle due, .eo jru as we (and hm veterunanio) can fudge, ;to s;tepp-tng .rn. one o� Ae marry ,dquilmel holed. She had beers .laid up Pt A4ee week, and will pwb- a64 be out o� camniAd iron P.& weehe mom T hi4 .cam nod the I-ilw; such inAtance on our eigU arses o� p hae .lance The country ager to have been. cousteow and heZpju, , and jameUmee .eucceed in getting tid o� the soden to PA devew.l monAj. Thea #ahe guest cane khat no othea an ma-ld, pets etc can be damaged .in any uay. We have doge and cats who cea#ain 4 ase not aj jaded boy the e fpsts ;to conbw l eg iAket pe-did. In addition to Ae p1w6.lend 4qua" caecoe on owc own pwpeaiy, I fAequorvi4 4rnd the riding Saila sidled and and mdned WA the .aquiA cel ho lsd,w M n Ae Pa&4 aaea. I have . ham duck cond i t i om io cowr t# agents. C ' rie and comrnerzdz�ne ane due #hese fai;&Ad public .oen.- v ani,d P,% Aero e�pnts to make Coma Costa a bettea place Ps all c i i- ZgMd ! I hope Aero paogrram w.i U be .supported. RECEIVED v&W iM4 yO"dl �i( w. F wnh Y. yam` W. T. PAASCH 2566 raba.Llo RwwAero 04 1 CLERK RD OF SUPERVISORS &abZl Ca. TRA COSTk CO. By Deputy ce `� - tL GREEN PASTURES P. O. BOX 421 DIABLO. CALIFORNIA 94526 ` may X, IV2 Deas TILS , I.en't .it about h.Une {oma. Sa/./ Bogue and .Lihe-minded "eco.logiAIA ;to Juni a campaign to "4ave ouwt &veei iuiVeAnahew" ? The dnahee do not t ' _ hi.Ll a4 many pw*e a4 do .the anti.-goveA menf act.i,.vi4iA UAO p&,u 6vmbd pu6.lic pilacee, 64w oj� p4ee heads, and 4o on. W e ase not at&ved to h.i,Cl the htemn n mdeaeite; u4 diAci m.inQto agru w;t AaWeanahed ? - 1'vo�, PWV-y wild �hinpe ! TA4, fah On the ma.tteA of ground dquilmc. 4 Aeee eentimertali,e acre aealfry F unillp� A "The .laet Ai4ong1o.ld of 94ound . quilme14 .ti pw664 Iflt. l &ab lo'.e noitth peak" u ueo g.8. I can 44m anyone do3aw of .the p"t4 -i on "y P't°Pei-�* any dark, and I do nol live on ih.e rwzth pezf. Thede ,eodenie A4emier- Co ;bw Cae�6a.'.e 6eaectid oahe with octinction. They Y undewn.ine the Aiding. bra.iL, enda%e cinrg the . i..vee of men, women and R'1i CAA l Ae% not to meniion Ae holo ee. OP En I caJU Ae agAiridia4e de- prLi inazi ;to aeh �oti heap in con�wtZing AiA menace. Thea 1-4y, but ^;' M, corttaoI c e the 6wi #herd can hope Pu These id obviou 4 no chance T s of elcti,nairon. ' Do urge B. #o concvd4ate on .daving. Vwde wee rat ure. Them tff mag6e he can .invite their .into anothe& ga iden o� Cdery imeday. of Vey tudy Wouw, TO Cvn-4-w Co-J,& T.imee, 1940 W.iab.lo BLS Ua lnui CAee� Ca. 946 -59 �_S - '"> � y� � ,t,t,vc- 1 fie,�.cLe-e. c.�� `Y�n�. S'3 '] .+�� i y - `� , • e t Rasing Wild Pets -TIMES April 13, i972. Poor Keasons Given For1(i'lling Squirrels. '. By GARS' VOGUE fistics (the department's) say used to do-in these little trap 4S ' Where have ail the Ground that 250 squirrels cat as much fic offenders. MetM►-bromine, 'n ° Sq++irrels gone? as one cow. Need I say gas is one.' The other is phi- ''• ?� 11'cI1. to put It bluntly. wh,t . more? Deer also compete Finned rolled barley, The ao-' Th Al,�r•,ci !'ai+nty fi used to be a cocoon animal In jackrabbits,- tion of this is an: anti p, tarn• �ti. A.;-.catturo • with cattle, as do a This county. has become the brush rabbits, sheep, eoaautant In the hlood.=,Afteir ,e�-t 35 flr/ib'n .r'tn.=t it I;c innocent t iclItn of the Contra hcrses, nad even p c o p l a,-, feastingon this free menu for I+eves that',arra arc it a wit►: �i Costa Agriculture Depart- Ilummannm. That's a scary several days, the squirrel; life, aid r; ntcnt's very successful, ar- thought. (And for how long eventually bleeds to death�In- ftrof 1 �+r:sr t rci iicntty (even fanatically) pur- nre we, the residents of this ternaily and dies quictty in' s f,,xt rued Ground Squirrel "Con- county, going to allow certain his hole. Reports are tyat.th+s But in CtOtta CGS.a,'to qu%r trot" Program. vested interests to wipe out inethod Isn't too dangerous to " ;a rc,,, t Tarte a;ficial, tiie{t t i r 'a There are a number of tea- our wildlife?) .' other, crcahires .becauseIs :Cy,• tri. :a < , u' 1„ sons gis en far gassing or gal• Another argument used to predator would have to cat a every Iasi s'q ,!r r e I, ,li•_ sonin this species of our defend this program Is that number of these poisio»ed an. '' they're going;to db it.Tncy':G f f dwind�ing native wildlife. The since man .has a i r e a d y, finals to poison himself. What. a:most d*,ne-st a?read, Ti t d primary reason is a health changed the balance of nature number?; Who knows..; fSo fast stronghold cf.`gro u tt c one. (As for as I'm concerned by exterminating most of the pass the word along to any tau;rrcls is_;,rrad'a3y;1;t, D:& - one. the only legitimate one, L 'natural predators of squirrels,, predators :you see and tell b:a's; North Peak,-;and crI^ might add). Squrirrels 'can he must make up for It by them not to eat more.than 5ec4r%se Ws!56 itard'to`�ei,t± S carry.fleas that transmit killing them himself. This Is one, or is that two poisoned But,I'm sure a.lnk,pf plague. There's no denying ••really doublethink at its in., squirrels at one time?) ; scmeih this, but wiping out a wools imitable best. The reality of t This poisoned ,grain"'Is also Where )rave'a1I tbe.-,,ro } species of animal just ire• the situation is that by exter- ' colored so the birds won'! eat `:cafirrcI s g-me"Aren't yy cause of itstenGal to carry urinating the ground aquir- it. What color.of grain is tats sorty.you a ked? Y a disease is just as ridiculous :els. we also kill off the that birds won't eat? r tr as shooting the neighbor's hawks,•owls, badgers, foxes go there you have it aaI " Drop a I►�e-to ArtSeajz kids to keep yours from et- and coyotes that need them y Commissioner.of Ag tu:fu.� ,. p B mal fans, this practice takes 161'Ulm GA Drive Co ting the measles. for food. pare thtou hoot our count . 'ia • The secondary reason given A really Incredible defense ; c throe watershed lands cord'•and ask'him the,sa by the Department of Agrk& of this eradication program is'• (are the squirrels drinking up question, 's f, Lure for poisoning these crea- that squirrels area traffic all our water? A sudden tures *is agriculture. (What's: •hazard. (So keep your kids on ihaughi) Its our State Parks:. x in a name?) I think this.rea the s i d a w a l k z, Mom, and ..at Rossmoor . . even on # t son is rear the primary one: make we they use On cross'~,. our regional park lands. (And + ,. Squirrels i r r e l s feed on cetrerl, -walks.'..or...) q, not without a good deal of re- t grain, nuts and Meme;. fila- Two methods generally art". sistance on the part aE the i k ;,� � •?��+�� #r t t' • . `, _, . . .:;, park .people!) Da you know { .. there era few. it any. t ..,x a,` refs, jackrabbits or brush � r 'tablets In Brlmes Regionat Park? 1% wiliat do ttllt •�, r,9t•={ d � t ,, tars eat? Pera�ly�ptsi Wombat r ` r r`+,• t�' IS thist SW `1l+( .� '1 • • • • ,, ..1. X �e ,Jit.� fT. �Y •'j _ •• ��`\.!�•�'-"`ate �• • � 1 r - • • _ , 44 • � f.s 1 n z ti - t Y y't�i sGONTR.A .COSTA ALAMEDA COUNTY CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION P:O BOX 458.PLEASANTON. CALIF.94566'' PHONE 846. ` '^ray REC18, 1972 ETI1 Board of ,Supervisors, Contra Costa .County W: T. PAA 8 C H Administration Building cLURK.a r�a.a ' uPextvisetts Martinez, California 94553 rlu►, Gentlemen: For' the past several months there have appeared.in local.newspapers., articles rs . designed to generate doubt as to the propriety of :continued existence in this .. .,... County of the services=.of a State or. Federal _trapper and of .the requirement,_ for , h4� ` the ground squirrel' erradication program. These newspaper_ articls were written an ,a:manner calculated to- ridicule the - trem'ely useful'and:impgrtant .purposes ' y d : :for.ta_hich these,-programs'Were originally intended.' A considerable "number. of our members have'in the past, : uffered losses of an , f injury to livestock coyotes. These losses were reported_from .all areas "o the county. As': control measures were put into action, and because, >:n. part of:movement of people to the hill areas, ,these losses,have: diminished.`but have not stopped. We are avare, and have appmised :the Agricultural =Cammissioners Z =3 office of 3ivestock�:iosses and co ote si tin s in :the `Hrentwood/$ `: y gh g yran foothills ,and ,as close to> populated:;.areas as ;Naval leapons .Station, Concord during,the, pas t: three ;weeks. It is there-fore_vital,to, the livestock industry,in this County.,: that: diligent efforts be continued in order, to prevent an'increase.in the .coyote r population in the area. We' strongly urge the .Board of"Supervisors to extend the contractual arrangement with the State or: Federal Trapper for '.aA. additionaf. year ''on an as-need--1ksis.; The other.matte „ r of and_immediate. concern:to- our membership. is the ground;squirrel erradication program which has been conducted; for,:=nearly,20,years. '= It has been the `observation of a considerable portion of our ;'people in<the :field :that the program has been. generally, an .effective control. of the.:prob�ems. { attendant with 'the presense. of ground squirrels in an area. Aside;`fram the z obs�aus crap and feed losses caused ,by these pests,' anyoneo has"seen';'-entire hillsides '"pock-marked' by erosion-accelerating holes can testify to the serious soil conservation problems .they.create,, Because; ground sglirrels seem to be.;extremely.prolific in spite of' the 'most diligent efforts to erracTicate them-,there' is little =danger that the species will become: extinct. ";-6uite the contrary, it would appear 'that-unless a serious erradication.effort is continued the Squirrel population will again "take over*'. 3i It is ';with :these problems in mind that we urge the :Bvard of Supervisors to con ^f time "the services of; the�arappet ant'of :the squirrel erradication program,. Ave - Id - ;. 1_0 Y hY 2 3�. .i � It is further requested that a representative of the Contra Costa-Alameda County Cattlemens Association be given an apportunity to relate some first-hand ex- periences on these two subjects at your June 13th meeting. Yours truly, Victor L. Lund, Jr. Secretary/treas Contra Costa-Alameda County Cattlemen's Assoc. t% t 7 L ��1972 A W• T' OF spGo. ty 8Y f t f __. t4l 4 n/ 7L �d- j'LV,- 7�L �r.—'_; /C; '-- `` Aft � r L' / t r , J, _ i�ffCEIVED ,, � 1972 W. T. PAASCH CLLR OARD OF dUpEltVldORd L .. . ... . I I.gay 3, 1972 �.:..::_ putt' Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County Administration building Martinez, Ca 94553 Re: Predatory :animal Control; County Use of Professional Trapper Gentlemen: Since we will not be able to attend the public hearing on June 13, 1972 in order to hear the discussion on trapping coyotes in the county, and to offer our reasons for protesting this program, zre are attaching the enclosed evidence and ask that it be included in the proceeding on that day. Thank y au. Hr. and Firs. John V. Sudall 1744 Walnut Street El Cerrito, Ca 94530 Enclosures May 3, 1972 To be included in the public hearing, June 13: 1972: Predatory =animal Control in Contra Costa County. To the Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa County: On IMarch 8, 19729 we wrote you about ouSTrTr experience with the problem of uncontrolled dog packs and the damage Let do to livestock, rather than small preda.tois like coyotes, foxes, raccoons, etc, whose chief prey are rodents. Ve would like to emphasize this conviction with the following quota— tion from the National Audubon Society's Nature Encyclopedia. Vol 3, Pages 494-5-6: The coyote....is despised by many but it also has innumerable friends.. ..Some sheep ranchers dislike it on account of its predatory habits but the majority of the cattle men and agriculturalists approve of it, as it is one of the chief natural enemies of jackrabbits, ground squirrels, and other grass and grain feeding rodents, and thus helps to sup— press their numbers.... Carrion, however, and jac:crabbits, cottontail rabbits, ground squirrels, prairie dogs, rats and mice mate up much of its food. The ;lest ,dould lose much of its charm if it lost its wild animal life. •Future generations will never fully know the spirit of the old }lest if they are unable to hear the yapping chorus, the morning and evening serenade, of the . coyote. Vol. 5, Pages 817-18-19-20: The ground squirrels' diet includes* grain, berries, nuts, green plants, and insects. However, destruction of corn, wheat, and oats may make them a serious problem on farmlands where their natural predators have been eliminated. We therefore again urge you to concentrate on the realities of the situation. Let the ground squirrels and the coyotes and foxes work out their own natural balance, and find some way of controlling the mounting menace of the domestic dog population. Where they run wild, as they so often do in rural areas, they can do great damage, as our experience showed. You would eliminate the f-round squirrels by poisoning or other mens, and thereby destroy other ini.ocent wildlife as well as removing the coyote's prey, and then you would eliminate the coyote since he must now find other food in domestic animals! It just doesn't make sense. -Uso the ploy that the trapper releases innocent animals is false on the face of it! delve seen those traps; Once caught in them, animals are not released. And of course poisoning is just indescrim-inate slaughter. t ,?iand i:rs. John V Sudll 363 Diablo Road, #46 Danville, Calif. 94526 May 1. 1972 Mr. Edmund Linscheid 5th District RECEIVED Board of Supervisors MAX it County Administration Bldg. W. To PAASON Martinez, Calif. Cf. Got Dear Sir-9 I would like you to know that I am violently opposed to the decimation of the wildlife in Contra Costa County, and am very much in agreement with this statement from the Clod. Times April 20 edition, taken from the "Raising TWild Pets" column: "It 's time for a long overdue overhaul of the animal control policies in this county, steel-Jawed trapping, shooting and poisoning pro- grams are an archaic holdover of a misinformed past." And just as archaic is the practice of putting to death at least 60,000 animals per year in the animal control "shelter"-- I use the latter word very loosely. When is this county ever going to get its much-discussed Spay Clinic, or is the entire operation to be left up to the small but very dedicated Animal Protection Institute chapter of this county? I am enclosing a clipping from the C.C. Times which tells quite succinctly how I, and many thousands of others, feel about a very deep, moral responsibility. Sincerely, irley P. Roberts f/76;Z /3) A! April 28, 1972 Mr. Gary L. Bogue 2548 Myra Del Lane ' Walnut Creek, California 94396 Dear Mr. Bogue: Enclosed is a copy of a Board of Supervisors order dated April 24, 1972 with respect to predatory animal control and squirrel eradication programs. In view of your interest in this matter, as indicated by your recent article in the Contra Costa Times, and as suggested by Supervisor J. E. Moriarty, you are invited to attend a public hearing to be held on June 13, 1972 at 2 p.m. in the Board Chambers , Administration Building, Martinez. Very truly yours , W. T. FAASCH, CLERK By, Dorothy ar mess, Deputy cc: County Administrator Enclosure I In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California April 24 19 722 In the Matter of Predatory Animal Control and Squirrel Eradication Programs . This Board heretofore having requested the County Agricultural Commissioner to report with respect to an overall review of predatory animal control and squirrel eradication in this county; and The County Agricultural Commissioner having submitted information on the nature and scope of said programs and said information having been referred to the County Government Operations Committee (Supervisors A. M. Dias and J. E . Moriarty) ; and Supervisor Moriarty this day having reported orally for the committee and advised that in view of the widespread interest in said programs it was the recommendation of the County Government Operations Committee that a public hearing be held to explore all aspects of same ; and On motion of Supervisor Moriarty, seconded by Supervisor Dias , IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendation of its County Government Operations Committee is approved and June 13 , 1972 at 2 p.m. is fixed as the time for public hearing on said matter. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote : AYES : Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias , J. E. Moriarty, E . A. Linscheid. NOES : None. ABSENT: Supervisor W. N. Boggess . I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc: Ms . V. Wright Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Mr. 11. Tibb i tts Supervisors Mr. T. Bozorth affixed this 24th day of April , 1972 Mr. T. Appelbaum W. T. PAASCH, Clerk Mr. J. Sudall Mr. H. Wes 1 ar By U- Deputy Clerk Mr. Gary Bogue Dorothy A. Harkness Mrs . Gabrielle M. Csicsery Ms . Barbara Thompson Agricultural Commissioner "'° ""r✓dffhty Administrator County Counsel Health Officer -20 4 );ZVE� CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS T OSTA CO L e _ utY 10, t r SOA- �fs 3`.73•-9 [r- C' �QR YR INFORMATION J ' n ccbiaors . oon f a�n ardino RECEIVED i9m. 0. 0Ctttrtf Qa r?1972 SUPERVISOR FIRST DISTRICT W. T. PAASCH CLERK BOA O OF SUPERVISORS ON AC CO. By Deruty. Apxit 13, 1972 Hon. James P. Kenny, Chai&man Cont&a Costa C b unty B o a&d . o 6 Supe&viz o" AdministAation Buitding Martinez, Cati6o&nia 94553 Dean Chai&man: 7 would tike to bA,,ng to you& attention a Sacs o6 which you may not be awa&e. The State o6 Cati6o&nia is the only one o6 the wez e&n Mates which pe&mitz z o-capZed z po&t6 men to hunt deep with the heap o4 dogs . In the County os San BeAna&dino we have had nume&ouz cor7ptaints on the p&actice c6 deeit Bunting with dogs . The dogs &un the deeA 6Aom the ctozed a,%eaa into the open aaeas giving the hunte.& an added oppo&- tunity to kilt his p&ey. I ce&tainty have no ob ectionz to dee& hon-ing, no.,t do I advo- cate the cJ os u&e o6 att Cax'i6oAni a Con the dee& he&ds . HoweveA, I do believe that it should be b&ough.t to eveftyone's attention that the t&u.e zpo&tsman .is one who t&aeks and hunts in a diligent manner without att oS the gi►nmickz , such as dogs . We have noticed that the&e a&e many dogs o6 the hunte& zttain who have Ito- &etutned to thei& owneu and have been test in the woods to takn witd and Join in with packs 06 vLhe& wild dogs . There have been nuirteaous comptaint..<s &eceived 6&om &o_nchertz , both catt.-e and sheep people, &ega&ding the t&emendouz haza&d to thei& ope&ationz due to these dogs . I would apvAeciate anu comments tiou have on this matte& to be sent- di.-tect to M&. Ray A&nett. Di.tectoA o4 the Depvttmcnt o f Fish and Game at 1416 Ninth StAeet, Saeitamento, and to MA. She&man Chicke&ing, Chai&man, CaZi to&nia Fish and Game Com;niszion, 111 Sutte& Street, San Fitancizco. It would be most hetp6up i6 youa &ema&kz could be made known at the Fish and Game Commission hea%ti.r, .6 in San Diego on Ato&-it 28, and Lots An etea on Mar 26 . Looking 6o&waltd to yocart. Cemmenti6 , I &ema,i.n 4�4 SincelceLy, ` GIM. A, BFTTERLEY Supert.vizolc, Fi)ut Piztti,ct GIASI ct 6 County Civic Building, 175 Hest 5th Street, San Bernardino, California 92401 -Telephone 383-1049 n2 want the county to provice strict enforcement of the law requiring oz,,nars to be in responsible control bf thier dogs, to provide personnel from an_i=al control to assist with emergen— cy animal problems 24 hours a day to require the use of tranquil-- izer guns for capture of dogs rather than hunting or trapping wherever possible. f Mr. S Mrs. Robert E. Ormsby —1217 Getoun Court Concord,CaL.94518 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY - DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ,�• April 3, 1972 To: Board of Supervisors Attention: J. P. McBrien From: A. L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner - Sealer Weights and Measures Subject: (1) Predatory Animal Control (2) County's Squirrel Eradication � Program (Board Order - March 111., 1972, copy attached) . NOW The Board of Supervisors, on March 14, 1972, recommended that I make an overall review of this county's predatory animal control and squirrel eradication programs and report to the Board. Al) Predatory Animal Control The question of whether the county should obtain the service of a full time trapper, or provide no assistance to livestock producers has long been a subject of controversy. Back in 1969 the Board referred complaints to the County Administrator regarding livestock depredation in the Marsh Creek area. At that time ranchers were insisting t'--at the county have the services of a full time trapper. The matter was carefully reviewed at that time and County Administrator Je P. McBrien responded to these complaints with a December 23, 1969 memo to the Board of Supervisors. (Copy attached. ) Some conservation groups are making a statewide as well as a nationwide effort to force an end to all effective predatory animal control trapping. Their efforts are by and large well meaning and will certainly bring about a re-assessment of the need for such a program and will no doubt bring about improvement in procedures. Unfortunately, many people have not recognized the following facts that make it desirable that our county continue with a limited trapping program. (1 ) Federal trappers are highly trained and Uese Fish and Wildlife Service restricts trapping . to that particular animal causing depredation. Non-target species are released.- (2) Coyotes cause considerable economic loss, especially to sheep men, and it takes an experienced trapper to capture coyotes. (3) We require the. traps to be checked at least every 24. hours. A-ra E,TSD► (4) The trappers use no poison. 'TR J�) 1 J72 W.'T. PAASCH CLE K OAROF SUPERVISORS I NTRA COSTA CO. oy Deputy ..Board of Supervisors -2- % 4/3/72 • (5) If government does not provide at least limited assistance, it is quite likely that ranchers will be forced to handle the matter to the best of their ability. The results could well be the indiscriminate use of poisons and this would bring about the killing of many non- target species. It is my belief that we should continue utilizing the services of an experienced trapper, on an as-neoded basis, and only for animals that are causing depredation. 12) Ground Squirrel Eradication As this is a special program within the department, it is reviewed yearly to determine the acreages that are added to that already deter- mined to be free of ground squirrels and the changes, if any, that are needed. It is timely that the Board of Supervisors request a review and special report on the program, because it is rare that citizens write or call the Board's attention to the need for assistance in controlling squirrels. In 1953 when I came to this county, the only type of complaint that came to our office, or to the Board of Supervisors, which affected our department were complaints about squirrels and demands for assistance and, it should be added, they were frequent. Citizen demands for assistance in controlling squirrels have quite a history, with an 1871 abatement law being passed by the state legislature making ground squirrels a public nuisance and subject to eradication in the counties of Alameda and Contra Costa. The general reasons for the control and/or eradication of ground squirrels has only slightly changed since the early days of California, when back in 1918 it was estimated that losses due to these rodents were ;$30, 000,000 annually. These estimated crop losses do not consider the health menace due to bubonic plague infection, endemic in ground squirrels and other field rodents in California. (From 1908 through 1943 Contra Costa County had 1,726 cases of bubonic plague in humans. ) Ground squirrels will migrate from one to five miles and just to hold the squirrel population at a constant level, one must kill at least 90% each year. It was decided in 1954 by the Board of Supervisors to change this county's suppression program to one of eradication. The reason for changing to an eradication program was that if properly administered, the program would eventually be complete and the yearly costs to coop- erating property owners and to the county would be ended. As we look at the progress made since 1954, taking into account the amount of rodenticides used, the reduction in the number of men used, and the map showing the land under eradication versus that now designated as free of squirrels, one can readily see that this program is moving towards a successful completion. In 1954 the county employed seven men for squirrel control and because of its success, the number has been reduced since then to five. With the next• vaeaney in the Weed and Vertebrate Pest Control section of our department, the number of men in this program will be reduced to four. ALS/ac cc: Clerk of Board a ch 219 1972 Contra Costa County Board of SupervisorsRECEA7 -D Ri Administration Building Martinez, California 1' '? PA/� n ��:�riw�so�afin.Gentlemen: u n�tr With great shock did we hear of the existence of a predator • control agent in Contra Costa County. This position was supposedly formed to prevent predators to damage sheep during the lambing season. As we can see by the statistics, an incredible destruction of innocent wildlife is taking place here. It is our observation, and our opinion, that most damage to sheep is done by domestic dogs running in packs. Our wildlife is in trouble anyway , and pretty soon it will disappear completely if we do not take steps now. We beleieve that strongly enforced leash laws would give better protection to the ranchers, — and without hurting wildlife — than the existence of this predator control agent. Please abolish the job of the predator control agent! Very truly yours, Mrs. Gabrielle X. Csiesery 1145 Garden Lane Lafayette,California,94549 FOR Y `R INFORMATION . � 63 ALEXANDER SABIN 50 KEVIN COURT WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 PHONE (415) 934-3267 ! j r ZC •1� r March 27, 1972 Mr. and Mrs. Douglas R. Keeney Buckeye Ranch P. 0. Boa 96 Lafayette, California 94549 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Keeney: This will acknowledge that on March 17, 1972, each member of the Board received a copy of your statement entitled: "Prevent Rustling, Killing and Suffering of Livestock in Contra Costa County." Because of your interest in this matter, we are enclosing for your information a copy of an order adopted by the Board of Supervisors at its March 21, 1972 meeting, on a related subject. Very truly yours, W. T. PAASCH, CLERK By u enc B. Joseph Deputy Clerk Enc . ~ cc : Board Members Administrator Agricultural Commissioner .......... PREVENT RUSTLING, KILLING AND SUFFERING OF LIVESTOCK IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Land which is not a public puk is privately coned. You, your children, your dogs MAY lYIOT EIVTRR private property. , public parks' (Ariooss,, no; Diablo,, Redwood, Lafayette Resevoir, Las.Trawpit, Tilden 'tlr ) are, PoIrlded,for_ pxw,hiking and enjosm1ent of the out-of-doors. Privrtt`p61*rty may not be, tesepassed. This is unfortunate but necessary becanse'of fisr'hiasrd, sit: Amat2I=, and Preservation -f the jivsa of 1i i�It�beA. Mot'ae�� apt buiab:soffelrtAg-coup" to animals, but financ &I loss" its abuntjllg Ia&*' �r: Cattl+ne do not have the luxury 'of a monthly salAky; cats. * are thiif lloy�y. rt is not worth bui effort or the of suffered bylive sm* ttniess lic will help instead ofhinder. These are the facts: th¢y happeh not occasionally but dailo to every rancher in thi^ �Mty." Each time you crawl over, under, or through a feaae.or,gate you 1o�S r:wires. . with hundreds of trespssaors each santh, fenpe maintenance is a tWe�;ty-four y hour a day jab, repairing fences cut time.after tire.,sn the saes. spots. xotar cycle and horse black riders cut fto joy-ride.-in our pastures. ces They leave the fenwide open. aikers bun s do-the saes. Livestock escaping through cut fences or frightened a song boYndary tomes cause disasterous auto accidents. .Vehicles are wZvcked, their ocruprnts maimed or killed, and the animal killed or so badly i njured he must be dest;oyed. Barses and cattle are shot for the pleasure of killing two cm heavy with calf shot through the head as they Jay chewing their cuds .. young calves shot for fun or killed and gutted for their meat. A mother crow stays by-har deadcalf for days without eating or drinking, losing precious weight. Water.troughs, are riddled with bullets leaving cattle without water for days or weeksj-salt licks are placed in the water making it undrinkable. Ranchhands have been thzeatened and beaten by teenage boys. Cattle are frightened at the sight of a human on foot. They can run only a short distance without becoming completely exhausted, running blind.with fear in any direction . . into a creek or g&jly frac'rwMch they can never escape (slow death) or through a fence which cuts them to pieces . . . cars are separated from their calves, -resulting in death by starvation for the calf . . . or-If in the midst of calving, she will try to get up to run(a quick death for. the half born calf and a long agonizing ,death for the cow). We all love dogs, BUT these are the facts. If you love YWR dog, keep him on your own property. if you cannot, you should not have a dog. Living near a deer area, it will be natural for him to chase thein. This becomes a.thrilling game to one dog or a pack, of any breed or size. Fast as a deer is,- he too is exhausted quickly. Too worn to fight, the deer loses his ears, his eyes, his legs, and is torn apart while still alive. We hear this daily and nightly in our hills . . . ,barking and baying, then a scream'of agony as the deer is torn to Pieces (it sounds exactly like a small child screaming). The dog is doing only what comes naturally to him, and the only way to stop this from happening is to keep.him at home. Cattle are an even easier target (deer-chasing leads to cattle-chasing because they are all in the same hills). Cattle have the same reaction to dogs as to humans, the same panic. Not just a few cattle are )d11ed or maimed each year in this county.by dogs; there are dozens. Newspapers refuse to print pictures submitted showing .cattle which have been attacked by dogs "too gruesome for the public to see." And gruesome they are! We find cattle still alive with hindquarters chewn off, still alive with their eyes chewn out, their ears chewn off, their noses and faces chewn til they look like hamburger, their tails hanging in shreds. Or, we find them after a slow and crue4 death. Can you understand why cattlemen will shoot YOUR dog if he is seem wandering on ranchland? Can you understand why ranchers take a tough approach toward people wandering on ranch property? Residents of this county who do not know or care where their dogs or children go or what they do once out the doer are to blame for a major portion of this problem. It must be stopped by Y::+: Mr. & 11rs. Douglas R. Keeney ; ` BWX"E RANCH /r� PO. BOX (a!1►D OF SPRIIUoGXILL E C E.�..V 11 D LAFAYETTE, CALIFORNIA 94549 / (415) ?83-3816 �/� /7' /�7� ;S C H CL[ O q OF A COST'SUPERVISORS By Deput s Y w. C. V / • 0 March 21, 1972 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors RECEATD Administration Building Martinez, California c:.c tN. T. PAAg�H �► ROARID 0' supCoviso� � ST Co. Gentlemen: -. P„1, With great shock did we hear of the existence of a predator control agent in Contra Costa County. This position was supposedly formed to prevent predators to damage sheep during the lambing season. As we can see by the statistics, an incredible destruction of innocent wildlife is taking place here. It is our observation, and our opinion, that most damage to sheep is done by domestic dogs running in packs. Our wildlife is in trouble anyway , and pretty soon it will disappear completely if we do not take steps now. We beleieve that tib&t strongly enforced leash laws would give better protection to the ranchers, — and without hurting wildlife — than the existence of this predator control agent. Please abolish the job of the predator control agent! Very truly yours, C .. l.h CJ I hors. Gabrielle M. Csicsery� 1145 Garden Lane Lafayette,California,94549 stwal ' L-�j ele,6 In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California March 7 19 22 In the Matter of Complaint from Danville resident regarding county trapping program. A copy of a letter to the County Agricultural Commissioner having been received from Mr. and Mrs. Jack Tan Zanten, 100 Oak View Terrace, Danville, registering a complaint with respect to the county trapping program and suggesting that wild predators be live trapped, transported to a wilderness area 4nd released; On motion of Supervisor W. N. Boggess, seconded by Supervisor J. E. Moriarty, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that said complaint is REFERRED to the County Ag:-icultural Commissioner for reply to Mr . and Mrs . Van Zanten. 'rhe foregoing order was passed by the following vote : AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, J. E. Moriarty, W. N. Boggess , E. A. Linscheid. NOES: None . ABSENT: Mone. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc: Agricultural Com. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Administrator Supervisors affixed this th day of March , 19 72 W. L PAASCH, Clerk By '"Il�l�.ty iC 6u G Deputy Clerk Lourette Kincaid H 24 11/71 10M 100 Oak View Terrace Danville, Calif. 94526 Feb. 269 1972 Mr. :;rt Seeley FREIVED County :gricultureil Commissioner 1 - 197$Buchanan Fi ld, Concord PAASQM - Domv D _r Mr. Seeley: , e iiave long been c3ncerne;1 kith preserving and protecting the diminishing wildlife of Contra Costa C-unty. long overdae Ips Gary Bogue's column in the _�.�..:;.. Contra Gosta limes, describing the trsp-ing program carried on in our county for the benefit of the sheep. reanchers. The real culprit in sheep killing are large dols, _­:llowed to roam, not the native wild predators., We would like to suggest that if it is discovered that a :gild predator is causing, a real problem, the animal should be live-trapped, not killed, and transported to a wilderness area and released. We wo-..tld also- encourage a. vigorous approach to control the growing number of :llo►:ed to roam free, as they are not only a threat to ranchers, but are responsible for killing off much of the wildlife in our open areas. Sincerely yours, c.c. : Board of Supervisors, Contrp Costa County t' 521 San Gabriel Court Pleasanton, CA 94,566 March 7, 1972 E Board of Supervisors ►.a� uper.i 1A . R -19 2 Alameda County W. T. P A A S G H 1221 Oak ;C? £KY ECJ Ro OF, SUPE;tVIS0RfJ Oakland', �/"�r_0Q 41 RA Oakland, California Cy� Gentlemen: As a native Californian who has seen a rapid in- crease in the population and development of this state, I am increasingly concerned with the affect on the wild life of California. I as particularly concerned that Alameda and Contra Costa Counties are subsidising a Predator Control Agent to protect the interest of the people waged in the raising of livestock in these counties. As a resident of Pleasanton who keep@ fairly current on the local some,, I know for a fact that such of the livestock that is injured or killed is the result of domestic animals being turned lose without proper supervision and care - and not the victims of wild life. I encourage you to re-evaluate your position relative to the hiring of the Predator Control Agent, and recosimeod that the funds instead be transferred to the Animal Control Agency in the respective counties. Let's preserve some of our natural heritage in California! Sincerely yours, _ _ at a__� I :-�),_-tCL_ Alan J. Dutra AJD/J6 ca: Board of Supervisors Contra Costa Counts Adm4nistration Building Martinez, California U June 12, 1974 RE CE -vr' "Mrs. J. Russell Clerk of the Board J o•ssodA Board of Supervisors cur:: COAP0, o su?t;Zv;sos ,�� n co. Administration Building F. o'p` � ..a-nes P.O. Box 911 Martinez, Calif. 9 +553 Dear Mrs. Russell, I have a petition relevant to the study and report of the Animal Control Ordinance . I understand that the Board of Supervisors are looking over the report now, and I would appreciate it if you would copy and make available to each one of them mar enclosed letter and petition. I would also appreciate being informed on the date and time that this Ordinance will come up fora Public Hearing. If possible, I would like o request a my letter to them be read as an "Extra Item" o fro what I understand "Orally" at the Public Hearing. ( �.aA-. ,� �c I would appreciate this and any other information you can give me. If there are any questions, I can be reached at 376-6861. Thank you . Respectfully Yours, i Mrs. William Ray 1100 Larch Avenue Moraga, Calif. 9+556 <s f .SrJs'CIAL r.;:?;:hT, GOtiTR:: FW OOiE RVORT A meeting of tho Special Pn3ma1 Cont-ol Roview Committee was hold on Thursday, lJune 6, 1971+, at which the retions of all sub-comoitteos wero presented and roviewed. The folloWng-recommendationswere approved by the Committee and are submitted to the Board of Supervisors for review and appropriate action. , j 1. The County should I=ediate3v proceed to remodel the euthanasia chambers ' to comply with State law. S&udies reveal that other methods are too . costly and/or impractical. (Comment: money has been appropriated.) i 2. The Committee recommends a leash law for dogs. *Exceptions 'will be made for working doss, such as sheep dogs, and for dogs ,attending obedience i s classes. - Obedience classes will issue appropriate.identification cards. ' ! i This 2dash law would repeal the "at large"-definition which now exists , 1 ; in the 'Ordinance. r 3. Ranchers should have p.-I a responsibility for protecting their livestock. Animal Control will respond only when practical or when an Animal Control - + Officer observes a dog harassing cattlein which case he should get out + and shoot'the dog. .':. 4. Suggestion forms will be made available to Animal-Control employees enabling them to express their concerns regarding policies and operational procedures. 5• A Lost and Found Card File should not be kept by Animal Control. Telephone identification of an anima7.'is inefficient and impractical. Owners will continue to benotified if tho aaiaal is identifiable by license, name : and address tag, etc. • ' ' 6. Livestock- with the exception of oatruble, should be held for sale by sealed • bid after being held therequired amount of time: The li-vostock is to be t dispi�d regularly on.'"hurefty, and;sold by sealed.bid. 7. The bolding period for unli:ensed. animals shall:..remain.at 72 hours. -Thin 1� ! applies to dogs only. ' 8. County 0--,%inane should limit the number of cats and dogs per residence, ; with t:,e exception of special licensed facilities. ; 9. The County should increase the availabillityof low cost rabios clinics because of State requirements regarding rabies vaccination prior to licensing. s ; ' Low cost rabies olin:cs should also be available in -the area 'of .each Animal Control Center at least once' a month, March through December. ` 10. There should be a fiscal and calendar year licensing program. j 11. The dp license fee Rhould be increased to six-dollars (66) for unneutered ' dogs, and three dollars ($3) for neutered dogs. i 12. License tags should be distributed at the rabies ofinics. s � 33. A door-to-door-licensing program should be established.if the program• ' would be self-supporting, educational and "soft-sen".- 14'. soft-sell.";14'. Animal--Control should issue license tags. Section 30806 of the State- Agricultural Code reads "In-.any county that does not have an'Animal ;. Control Department, the county cleric shall perform the functions : •- assigned to.the county animal Control Department." , ! 33. The Committee recommends cat registration which could be handled in the : same manner as dog licensing, with a fee of four dollars (84) for un- .neutered cats; and two dollars (62) for neutered cats. Die cat would be � jafforded the same benefits that kpp?y to the licensed dog. Cat registra- tion would be contingent upon a door-to-door licensing -enforcement program. Recomverdations from the Board-appointed Animal Spay Clinic Study Committee . ` are submitted for the cat rogisLration program .(Item 14, report dated August 22, 39734 i 31. Material of an educational nat•.zre dealing with tho animal over pops2ation ` problem (a problem that tre County deals. with) be allowed to be displayed on County bullotin boards subject to the approval of each department head. • 32. The County Department of Agriculture shall train one VertebrAte Pest Contro3man.in the skill of .predator control for the purpose of taking target animals (coyote) when there is a proven depredation to livestock. This motion supports that recommendation made by Mr. A. L. Seeley on April- 2,5,, 1973, to the Board of Sapervisors on the subject of Predatory Animal Control and Squirrel Eradication Program. 33. Present kennel superv.Lsion to prevent dog fights is'adequate. The only other possibility would be to provide one run per animal which is not practical. , 3 34. The •County Health Department request the State .Health Department to modify the California Administrative Code Title 17, Section 2606b(3).to eliminate the isolation of biting dogs that have been properly vaccinated or, at i least, give the local Health DepartmEnt discretion as to whether or not such vaccinated dogs shall be routinely isolated. . - € . - 35. The County Health Department should reimburse Animal Control -for rabies _ control activities. ' 36. .Because it is a necessity that 'Ani-aal Control Officers carry firearms, the Committee recommends a psychological testing system and a one-year probationary period be instituted for Animal Control Officers and Kennelman. It should further be required that Animal Control Officers ( be adequately trained in the use of their firearms. 37. The use of County vehicles for travel to and from the Animal Control Center by officers be discontinued in an effort to offset increased # costs of the service. An exception would be made for on-call personnel. 38. The-Ciri.l Service Department-screen clerical applicants'as to their will- ingness to work for Anima! Control, perhaps by a "box" to be checked on the application form. The eerti.fication listi.will then have only pre- screened applicants. ' ! 39. A system should be initiated so clerical personnel at the centers can easily determine what.type of animals are being kept. It is suggested that.a chalk board list an ma' s such as dogs, cats, sheep, goats, horses, etc. Opposite the animal's type would be a.check mark after yes or no to • indicate if this type of aninal•is,being held. 40. No action should be taken to change .e)dsti.ng law which prohibits guide dogs being trainedin from entering restaurants, bowling 'a3leys, etc. A guide dog trainer was contacted an. stated that. t is not n:,cessary for the yo_ng dog at'this period of training 'to 3e in such public places. 41.• The matter of a toll free'line should be referred to the County Administra- torts Office to answer in the same manner that they handled a recent similar request. ' 42 Coanty personnel should work with the Courts to establish uniform fines and , forfeitures for at-large and�license:violations. , The County Animal Control Ordinance should be amended.to allow cities to contract with Animal Control -for increased services and for►enforcement o . _ stricter local regulations which may be adopted by individual cities. 4/4. The following actions should be taken to improve the Animal Control public image and the community relations aspect as a means of effecting greater compliance with ani-^ J control regulations: a. request the County Public Relations officer to develop a public • information program to increase pi:blic understanding of the Animal Control function; i .5' CIAL ::?r:ld, CJiyTR:;', REVIVI-I C01•2-aTTFF RgPORT ! A meeting of the Special fizimal Control Review Committee was hold an Thursday, j ± June 6, 1974, at which the recommendations of all sub-committees were presented - `( 'r and reviewed. The following recommendations were approved by the Committee and are submitted to ; = the Board of Supervisors for review and appropriate action. , t j 1. The County should i: ediately_proceed to remodel the euthanasia chambers to comply with State law. Studies reveal that other methods are too . costly and/or impractical. (Comment. money has been appropriated.) i 2. The Committee reco.—muends a leash law for dogs. ,Exceptions will be made t for working dogs, such as sheep dogs, and for dogs attending obedience classes. Obedience classes will issue appropriate identification cards. This ldash law would repeal the "at large" .definition which now exists + in the Ordinance. 1 3. Ranchers should have prime responsibility for protecting their livestock. Animal Control will respond only when practical or when an Animal Control Officer observes a dog harassing cattle, in'which case he should get out { and shoot-the dog. _... , li 4. Suggestion forms will be'made available to Animal.-Control employees enabling them to .express their concerns regarding policies and operational procedures. ' '• 5. A Lost and Found Card File should not be kept by Animal Control. Telephone ' identification of an animal•is inefficient and impractical. Owners will ( continue to be notified if the animal is identifiable by license, name f and address tag, etc. 6. Livestock,_ with the exception of cattle, should be held for sale by sealed . bid aft&: being held the reeuired amount of time. The livestock is to be displayed regularly on Thursday, and•sold by sealed bid. . 7. The holding period for unlisensed, ani-0 s shall•..remain.at 72 hours. -This i apples to dogs only. } S. County Ordinance should limit the number of cats and dogs per residence, with t:le exception of special licensed facilities. ; 9. The County should increase the avai•laW'6ity�of low cost rabies.clinics i because of State requirements regarding rabies vaccination prior to licensing. Low cost rabies clinics should also be available in -the area of -each Animal Control Center -at least onea' a month, March through December. ` 10. There should be a fiscal and calendar year licensing program. ll. The dpg'license fee should be increased to six-dollars (66) for unneuterod ' dogs, and three dollars ($3) for neatered dogs. : • 12. License tags should be distribated at the rabies clinics. 1• 13. A door-to-door-licensing program should be established if the program.* would be self-supporting, educational and "soft-sell". ik. - Anibal•-•Control should issue license tags. Section 30806 of the State Agricultural -Code reads "In..any county that does not have an Animal Control Department, the county cleric shall perform the functions assigned to the county Anizal Control Department." i •3,5. The Committee recommends cat registration which could be handled in the : same manner'as dog licensing, with a fee of four dollars ($l,•) for un- . neutered cats; and two dollars ($2) for neutered cats. The cat would be , afforded the s=e benefits that apply to the licensed dog. Cat registra- tion world be contingent upon a door-to-door licensing enforcement program. Recommendations from tae Boaz•d-appointed Animal Spay Clinic study Cowdttee are submitted for the cat rem str.:tien program (item ,f4i report dated lfagust 22, 1973,1 ' t 16. If cat registration is NOT enacted, the only cats that should be hold for . (. j 72 hours are those that are wearing identification, appear well cared for, appear owned, and those cats caught in cat traps. t - 17. The County should establish a self-support ir; County maintained low cost spay and neuter clinic. The Bcard of R,:rcn-iftors shot--Id rake a fig effort (with a deadline)- to meet with private veterinarians to try to develop a spay/neuter program utilizing the services of private veterin- jarians. The agreement with the veterinarians should be renewable yearly.. Fee charges should be low enough to indicate a public service, but such that they would insure the co-operating veterinarians a reasonable profit. All this to continue while =ambers of a private group work to obtain funds ' to establish a lois cost spay/neuter clinic as agreed to previously by the Board of Supervisors. . 18. lhien a dog is on his owner's-property, but not under control (the owner is nearby, but not visible), a warning notice should be issued. If them is reason to believe the animal has caused a disturbance, is a problem dog, or will become a problem, a citation -should be-issued. . 19, The Azd mal Control Centers should be open on Sundays. If the Centers are-rot open on Sundays and holidays, these* - days should not be counted in the holding time,but the daily fee shall be • -included in the impound charges. . 20. Establish an ordinance restricting the holding and keeping of exotic animals. Limits should be'placed on the keeping of exotic animals. Animal Control ' {' should be responsible for the:-enforcement of the ordinance. 21. -The Board should consider the possibility of a 10-hour per day, /-day work week ship't. If approved, it is recommended that adequate staffing be pro- vided to allow for improved coverage. 22. There should be no change in present procedure that animals impounded by law enforcement agencies shall be taken to the Animal Control Centers. This _ would apply to .all police agencies who impound animals for whatever reason. The impound fee should be paid by the owner of the animal. The Committee sees no practical alternative. 23. Improved communications between Animal Control and tha public should be party of the licensing program. ' 24. Publicity iaould be most effective if it a phasized such areas as the advantages of a neutered pet, responsible pet care, functions of Animal Control and the citizen's responsibility. '25. An education program should be provided to the general public and elementary s^hool children and one full time representative.-from'Animal Control should carryon the program. 26. Animal Control should accept and screen all calls regarding wild animals and provide advice, 'and should respond in emergencies. (Danger to-human ''• life, or if an aniz-al is suffering.) V. The cat trap use information form should state that "cat traps" are not to be used for trapping wildlife and that wildlife accidentally caught will be the responsibility.of the citizen using the trap. . It is also the respon- sibility of the citizen to release or dispose of the animal. By signing the-loan form, the citizen accepts:this responsibility. 28. Cities wanting to .provide night- deposit cages at vdrious locations within ' their city be responsible for buying, mai.ntai ni ng and cleaning those cages, and properly caring for the mals -confined therein. Animal Control will make pickups during normal working hours. 29. Animal Control should continue to respond on a high priority basis to calls regarding aminal packs in areas where people may be endangered. 30. Penalty fees should be revised as follows: the second offense fee, $8; the third offense feu, $16; the fourth offense fee, $24. (Comment: • there is no penalty foe for the first offense.) 31. Material of an education&l nato.re dealing ielth the animal over-popu?ation ` problem (a problem that the County deals. with) be allowed to be displayed on County bullotin boards subject to the approval of each department head.. • 32. The County Department of agriculture shall train one VertebrAte Pest, _ Controlman in the skill of predator control for the purpose of taking target gni-leis (coyote) whenthere is a proven depredation to livestock. This motion supports that recommendation made by Z:r. A. L. Seeley on April 25, 1973, to the Board of Supervisors on the subject of Predatory Animal Control and Squirrel Eradication Program. 33. Present kennel supervision to prevent dog fights is'adequate. The only other possibility would be to provide one run per animal which is not practical. 34. The County Health Departmentrequest the State Health Department to modify the California Administrative Code Title •17, Section 2606b(3) to eliminate the isolation of biting dogs that have been properly vaccinated or, at least, give the local health DepartWent discretion as to whether or not such vaccinated dogs shall be routinely isolated. . _ 35. The County Health Department should reibburse Animal Control -for rabies i control activities. 36. .Because it is a necessity that Arial Control Officers carry firearms, ` - the Comittee recommends a psychological testing system and a one-year probationary period be instituted for Animal Control Officers and Kennelman. It should further be required that Animal Control Officers be adequately trained in ;,he use of their firearms. .37. The use of County vehicles for travel to and from the Animal Control Center by officers be discontinued in an effort to offset increased costs of the service. An exception would be made for on-call personnel. 38. The-Ci,.dl Service Depart.:.ent-screen clerical applicants'as to their will- ingness to work for Animal Control, perhaps by a "box" to be checked on the application form. T:e certification list-.-will then have.only pro- screened applicants. i 39. A system should be initiated so clerical personnel at the centers can easily determine what.type of animals are being kept. It is suggested that.a chalk board list aninn's such as dogs, cats, sheep, goats, horses, etc. Opposite the animal 's type w6uld be a• check mark after yes or no to indicate if this type of animal,is.being held. , l+0. No action should be taken to change .e:ast1.ng law which prohibits guide dogs being trained from entering restaurants, bowling 'alleys, etc. A guide dog trainer was contacted and s."ted than.it is not n::cessary for the yo-ng dog at'this period of trainin-7 to 3e in such public places. _ /l.• The matter of a toll free line should be referred to the County Administra- i tor':; Office to answer in the same manner that they handled a recent similar request. ` . lr2. County personnel should wort: 'w .th the Courts to establish uniform fines and • forfeitures for at-large and�licease:violations. ,. 143.J The County Animal Control Ordinance should be amended to allow cities to .v: contract with Animal Control -for increased services and for enforcement o stricter local reGalations knish may be adopted by individual cities. a 44. The following actions should be 'oaken to improve the Animal Control public image and the co*+minity relations aspect as a means of effecting greater compliance with anima] control regulations: a. request the County P'wblic Relations officer to develop a public i irfor::,tion program to increase public understanding of the Animal Control fur,ctioa; i t ' i b. provide for anon-going communitf relations training program for all Animal Control perso,- el; i c. seek funding for a training program from County appropriations, CCCJ grants and/or. ron the State through legislation,providing.special i programs in t.`iis field statewide; and !' d, encourage the League of Califonia Cities to support legislation to provide for such a trairdn- program.. ' 45. It is recommended-that two additional facilities, one in the Pittsburg � area and one in the Danville area, be constructed as, a means of increasing the field effectiveness of dial Control personnel: and as an improvement in service toa,large portion of the County population: • .. � / // � ,_. �C � jai '.' . Warren 91 .-Boggess, Chairman. Special Ani--al Control Review Committee. Dated June*ll, 1974 In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California December 24 _, 197A_ In the Matter of Report of the Administration and Finance Committee on Rec- ommendations of the Special Animal Control Review Committee. Supervisor A. M. Dias having this day presented to the Board on behalf of the Administration and Finance Committee (Supervisors Dias and E. A. Linscheid) its report on the 14 re- maining recommendations made by the Special Animal Control Review Committee with respect to its appraisal of the animal control program in Contra Costa County, (a copy of which was placed on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Board on June 11, 1974); and Supervisor Dias having reported that the Committee has now completed its review; determined that each of the remaining numbered items (2, 10, 11, 12, 143 15, 21, 30, 35, 36 (portion), 37, 38, 41 and 45) are not subject to implementation at this time as they involve major policy considerations, substantial additional costs or potential dysfunctional effect on established County personnel/operational policies; and having therefore recommended that these items be removed from further considera- tion by the Committee; and Supervisor Dias having further reported that the Committee also recommended that the County Administrator and Agricultural Commissioner-Sealer of Weights and Measures be directed to continue to monitor the animal control program and report to the Board as appropriate regarding feasibility of implementing these items; On motion of Supervisor A. M. Dias, seconded by Super- visor E. A. Linscheid, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the afore- said recommendations of the Administration and Finance Committee are APPROVED. AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, W. N. Boggess, E. • A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. DOES: done. ABSENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes or said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc : Board Committee Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Mrs-. Barbara Poppins Supervisors Agricultural Commissioner affixed this 24th day of December , 1974 County Counsel J. R. OLSSON, Clerk County Administrator By Deputy Clerk N. In aham H 24 5/74 -12.500 t 'JAMES P. KENNY, RIcHMoND • THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JAMES E_MORIARTY • IST DISTRICT CHAIRMAN ALFRED M. D11)3,SAN PABLO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY WARREN N.BOGGESS W4V DISTRICT' VICE CHAIRMAN JAMES E. MORIARTY. LAFAYETTE ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGJAMES R..OLSSON. couNTY CLERK , ROOM f03 3RD DISTRICT AND EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD WARREN N. BOGGESS. CONCORD P.O. BOX 911 MRS. GERALDINE RUSSELL ATH DISTRICT CHIEF CLERK EDMUND,A. LINSCHEID, rlTTsouRG MARTINEZ CALIFORNIA 94553 PHONE 220.3000 STN DISTRICT EXTENSION 2371 December 23, 1974 REPORT OF ' ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE COMMITTEE ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF SPECIAL ANIMAL CONTROL REVIEW COMMITTEE The Administration and Finance Committee has submitted three previous reports to the Board providing. for immediate implementa- tion or preliminary budget allocations of 32 of the 45 items recommended to be developed by the Special Animal Control Review Committee. The Committee has continued its study of the remain- ing items not acted upon by the Board. The Committee has determined that each of the remaining items involve major policy considerations, substantial additional costs or potential dysfunctional effect on established County personnel/operational policies. The following, designated by item numbers on the Special Animal Control Review Committee Report dated June 11, 1974 on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, are not subject to implementation at this time and are recommended to be removed from further consideration by the Committee: Items 2, 10, 11, 12, 14, 159 21, 30, 35, 36 (portion), 37, 38, 41, and 45. It is further recommended that the County Administrator and Agricultural Commissioner-Sealer of Weights and Measures be directed to continue to monitor the animal control program and report to the Board as appropriate regarding feasibility of implementing these items. 1. 1. E. A. LINSCHE_ or ict II Supervisor, District V t IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Report of ) the Administration and ) Finance Committee on Rec- ) December 17, 1974 ommendations of the Special ) Animal Control Review ) Committee. ) Supervisor A. M. Dias having this day presented to the Board on behalf of the Administration and Finance Committee (Supervisors Dias and E. A. Linscheid) its report on 'the 18 re- maining recommendations made by the Special Animal Control Review Committee with respect to .its appraisal of the animal control program in Contra Costa County; and Supervisor Dias having stated that the Committee has completed its review and recommends the following: 1. Items requiring significant additional cost suggested for funding in the budget for the . fiscal year 1975-1976: Items 9, 13, 17, 19 and 25. It is recommended in these cases that staff be directed to include necessary funds in the proposed budget. 2. Items requiring further staff analysis or long range policy consideration suggested for further study by the Board: Items 2, 10, 11, 123 14, 15, 212 30, 35, 36 (portion) , 37, 38, and 41. These items remain with Committee and staff for recommendations at a later date; and Supervisor Dias having- stated also that his Committee has been informed that the Animal SPAY Clinic Study Committee has re-evaluated the proposed county operated spay clinic facility (Item No. 17), determined that equipment costs are less than orig- inally projected, that the spay clinic should be situated initially at the Martinez Animal Control Center only, and that a later study of the program experience at the Martinez Center will provide information needed by the Board prior to considering establish- ment of an additional facility at the Pinole Center where develop- ment costs are considerably higher; and, in connection with this matter, the Committee recommends that the Agricultural Commissioner be directed to prepare a report showing estimated operational costs, staffing pattern, . projected workload, and revenue from spay services provided, including a suggested fee schedule; and On motion of Supervisor A. M. Dias, seconded by Super- visor E. A. Linscheid, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendations of the Administration and Finance Committee are APPROVED. AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J. E. ;.i 0 r i a r1-1 Y . NOES: None . CERTIFIED COPY ABSENT: None. I certify that this is a full. true & correct copy of the original document-which is on file in my office. and that it was passed R adopted•by the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costs County. California. on cc : Board Committee the date shown. ATTEST: J. R. OLSSO\, County Mrs . Barbara Poppins Clerk & ex-officio Clerk of Said Board of supervisors. Agricultural Commissioner by Deputy Clerk. County Administrator '/ � _. on DEC 17 1974 • THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JAMES P. KENNY, RICHMOND JAMES E.MORIARTY tST DISTRICT CHAIRMAN ALFRED M.DIAS.SAN PAI3LO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY WARREN N. BOGGESS 2ND DIST.IICT VICE CHAIRMAN JAMES E. MORIARTY. LAFAYETTE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, ROOM 103 JAMES R.OLSSON, COUNTY cuum 3RD DISTRICT AND E% OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD WARREN N. BOGGE55, coNcortD P.O. BOX 911RECET USSELL 4TH DISTRICT C EDMUND A. LINSCHEI D, PITTSBURG MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553 P 3 STH DISTRICT EXTENSION 71 DEC /11974 01 O� OF wFERV=n Ic FINAL REPORT OF ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE COMMITTEE ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF SPECIAL ANIMAL CONTROL REVIEW COMMITTEE The Administration and Finance Committee has carefully reviewed all 45 recommendations of the Special Animal Control Review Committee. Committee reports were submitted to the Hoard on October 15, 1974 and October 28, 1974. These reports recom- mended that 10 of the 45 items be acknowledged by the Hoard as previously accomplished and that implementation proceed with respect to an additional 17 items determined to provide improved public services at little additional cost. The Committee has now completed its review and recommends the following with reference to the Special Animal Control Review Committee report dated June 11, 1974 on file. with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors: 1. Items requiring significant additional cost suggested for funding in the budget for the fiscal year 1975-1976: Items 9, 13, 17, 19 and 25. It is recommended in these cases that staff be directed to include necessary funds in the proposed budget. 2. Items requiring further staff analysis or long range policy consideration suggested for further study by the Board: Items 2, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15,._ 210 300, 351 36 (portion)' , 38, and 41. J , 01 �i Committee determinations on the items recoaunended by the Special Animal Control Review Committee have been difficult. It is apparent that the Review Committee conducted a .thorough investigation of present animal control facilities and procedures and needs. The recommended actions, the Committee believes, recognize the need for strengthened annual control services but also the financial constraints necessary in all county programs. 2. The Committee has been informed that the Animal SPAY Clinic Study Committee has re-evaluated the proposed county operated spay clinic facility (Item no. 17 above recommended to be included for funding in the County Administrator' s proposed budget) and deter- mined that equipment costs are less than originally projected, and that the spay clinic should be situated initially at the Martinez Animal Control Center only. Later study of the program experience at the Martinez Center will provide information needed by the Board prior to considering establishment of an additional facility at the Pinole Center where development costs are considerably higher. In connection with recommendation no. 17 it is also recom- mended that the Agricultural Commissioner be directed to prepare a report showing estimated operational costs, staffing pattern, projected workload, and revenue from spay services provided including a suggested fee schedule. Several county offices and departments are involved in imple- menting the items included in the recommendations of the Committee. The Agricultural Commissioner-Sealer of Weights and Measures and the County Administrator understand that they are to follow through to see that required actions are taken. DIAS E. A. LINSCHEID Supery rict II Supervisor, District V In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California November 6 19 74 In the Matter of Dissolution of the Special Animal Control Review Committee . The Board on February 13, 1973 having established a Special Animal Control Review Committee, and having approved the composition thereof on June 5, 1973; and Supervisor W. N. Boggess, Chairman of the Special Review Committee, having this day reported that said committee has completed the task for which it was established, and having recommended that it be dissolved and that Supervisor J. E. Moriarty, Chairman, be authorized to execute Certificates of Appreciation to all members for their extended and commendable participation; On motion of Supervisor Boggess, seconded by Supervisor J. P. Kenny, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid recommenda- tion is APPROVED. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote : AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, W. N. Boggess, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: Supervisors A. M. Dias, E. A. Linscheid . I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc : Supervisor W. N. Boggess Witness my hand and the Sea[ of the Board of Agricultural Commissioner Supervisors Public Works Department affixed this 6th day of November , 19 74. Planning Department Clerk &I.eL- County J. R. OLSSON, Clerk Distract Attorney By Vera Nelson Deputy Clerk County Counsel H 24 sn4 -12,500 County Health Department County Sheriff-Coroner County Administrator IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the clatter of Progress Report ) of Administration and Finance ) Committee on Recommendations of ) October 28, 19�4 the Special Animal Control Review ) : Committee . ) The Board on September 30, 1974 having referred to -its Administration and Finance Committee (Supervisors A. M. Dias and E. A. Linscheid) the recommendations of the Special Animal Control Review Committee with respect to its appraisal of the animal con- trol program in Contra Costa County; and The Board on October 15, 19�4 having approved the request of the Administration and Finance Committee to continue its study of the remaining 35 recommendations of the Special Animal. Control Review Committee for an additional two weeks; and The Board Com-riittee having this day submitted a progress report on said matter r@corApnding that the following tems, which were included in said Review Committee report, (a copy of which was placed on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Board on June 11 , 19�4) be promptly implemented : 4, 6 (Ordinance Code amend- ment may be requiredT; 7; 48--(-County--Plannin Director to review: for report), 16, 18, 20 (new ordinance raquiredl, 22, 23, 24, 28, 31 , 34 (possible interpretation of State Health Department regulations needed), 39, 42, 3, and 44; and The Board Corm. i ttee having further recommended that the appropriate county departments be directed to take the necessary action to carry out the aforesaid recommendations (including prepara- tion of proposed Ordinance Code amendments or new Ordinance Code provisions ) and that progress reports regarding these matters be submitted to the County Administrator for review and report; and Supervisor Dias, on behalf of the Administration and Finance Committee, having requested additional time to report on the 18 remaining recommendations of the Special Animal Control Review Committee which require significant costs, further staff analysis or are long-range policy matters; On notion of Suaervisor Dias , seconded by Supervisor Linscheid, IT IS BY THE- 30-4-RD ORDERED that the aforesaid recommenda- tions and request are APPROVED. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote : A=S: Supervisors J. P . Kenny, A. X. Dias, E. A. Linscheid, W. N. Boggess . "'TOES: None . aBS.��IT: .Sup-arvi 3or J. E. "ori ar y- c c : Board Committee CERTIFIED COPY Supervisor W. N. Boggess I certify that this is a full. true & correct copy of Agricultural Corr-missioner the or;=:nal i!aeument which is on file in ray office. COU11t Counsel n-d thst is gra: Fc :ulop.-ed b; - the Bnard of SupervL-rn r':' Cyr Contra Costa Coant;, C_'.i:or.:a. os County Administrator the (late ATTEz-T: J. R. OLS30\. County Clerk .°:es-officio Clerk of said Board of Superrisors. Director of Planning by Deputy Clerk. County Clerk iz � c /1� ��117� Acting County Health Officer // all � Public Information Officer THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JAMES P. KENNY, RICHMOND JAMES E.MORIARTY IST DISTRICT CHAIRMAN ALFRED M.DIAS,SAN PABLO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY WARREN N. BOGGESS 2ND DISTRICT VICE CHAIRMAM JAMES E. MORIARTY. LAFAYETT6 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, ROOM 103 JAMES R. OLSSON. WuK NT►CLER 3RD DISTRICT AND EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD WARREN N. BOGGESS. CONCORD P.O. BOX 911 MRS. GERALDINE RUSSELL 4TH DISTRICT MARTINEZ. CALIFORNIA 94553 CHIEF CLERK EDMUND A. LINSCHEID, PITT59URG PHONE 229.3000 STN DISTRICT EXTENSION 237t i RECEIVED �w October 28, 1974 GCTaf 1974 REPORT J. R. OLSSON OF CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CO i COSTA CO. ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE COMMITT ------- B - -� - ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF SPECIAL ANDiLAL CONTROL REVIEW COMMITTEE On October 15, 1974 the Administration and Finance Committee submitted a report to the Board regarding recommendations of the Special Animal Control Review Committee. That report recommended that ten of the 45 items in the Review Committee report be acknowledged as having been accomplished. The Administration and Finance Committee requested an additional two weeks for continued study of the remaining 35 recommendations of the Review Committee. Based on intensive study of the remaining items, the following 17 items have been determined to provide improved public service, entail little or no additional costs and are recommended for prompt implementation pending completion of necessary action by appropriate county staff: - Items 4, 6 (Ordinance Code amendment may be required), 7, 8 (County Planning Director to review for report), 16, 18 20 (new ordinance required), 22, 23, 24, 28, 31, 34 (possible interpretation of State Health Department regulations . needed), 39, 42, 43, and 44. The recommended actions identified above will require implementation action by certain county departments, including discussions with outside governmental agencies and community groups and preparation of proposed Ordinance Code amendments or new Ordinance Code provisions. The Committee further recommends that such county staff be directed to take necessary action to carry out recommendations identified above and that progress reports regarding these matters, as necessary, be submitted to the County Administrator for his review and report as may be appropriate to the Board. 2• Of the total 45 items initially recommended by the Special. Animal Control Committee, 18- items remain for study and report by the Committee. Each of the 18 items will require significant additional costs, further staff analysis or are long range policy matters. It is anticipated that the Committee will make a -tz- report on this subject shortly• yrt sem' _ • M. DIAS E. k. LINSCHEID Superv � str� ctI Supervisor, District V II IJ � l l IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Progress Report ) of Administration and Finance ) Committee on Recommendations of ) October 15, 1974 the Special Animal Control Review ) Committee. ) The Board on September 30, 197h having referred to its Administration and Finance Committee (Supervisors A . M. Dias and E. A. Linscheid) the recommendations of the Special Animal Control Review Committee with respect to its appraisal 'of the animal con- trol program in Contra Costa County; and Supervisor Dias and Supervisor J. E. Moriarty, serving in the absence of Supervisor Linscheid, having this day submitted a - progress report on said matter advising that the Administration and Finance Committee members had met with the County Administrator to review the h5 recommendations of the Special Animal Control Review Committee and had determined: (1) those items which support existing activities and require no further Board action; (2) those items which entail little or no additional costs and are endorsed by staff for immediate implementation; (3) those items which include significant additional costs to be considered for funding in the fiscal year 1975-1976 budget; and (4) those items which will require further staff analysis or are major policy issues which are appropriately deferred for further study by the Board; and The Board Committee having recommended that Items 1, 3, 52 26, 27, 29, 32, 33, portion of 36 and 40, which were included in said Review Committee report, (a copy of which was placed on file in the Office of the Cleric of the Board on June 11, 1974) be acknowl- edged as having been previously accomplished; and The Board Committee having further recommended that the Public Works Director be requested to review the revised cost estimate of the Animal Spay Clinic Study Conmittee with regard to the provision of a facility and equipment for a county-operated low-cost spay and neuter clinic and submit a cost and feasibility report to the Adminis- tration and Finance Committee on said estimate; and Supervisor Dias, on behalf of the Administration and Finance Committee, having requested an additional two weeks for continued study of the remaining: 35 recommendations of the S-pecial Animal Con- trol Review Committee i-faich require action by the Board; On motion of Supervisor A. M. Diss, seconded by Super- visor.r J. P . ?'ennv IT IS ORDERED that the a.forasaid recomnendati ons and request are APPROVED. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, 1-1. N. Boggess, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: Supervisor E. A. Linscheid._ 3 e rtifr ti-at :+:{• cc. Administration and Finance Committee the "': '• "t copy and t!•.,t is -., off;•. Mrs . Patricia Sippel Supervisor Boggess t;e�:'';`^�f;;^.:. '.`'.; Agricultural Commissioner by t:, M'-_st! �:�=. is or County Counsel `/, .• UC� County Administrator ._Ion! r � THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS \ JAMES P. KENNY, alcxMONo • JAMES E.MORIARTY IST DISTRICT CHAIRMAN ALFRED M.DIAS.SAN PABLO CONTRA, COSTA COUNTY WARREN N.BOGGESS 2ND�DISTRICT - VICE CHAIRMAN JAMES E. MORIARTY, LAFAYETTE ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGROOM 103 JAMES R. OLSSON, COUNTY CLERK , 3RD DISTRICT AND EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE■OARD WARREN N. BOGGESS. CONCORD P.O. BOX 911 MRS. GERALDINE RUSSELL 4TH DISTRICT CHIEF CLERK EDMUND A. LINSCHEID, PITTSBURG MARTINEZ. CALIFORNIA 94553 PHONE 228-3000 STH DISTRICT EXTENSION 2371 I � October 15, 1974 REPORT OF ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE COMMITTEE ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPECIAL ANIMAL CONTROL REVIEW COMMITTEE On September 30, 1974 the recommendations of the Special Animal Control Review Committee and testimony received by the Board regarding these recommendations at hearings held on July 23, 1974 and. September 30, 1974 were referred to the Administration and Finance Committee for review with a suggestion that a progress report be submitted by the October 15, 1974 regular Board meeting. The Committee has met with the County Administrator to review the 45 recommendations by the Special Animal Control Review Committee to determine: (1) those items which support existing activities and require no further Board action; (2) those items which entail little or no additional costs and are endorsed by staff for immediate implementation; (3) those items which indlude significant additional costs to be considered for funding in the fiscal year 1975-1976 budget; and (4) those items which will require further staff analysis or are major policy issues which are appropriately deferred for further study by the Board. The following numbered items included in the report made by the Special Animal Control Review Committee noted in category (1) above are recommended to be acknowledged by the Board as previously accomplished: Items 1, 3, 5, 26, 27, 29, 32, 33, portion of 36 and 40. The Committee requests an additional two weeks for continued study of the remaining 35 recommendations of the Special Animal Control Review Committee which require action by the Board. RECEIVED 0CT15' 1974 J. s a s,�Rs I z. It should be noted that the Animal Spay Clinic Study Committee has submitted a revised cost estimate to provide facility and equip- ment for a county operated low cost spay and neuter clinic. Along this line, it is further recommended that the Board direct the Public Works Director to review this matter and to provide a cost and feasibility report to the Administration and Finance Committee regarding the recommendation made by the Animal Spay Clinic Study Committee in order that early action .may be taken regarding pro- vision of a county operated low cost spay and .neuter clinic. � i�✓�� M. D /-J. E. MORIARTY Supe or, District I Supervisor, District III • 1 ; �` Ir To: Poard of Supervisors, Contra Costa Count RECEIVED Ys Administration Building, Martinezp Califor_ ; OrCT M (": J.Gentlemen, Ct.:r.�: CCA!D 0.- Referring :Referring to the animal meeting on Monday, Sept. 30. E in which th time lii:v.t ran out for me to be heard, may I mention a few items which I believe will be quite beneficial: 1) . The controversial issue of financing the further operation of the ani- mal execution centers has P.n extremely simple solution - so simple and ele- mentary that it is appalling that NOBODY seems to have thought of it before: C1i.ARGLO:1 THE E �U-'IC2TS: : Ihen '_ip: a to PAY for its people trill think tvrice before having their once beloved pet executed. The number of animals will drop, an expansion of tLAe execution centers will not even be necessary - and of course additional revenue --ill be gained. Any services, such as bts transportations water and electrical utilities atc.9 have to be paid for; why should animal executions be free and exempt therefrom?? 21 . The controversial "leash law" should be applied outside the owner' s pro- perty for the pet' s own protection. Alt'sough there already IS a law that pets have to be under control at all times, it is too frequently overlooked. Animals running loose too frequently become victims of traffic accidents or even gunshots, if irate farmers shoot them when they attack livestock. Of course there should be no "leash law" applied 71UHIIT the owner's proper- ty if a fence, pen etc. provides the necessary control. . 3) Animal license requirements should be limited to animals OUTSIDE their ovrner' s property, similar to automobile license requirements: if an automo- bile is stored on the o;nzier' s property, no license is required - and so Shou1Q O� QoQ s' 1? -trey stay Oil a1 _.:m- ' � n .~'J• controversial - and expensive - animal birth control problem has a ridiculously simple solution - so elementary that it is incredible NOBODY has thought of it: S&AMW:: This is the 8i*mplest asiest and cheape& method of birth controlp it is 1001, effective and does not cost the owner a single penny: dust keep the female confined, and there will be NO puppies or kittens: : Of course the veterinarians do not like this because of the reduction in their income. . . . * None of my dogs and cats is :mutilated - and I had no puppies or kittens for 8 years: : : 51. The number of animals to be :sept . should be left to the owner, as long as the animals are under control and do not disturb anybody else. Who cares if the neighbor %conte to keep 10 dogs snakesq alligators - or even caaarier? 6). Any form of cat licensing xi-11 create unending new problems and is not worth the trouble. If, as has been gropoard� a collar :pith a lieease ta,g . similar to the present dog tags is used, it mould have to be of the break- av�-sy *,ype• to prevent the cat's strangulation if it should becorme caug�jt on a tree branch eta. ; but then -?re vroulc have an unidentified cat Which might be picked up as bei;g 1,tri;c;aaed. +i:k of tiLe anxiety and frustration of the owner ::ho would never '_ now whether iris pet merely is taking an extended ,vim{ or been in an accident or has been picked up: got everybody can im- Tediata'_lF rush -to the nearest 3n.-IL a1 execution center (at night?i?) , hoping to find his pet .still alive: basids *,}.i3 -roca-du^e would seriouly a±fact the op a. atora' time. . . . and the cat, if stili ;live, is litisly to be pregnant or inspected with fleas or worse from the other inmates of the execution cen- ter. Those cat (Y.mers who are living P.i th only their pets for companions on a limited income would be Ceprived of ,he cats' companionship, since they cannot afford dogs because of the license cost; having nothing also worth living for, :shat are they su:Nosed to do - &ang t a. a?v'a? :men that sears to be 3a�a1. . . . . 11"r 'lack Diamond • i;,.61urg ^.alit. 2155 Elderwood Drive /- •, �, Martinez, California 94553 October 11, 19 RPCEIVE � Supervisors '17; Contra Costa County O V I // 1074 Administration Building 10 Martinez, California J. 10:530.1 94.553 a= WAM 0. SUPC2VIsow B -CONTRA COSTA OJ. Dear Sirs: fl I am so concerned about the subject of animal control that I am embarking on my first letter ever to a local government official. Having given my following proposals much, much thought stimulated by the public's letters to newspapers and publicized problems, as well as the numerous personal stories I hear from friends and neighbors regarding their animal control problems, I hope these thoughts will be given sincere con- sideration. I have deep concern for all animals and also for the harmony of human society, and as animal "control" is handled in Contra Costa County today all problems will increase and the harmony of human society will decrease. First, a leash law should be strictly enforced. I see the conflicts created between people who refuse to believe their own pets are responsible for some neighborhood problem concerning the pet. I can't think of one instance when the problem was not the result of a non-existent leash law or at least an obscure one. These people need a strong law to turn to in order to settle the multitude of community problems resulting from unleashed pets. I can't believe any one of you gentlemen does not know of more than one pet problem in each of your neighborhoods which was always the result of lack of animal control. To demonstrate the importance for fairness to all I would dip deep into my potters of understanding and maybe shed a tear for the professional and pseudo-professional dog-trainer who argues that his/her efforts are in vain if leash laws do not permit exceptions for highly disciplined dogs. However, the minority dog-trainer should be more understanding of the problems resulting from loose dogs than to expect the majority general public to understand their so-called needs. To enforce s strict leash law the County probably should add more trucks and personnel. However, I understand the trucks are not air- conditioned and that frequently animals picked up in the Summertime arrive at the shelter dead as a result of the unbearable heat in their enclosure, or possibly dead or injured by one of the other animals. Let's not tolerate t'tls sit-aatio^_, either. St,ndy ni!z t be done to ?cgnire J_=- .roved vehicles. ac. - 2 - I The concept of having a mobile spay clinic roaming neighborhoods is the closest solution to getting people to spay their pets. And while this mobile clinic is traveling around why not also equip it to _provide for licensing pets? I find it appalling that a problem as complex as animal control should be under the leadership of someone whose primary duties must most certainly - be complex enough to require his undivided attention. I refer to the local Commissioner of the Agriculture Department. Animal control should have its own director responsible for animal control problems alone, whose concerns are, again, solely for maintaining control humanely while coordinating it with public welfare. For the present, should major changes come about some time in the future, please institute round-the-clock personnel at the shelter for the safety and well-being of all animals that are brought in at all hours. Some people stress the need for animal control officers to carry guns. This is as justifiable as allowing all private citizens to carry guns. Research may be needed but I am certain an animal control officer could be equipped with some kind of "tranquilizing" (or muscle-relaxing) apparatus which would render a vicious animal temporarily helpless. Until a better solution is derived, to cause the death (as the possible extreme consequence) of a large, attacking animal due to an allergy or overdose of something is much more sane than to equip the personnel with guns that shoot real bullets. Surely wild animal experts know of effective devices. _ There is controversy, also, over the "humane" way of exterminating the unwanted animals. Even the S.P.C.A. people refer to it as euthanasia, which means painless and humane. But I've heard horrifying reports about the results locally and elsewhere. Please, let's find another way. Research again. Let's create a panel of citizens, with no conflicting interests or pressures to review the rules and regulations which must be created but do not yet exist and meet when the need arises to adjust new situations, always as its primary goal the continued coordinated welfare of animals and people. Though not a member of S.P.A.Y. my increasing concern for this subject led me to take a look at their work. That organization had nothing to do with my independent decision to write this. Should you make the decision I feel is necessary - at least requiring and enforcing the immediate leashing of all dogs outside their fenced yards, promoting a mobile spay truck, and forming that study panel - the other problems could be worked out carefully and I'm certain you would find no better resource for advice and study than through the S.P.A.Y. organization. Its members have been involved in very thorough study and continued research on the many complexities of animal control, and not just the subject of neutering an animal. Am I to conclude from what I have seen and heard of your attitudes or lam= of them, that you consider the animal control subject a lar'_;., or at best another meaningless project involving a group of silly broads, when iL actuality people are literally taking up arms over the results of loug- standing inaction? And must I appeal to your political senses to suggest that it would be a real feather in your caps to be associated with a very successful animal control program to which the world looks for inspiration. E Si cerely,, Mrs. Patricia Sippel cc: Mr. Alfred M. Dias CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Inter - Office Memo Date: September 30, 1974 To: Administration and Finance Committee (Supervisors A. M. Dias and E. A. Linscheid) , •County Administrat From: Chief Clerk of the Board Subject: Following the hearing of the Special Animal Control Review Committee the Board today referred to you and the County Administrator for review and report the testimony pre- sented on the subject matter, including new cost figures for the SPAY Clinic, and the recommendations of the Special Animal Control Review Committee. Supervisor Moriarty suggested that you submit a progress report to the Board within the next two weeks, if possible, including recommendations on those items not requiring a large expenditure of money or entailing complicated or detailed planning, commenting that some of the recommendations could possibly be implemented immediately. ni attachments r { • IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Continued ) Hearing of Recommendations ) og the Special Animal Control ) September 30, 1974 Review Committee. ) This being the time fixed for the continued hearing on the recommendation's of the Special Animal Control Review Committee; and The following persons, some of whom submitted Hiritten statements, having appeared to speak on the recommendations and . matters related thereto: - Mr. D. G. Finigan, Public Works Director, City of Walnut Creek, having suggested that the county amend its animal control ordinance to include a provision to allow cities the option to contract with the county and pay for a higher level of animal control service than they would receive under the present system; Mr. James Hazard, Councilman, City of Walnut Creek, having advised that the City of Walnut Creek endorsed the suggestion presented by Mr. Finigan; Mr. Roy Bradley, Pleasant Hill; Ms. Mary Lumsden, member of the Special Animal Control Committee and representing Contra Costa County Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; Ms. Annette McConnell, Walnut Creek; Mr. Vernon E. Bluhm, Diablo Valley German Shepard Club; Ms. Miriam C. Wilkins, E1 Cerrito; Ms. Hedy Korpi, State Humane Officer; Ms. Jane Morgenstern, Contra Costa County Employees Association; Mr. Don Goodman, West Pittsburg; Dr. William Hand, (Veterinarian) San Mateo; Mr. Ralph D. Cozine, Valley Action Forum.- Ms. orum;Ms. Patricia Jackson Shaw, Vice President, SPAY; Mr. Rav Taylor, Nlartinez; Mrs. D. Farone, Pleasant Hill; Mrs. Judith Romley, Alamo; Ms. -Virginia Handley, "The Fund for Animals"; Ms. Arlene Spurrier, Concord; Mr. Nick Calicura, Contra Costa County Kennel Club and 'Chairman of Population Control Sub- committee of the Animal Review Control Committee; Dr. John Baier, Contra Costa County Health • Department; Ms. Stephanie Rosenthal, Walnut Creek; . Mr. Curtis Gray, Richmond; Mr. M. S. Stokely, Mt. Diablo Dog Training Club; Ms. Diana Boswik, SPAY; Mr. Kenneth Strauss, El Sobrante; Mr. K. E. Danielson, Assistant Agricultural Commissioner, having also appeared and responded to certain of the suggestions and comments; and Supervisor J. E. Moriarty having suggested that the testi- mony presented on the subject matter, including new cost figures for the SPAY Clinic, and the recommendations of the Special Animal Control Review Committee be referred to the Administration and' Finance Committee (Supervisors A. M. Dias and E. A. Linscheid) and the County Administrator for review and report; and On motion of Supervisor W. N. Boggess, seconded by Super- visor A. M. Dias, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendations of Supervisor Moriarty are APPROVED. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Supervisor Moriarty suggested that the Administration and Finance Committee submit a progress report to the Board within the next two weeks, if possible, including recommendations on those items not requiring a large expenditure of money or entailing complicated or detailed planning, commenting that some of the recommendations could possibly be implemented immediately. cc: Committee Members Supervisor W. N. Boggess Ms. Judith Rooney, Chairman, Grand Jury Mr. D. G. Finigan Countv Administrator Agricultural Commissioner County Counsel CER'T'IFIED COPY I certUr that this is 3 full, true g correct copy of the original docttment which is on file in my offle.e. zea c ac It sa.; passed & r..lopt^d ham. thix [.oard of S»p_rrisors o: Conrra Costa Con nty. California. or the date shown. ATTEST: J. R. OLSSO`, Counts Clerk& ex-officio CierS of said Board of Superrisors, by Depucy Cleric. cn SEP 3 0 1°74 r ✓ IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Hearing on ) Recommendations of the Special ) Animal Control Review Committee ) July 239 1974 This being the time fixed for hearing on the recommenda— tions of the Special Animal Control Review Committee; and Supervisor W. N. Boggess having reviewed the organizaq" tional structure and history of the aforesaid committee and having complimented its members for their dedication and efforts; and Supervisor J. E. Moriarty having announced the pro-. cedures to be followed during the hearing, and having then called upon Mr. A. L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioners for a brief statement; and The following persons having appeared to speak on the matter: CITY REPRESENTATIVES: Mr. Richard Brown, City Manager, City of E1 Cerrito Mayor Fred Kline, City of Antioch INTERESTED ORGANIZATIONS: Ms. Barbara Poppins, SPAY Mr. Dale Cook, Secretary to the Contra Costa County Kennel Club Mrs. David Crouch, SPAY Mr. Vern Bluhm, Diablo Valley German Shepard Club Mr, Thomas Johnston, California State HorsemanIs Association Mr. Nick Calicura, Contra Costa County Kennel Club George Eberhart, DVM, President of Contra Costa County Veterinary Medical Association Mr. Charles Marsh, Director of S.P.C.A. of Alameda County Mrs. Nancy Cole, Executive Director SPAY Mr. Frank Angelo, Supervising Sanitarian, Contra Costa County Health Department Mr, M. S. Stokely, Mt, Diablo Dog Training Club INTERESTED 121DIVIDUALS: Mr. James A11en, Concord Ms. Carole Strauss, El Sobrante Mr, Francis X. Kamienski, Richmond Mr. Vern Donaldson, Concord Mrs. Deirdre Katz, Concord Mr. John Fink, San Pablo; and Supervisor Boggess having recommended that the hearing be closed and that the testimony received at this hearing and the recommendations of the Special Animal- Control Review Committee be referred to a Board Committee for review; and Supervisor A. M. Dias having commended the SPAY Committee for its efforts and suggested that the entire matter be returned to the Special Review Committee for refinement of its recommendations and report to the Board, at which time. the matter might be referred to a Board committee; and Supervisor Boggess having commented that he believed the Special Review Committee had thoroughly considered all aspects of the matter, that the Board had before it the recommendations of the review committee and the testimony of the public and that the matter should stay at Board level; and Supervisor E. A . Linscheid having expressed concern that there was not enough citizen input at this hearing and that he was of the opinion that the 60 people in the audience dial not represent the views of the entire county and suggested the hearing be continued in order to provide all citizens with an opportunity to speak on the matter; and Other members of the Board having indicated agreement with the suggestion of Supervisor Linscheid, on motion of Supervisor A. M. Dias, seconded by Supervisor E. A . Linscheid, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing is continued to September 30, 1974 at 8:00 pom. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: Noneo cc: Supervisor Boggess Agricultural Commissioner County Counsel CERTIF11D Cuz' County Administrator I certify that this la a fall, true cr.-met copy of the orighm1 documFnt r'b`! Is on we In my nmcc. and that It erns passed t.: a-1-nitro l.; the E-lard of Supervisors of Conti,.,, vrz . Cot:utr cal!foro%i. on the date shown. A_1 TEST: J. ::. OLSSON. f Ianty Clerk S es•oificio Clerk cf sr id IDos.d c:Supervisors, by Deputy Clerk. IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE Or CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Acknowledging ) Receipt of the Report of the ) June 11 , 1974 Special Animal Control Review ) Committee. ) Supervisor W. N. Boggess, Chairman of the Special Animal Control Review Committee, having this day submitted to the Board a detailed report (a copy of which is on file with the Clerk of the Board ) in which recommendations of the committee are set forth with respect to its analyses of the entire animal control program in the county;- and Supervisor Boggess having recommended that a time be fixed for public hearing on the committee recommendations; and Supervisor E. A. Linscheid having noted that some of the committee recommendations had been considered by the Board in past years and had been rejected as being too costly, and having stated that in his opinion the proper procedure would be referral to the County Government Operations Committee (Supervisor Boggess and Supervisor J. P. Kenny) for review and recommendation; and Supervisor Boggess having indicated that the members of the Special Animal Control Review Committee had worked long and hard in developing their recommendations and that referral of the report to a Board committee, v ithout benefit of a public hearing, would be a disservice to the Review Committee; and Supervisor J. E. Moriarty having stated that he supported Supervisor Boggess with respect to the public hearing recommendation but that he would first like more detailed information, and there- fore he suggested that Board members be given an opportunity to review the committee report and that the matter be listed on the June 24, 1974 Board agenda for further consideration; and Supervisor A. M. Dias having stated that he too supported the public hearing recommendation and he believed also that prior to the hearing all members of the Board should review the report; and Supervisor Dias having also stated that perhaps the County Government Operations Committee might submit to the Board, prior to the hearing, its specific recommendations on the report and at the t i�ne of the hearing the Board should have clear and concise information available; and The Board members having further discussed the matter; On motion of Supervisor Linscheid, seconded by Supervisor Dias, !T 13 BY s^� 30ARD ORDERED that receipt of the Special. Aninal Control Review Committee report is acknowledged and the Clerk is :instructed to place the matter on the June 24, 1974 Board agenda for further attention. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote : AYES: Superviaors A. M. Dias, W. N. Boggess, E. A. .Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES : None . ABSENT: Supervisor J. P. Kenny. Later in the day the Board having again discussed the date for giving further attention to the aforesaid matter in view of the fact that it appeared at least one member of the Board would not be in attendance at the June 24, 1974 meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that this matter be listed on the calendar for July 2, 1974 for determination as to appropriate referral and/or hearing action. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors A. M. Dias, E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, W. N. Boggess . I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Supervisors affixed this 11th day of June, 1974- J. R . OLSSON, CLERK By. Vera Nelson Deputy Clerk cc: Board Members Agricultural Commissioner County Administrator I / It' SPECIAL ANIMAL CONTROL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT A meet�ig of the Special Animal Control Review Committee was held on Thursday, '"'"1-h�- June 6, 1974, at which the recommendations of all sub-committees were presented Qt and reviewed. The following recommendations were approved by the Committee and are submitted to the Board of Supervisors for review and appropriate action. 1. The -County should immediately proceed to remodel the euthanasia chambers to comply with State law. Studies reveal that other methods are too costly and/or impractical. (Comment: money has been appropriated.) Of 2. :The Committee recommends a leash law for dogs. Exceptions will be made for :working dogs, such as sheep dogs; and for dogs attending obedience x 2 wW' - � ` classes. Obedience classes will issue appropriate identification cards. This leash law would repeal the "at large", definition which now exists U- the Ordinance. 3. Ranchers should have prime responsibility for protecting their livestock. Ani Control will respond only when practical or when an Animal Control .Officer observes a dog 'harassing cattle, in which case he should get out x �� Nand shoot the dog. x� 4 � ° 4.. Suggestion forms will be made available to Animal Control employees ., .enabling them to express their concerns regarding policies and operational- .,Pro cedure s. perational.procedures. ..A Lost and Found Card File should not be kept by Animal Control. Telephone r identification of an animal is inefficient and impractical. Owners will continue to be notified if the animal is identifiable by license, name and address tag, etc. Livestock, with the exception of cattle, should be held for sale by sealed bid after being held the required amount of time. The livestock is to be displayed regularly on Thursday, and sold•by sealed bid. , �, t y 7. The holding period for unlicensed animals shall remain at 72 hours. This applies to dogs only. � 8. County Ordinance should limit the number of cats and dogs per residence, with the exception of special licensed facilities. Kx The County should increase the availability of low cost rabies clinics �• �� because of State requirements regarding rabies vaccination prior to licensing. Low cost rabies clinics should also be available in the area of each Animal r Control Center at least once a month March through December. , g (Cost analysis submittedZA .} ;There should be a fiscal. and calendar year licensing "program. aa 71 The dog license fee should ca increased to si_�.dollars ( 6) for unneu'tere p` dos and, three dollars W).'for neutered dogs. g , g , 12. License tags should .be distributed at the<rabaes r�l-jn,cs, n r �� page 2. 13. A door-to-door licensing program should be established if the program would be self-supporting, educational and "soft sell". 14. Animal Control should issue license tags. Section 30806 of the State Agricultural Code reads "In any county that does not have an Animal Control Department, the county clerk shall perform the functions assigned to the county Animal Control Department." 15. The Committee recommends cat registration which could be handled in the same manner as dog licensing, with a fee of four dollars ($4) for un- neutered cats, and two dollars ($2) for neutered cats. The cat would be afforded the same benefits that apply to the licensed dog. Cat registra- tion would be contingent upon a door-to-door licensing enforcement program. Recommendations from the Board-appointed Animal Spay Clinic Study Committee are submitted for the cat registration program (Item #4, report dated August 22, 1973 (Cost analysis also submitted.) 16. If cat registration is NOT enacted, the only cats that should be held for 72 hours are those that are wearing identification, appear well cared for, appear owned, and those cats caught in cat traps. 17. The County should establish a self-supporting County maintained low cost spay and neuter clinic. The Board of Supervisors should make a firm effort (with a deadline) to meet with private veterinarians to try to develop a spay/neuter program utilizing the services of private veterin- arians. The agreement with the veterinarians should be renewable yearly. Fee charges should be low enough to indicate a public service, but such that they would insure the co-operating veterinarians a reasonable profit. All this to continue while members of a private group work to obtain funds to establish a low cost spay/neuter clinic as agreed to previously by the Board of Supervisors. 18. When a dog is on his owner's property, but not under control (the owner is nearby, but not visible), a warning notice should be issued. If there is reason to believe the animsl has caused a disturbance, is a problem dog, or will become a problem, a citation should be issued. 19. The Animal Control Centers should be open on Sundays. (Cost analysis submitted If the Centers are not open on Sundays and holidays, these days should not be counted in the holding time,but the daily fee shall be included in the impound charges. 20. Establish an ordinance restricting the holding and keeping of exotic animals. Limits should be placed on the keeping of exotic animals. Animal Control should be responsible for the enforcement of the ordinance. 21. The Board should consider the possibility of a 10-hour per day, 4-day work week shift. If approved, it is recommended that adequate staffing be pro- vided to allow for improved coverage. (Cost analysis submitted.) 22. There should be no change in preser_t procedure thataninals impounded by law enforcement agencies shall be taken to t^e Animal Control Centers. This would apply to all police agencies who impound animals for whatever reason, The impound fee should be paid by the owner of the animal. The Committee sees no practical alternative. Page 3• 23. Improved communications between Animal Control and the public should be part of the licensing program. 21.. Publicity would be most effective if it emphasized such areas as the advantages of a neutered pet, responsible pet care, functions of Animal Control and the citizen's responsibility. 25. An education program should be provided to the general public and elementary school children and one full time representative from Animal Control should carry on the program. (Cost analysis submitted.) 26. Animal Control should accept and screen all calls regarding wild animals and provide advice, and should respond in emergencies. (Danger to human life, or if an animal is suffering.) 27. The cat trap use information form should state that "cat traps" are not to be used for trapping wildlife and that wildlife accidentally caught will be the responsibility of the citizen using the trap. It is also the respon- sibility of the citizen to release or dispose of the anima]. By signing the loan form, the citizen accepts this responsibility. 28. Cities wanting to provide night deposit cages at various locations within their city be responsible for buying, maintaining and cleaning those cages, and properly caring for the animals confined therein. Animal Control will make pickups during normal working hours. 29. Aminal Control should continue to respond on a high priority basis to calls regarding animal packs in areas where people may be endangered. 30. Penalty fees should be revised as follows: the second offense fee, $8; the third offense fee, $16; the fourth offense fee, $24. (Comment: there is no penalty fee for the first offense.) 31. Material of an educational nature dealing with the animal over-population problem (a problem that the County deals with) be allowed to be displayed on County bulletin boards subject to the approval of each department head. 32. The County Department of Agriculture shall train one Vertebrate Pest Controlman in the skill of predator control for the purpose of taking target animals (coyote) when there is a proven depredation to livestock. This motion supports that recommendation made by Mr. A. L. Seeley on April 252 1973, to the Board of Supervisors on the subject of Predatory Animal Control and Squirrel Eradication Program. 33. Present kennel supervision to prevent dog fights is adequate. The only other possibility would be to provide one run per animal which is not practical. 34. The County Health Department request the State Health Department to modify the California Administrative Code Title 17, Section 2606b(3) to eliminate the isolation of biting dogs that have been properly vaccinated or, at least, give the loca? Health Depart-re= ::_scration as to whether or not such vaccinated dogs shall be routinely isolated. 35. The County Health Department should reimburse Animal Control for rabies control activities. I r page 4• 36. Because it is a necessity that Animal Control Officers carry firearms, the Committee recommends a psychological testing system and a one-year probationary period be instituted for Animal Control Officers and Kennelman. It should further be required that Animal Control Officers be adequately trained in the use of their firearms. 37. The use of County vehicles for travel to and from the Animal Control Center by officers be discontinued in an effort to offset increased costs of the service. An exception would be made for on-call personnel. 38. The Civil Service Department screen clerical applicants as to their will- ingness to work for Animal Control, perhaps by a "box" to be checked on the application form. The certification list will then have only pre- screened applicants. 39. A system should be initiated so clerical personnel at the centers can easily determine what type of animals are being kept. It is suggested that a chalk board list animals such as dogs, cats, sheep, goats, horses, etc. Opposite the animal's type would be a check mark after yes or no to indicate if this type of animal is being held. 4.0. No action should be taken to change existing law which prohibits guide dogs being trained from entering restaurants, bowling alleys, etc. A guide dog trainer was contacted and stated that it is not necessary for the young dog at this period of training to be in such public places. 41. The matter of a toll free line should be referred to the County Administra- tor's Office to answer in the same manner that they handled a recent similar request. 42. County personnel should work with the Courts to establish uniform fines and forfeitures for at-large and license violations. 43. The County Animal Control Ordinance should be amended- to allow cities to contract with Animal Control for increased services and for enforcement of stricter local regulations which may be adopted by individual cities. 44. The following actions should be taken to improve the Animal Control public image and the community relations aspect as a means of effecting greater compliance with animal control regulations: a. request the County Public Relations officer to develop a public information program to increase public understanding of the Animal Control function; b. provide for an on-going community relations training program for all Animal Control personnel; c. seek funding £or a training program from County appropriations, CCU grants and/or from the State. through legislation provining special programs in this field statewide; and d. encourage the League of California Cities to support legislation to provide for such a training program. page 5. 45. It is recommended that two additional facilities, one in the Pittsburg area and one in the Danville area, be constructed as a means of increasing the field effectiveness of Animal Control personnel and as.an improvement in service to a large portion of the County po ation. Warren N. Boggess, Chairman Special Animal Control Review Committee Dated June 11, 1974 Costs Do Not Include Fringe Benefits or Equipment Costs Rabies Clinics Once A Month For 10 Months In Addition To The Present Clinics January and February $ 3,135.02 Cost — 1974 , Alternate #1 - Hold Clinics 7:00 p.m. - 9:00. p.m. Friday Night Clerks 9 x 3 hr. x 10 clinics @ $ 6.47 = $ 1,746.90 1 Clerk III x 3 hr. x 10 clinics @ 7.36 - 220.80 1 Supv. Clerk I x 4 hr. x 10 clinics`@ $.52 ' = 340.$0 2 Officers x 3 hr. x 10 clinics. @- 7.62 , = 457.20 1 A/C Supv. x 5 hr. x 10 clinics @ 10.16 . 50$.00 $ 3,273.70 • t + 3,132.02 — 1974 $ 6,40$.72 cost Alternate #2 - Hold Clinics Afternoon;Use License Canvass Crew and Clerks 1 A/C Supv. x 6 hr. x 10 clinics @ : $10.16• _ $ 609.60 1 Clerk III x 4 hr. x 10 clinics @ 7.36 = 294.40 1 Supv. Clerk I x 6 hr. x 10 clinics @ $.52 T 511.20 4 Clerks x 4 hr. x 10 clinics @ 6.47 = 1,035.20 5 Officers x 4 hr. x 10 clinics @ 7.62 = 1,524.00 $ 3,974.40 + 135.02 1974 $ 7,109.42 cost COST S FOR ice: /_ 2. That license "fees be doubled for unaltered , animals. - 3. That the county earmark $50,000 of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds for the proposed county spay clinic. 4i That a door-to-door licensing and cat registra- tion progran be established. a. Registration fee for .each cat over the age of four months would' be $2.00. b. Wearing of tar 5 to be. optional. c. No late registration fee at this time. d. Establish in the County Ordinance, a • provision allowing ovn. crs of five cats or more toobtain a cattery, cat fancier • registration permit, paralleling the Ordinance regulating' the kennel operators and dog fanciers: e. Establish in the' Ordinance the definition of cattery and cat fancier to read as follows: 1. Cattery - An individual who ovms or possesses five or more unaltered cats for the purpose of breeding, showing, or boarding, not to exceed twenty cats. The suggested registration fee: 5 to and including 10 cats $10.00 10 to and including 20 cats $20.00 2. Cat Fancier - An individual who owns ` or possesses five or more altered cats as a :lobby or as pets, not to exceed twenty cats. The suggested registration fee: . 5 to and including; 10 cats $ 5.00 10 to and including 20 calls . :x.10.00 f. Establish in the Ordinance that individuals' ovming or possessing more than. 20 cats or dogs are to be considered a coir nercial establisb-nent. Definitions of co•:jr.ercia2 shall be the same as • the definition now shouan in the County Ordinance. -1 V:JSi' Y`TALY'Sis FOR A.. epion: l .i�. . c::� —i— •• '-/'!3 E::ta�1i:1; •1.:; the. Ordinance a permit fae } of $50.00 0: anpro xi;.:atc cont, For commercial establishment for cat.-A. and/or dot.z. '• h. Establish in the Ordinance that the regula- tory authority shall be responsible for ' specifying cat fancier'. cattery and commercial permit regulations. s _ i. Establish in the Ordinance that violation of any of the regulations relating to the required conditions as specified in the cattery, cat fancier and commercial permits as outlined by the regulating authority, shall result in the cancellation of the permit by the regulating authority. (Also - provide for appeal, procedures..) .' ALS/ac ' attachment . .a CO5'i' ANALYSIS FOR ITEM # ld�edw. . 1 Costs Do Not Include Fringe Benefits (25% Additional). Assuming approximately the same number of cats held as stray, • biter, available as dogs because the overall numbers handled are almost the - same, '*there would be a daily population of 75 - 80 cats on the average at the Martinez Center. Pinole has about 1/3 the cats handled, so 27 would be .the approximate daily cat population at that Center. The cats should be ted, Cratered and their cages cleaned. This care would approximate 12 minutes daily each or 16 hours. This would necessitate 2 kennelmen on duty daily for this purpose at Martinez and one (1) at' Pinole. 5-Day Week Cost $ added Kennelmen - ' ; 43, 680 - one building 26, x 181 - - 16,380 one building 16t x 16t - 8,960 130 stainless steel cat cages - 16,380 personal equipment, lockers, etc. .- 11000 �?a6,400 114-10" Work Week Cost i 6 added Kennelmen - $52,416 one building 261 x 181 - 16,380 one building 16t x 16, - 8,960 130 stainless steel cat cages - 16,380 personal equipment, lockers, etc. . - . 1,200 195.336 I I Cos. SLI^LYSIS FOR TEX Approximate Costs Do Not Include Fringe Benefits (Estimated 25% Additional) . Staff for "4 - 10" work week-present field areas and procedures .- kennels closed Sundays, no additional supervision. 31 officers - $35,664 (4 officers added) 8 kennelmen - 171100 . (2 -kennelmen added) 4 supervisors 11,800 (1 supervisor added) $64,564 Salaries , 30,000 Add 4 trucks w/radio (initial cost) 900 Uniform allowance 1,400 Personal equipment, locker, badge, etc. , 1 supervisor, 4 officers, ' 2 kennelmen 6,400 Annual cost-4 trucks $1032264 Centers 0pen Sundays ' I Add; 2 more kennelmen $172100 2 Lead Clerk III 17,196 1 Intermediate -Typist/ Clerk 7,566 1 Radio Dispatcher 8,808 $50,670 Salaries 800 Two typewriters 470 Two typist desks 140 Two posture chairs 400 Personal equipment, locker, .badge, etc. $52,480 ` $103,264 Closed 52,,80 Open $155.71:4 First Year Cost COST ANALYSIS FOR ITEM ' + vuzics uo Not Include Fringe ,Benefits Approximate Cost to Change to 114 - 10" Work Week With Present Field Areas - Partial "Swing Shift" Two Men Until 10:00 p.m. , One Man Until 12:00 p.m. Centers Closed Sunday_ - No Additional Supervision 34 officers - $62,412 (7 officers added) $ kennelmen - 17,100 (2 kennelmen added) 4 supervisors, 1 added - 11,$00 $917312 Salaries 60,OOa Add $ trucks w/radio (one spare) initial cost 1,440 Uniform Allowance 27000 Personal equipment, lockers, badges, etc. : 129$00 'Annual cost $ trucks _ $1679552 Centers Open Sundays Add: ` 2 more kennelmen $17,100 2 Lead Clerk III 17,196 1 Intermediat.e Typist/Clerk 7,566 1 Radio Dispatcher = $9$0$ $50,670_ Salaries $00 Two Typewriters 470 Two typewriter desks • 140 Two posture chairs 400 Personal equipment, lockers, badges, etc. $52,4$0. $167,552 Closed . 52,4$0 Open $220.032 First Year Cost { COST flTATLYSIS FOR ITEM # i Costs Do Not Include Frim Benefits Fivle Day Work Week No Change Procedures, Would Need 7 Kennelmen {No Change P.T.S. ••per SB #400• . Six Are Presently Authorized But- Not On Staff. Add 1 Kennelman. Centers Ogen Sundays Add: 1 kennelman $ $2550 2 Lead Clerk III 172196 1 Intermediate Typist/Clerk 7,566 1 Radio -Dispatcher 9,800 $ 12,120 Salaries $00 Two typewriters 470 Two typist desks 140 Two posture chairs ' 200 Personal equipment, locker, boots, coveralls $ 43,9730 COST ANALYSIS FOR ITEM # /Cj Costs Do Not Include Fringe Benefits Staff for "4 - 10" Week;Same Field Areas and Procedures - Partial Swing Shift _ 2 Men Until 10:00 p.m., Then One Until 12:00 Midnight - Supervisors Added To Provide Proper Supervision Centers Closed Sundays 34 officers-7 add4d $62;412 $ kennelmen-2 added 17,100 7 supervisors-4 added 472200 $126,712 60,000 Add $ trucks w/radio ki spare) initial cost 2,340 Uniform allowance 2,600 Personal equipment, lockers, - badges, etc. 12,$00 Annual cost 8 trucks $204'452 , Centers Open Sundays j Add: 2 more kennelmen $17,100 i 2 Lead Clerk III r 17,196 i 1 Intermediate Typist/Clerk 7,566 1 Radio 'Dispatcher 8,$0$ $509670 Salaries i $00 Two typewriters 470 Two typist desks 140 Two posture chairs 400 Personal equipment, lockers, badges, etc. $52,4$0 $ 2047452 Closed 521,4$0 Open 1 $ 2562932 COST ANALYSIS FOR IMI # Costs Do Not Include Fringe Benefits Costs To Institute A Partial Evening and Night Shift— No Increase Field Areas or Change of Procedures 29 officers — 2 added $17.9832 15,000 Two trucks w/radio (initial cost) 360 Uniform allowance .100 Personal equipment, lockers badges, etc. 3,200 Annual cost, 2 trucks �$3 6,792 f ' COST, 9-1ALlYSIS FOR 11-TEM 1 i _ �-• •��j}L(li aft`, V Costs Do Not Include Fringe Benefits (Estimated 25% Additional) i 1 1 1 I • Public Relation Program in Schools; Directed Toward lith Grade,Publie Schools — 10,556 Children (Per• County Superintendent of Schools). 1 A/C Supervisor $11,$00 Salary 5,000 Van ` 950 Radio 1 . 200 Personal equipment' lockers. i - badges, etc. I i 1,600 Annual cost vehicle 2,500 Coloring books $22,050 i 1 •• COST A��i TTIYS7S FCR !TZ-m R ,.? IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVIISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Reports ) on Referrals to the Board ) December 10, 1974 Administration and Finance ) Committee. - ) The Board heretofore having made certain.referrals to its County Administration and Finance Committee (Supervisors A. M. Dias and E. A. Linscheid) ; and Said committee having reported and recommended as follows with respect to aforesaid referrals: Referral Date Item Recommendation 7-29-74 Organization, staffing and Refer to staff for continued salaries of the I+iunicipal review in connection with pro- Courts. posals for consolidation of the courts in the western portion of the county and in the central portion of the county. Remove from Administra- tion and Finance Committee. Is now in special committee (Supervisors Dias and Kenny) . 1-2-74 Proposal that Board of Deny request and review legis- Supervisors consider trans- lation which is expected to be ferring its responsibilities introduced -in the 1975 session for County Department of to reorganize the responsi- Education to County Board of bilities of-the County Depart- Education. ment of Education. 3-25-?4 State Ballot Proposition 5 Ballot proposition passed at (SCA) pertaining to use of the primary election of June motor vehicle fuel revenues 1974. Remove as committee for public mass transit referral pending staff recom- ' purposes. mendations with respect to implementation. 4-2-74 Contra Costa County Employees Committee has been advised that Retirement System comparative actuarial investigation of the statement of financial con- system is in progress and that dition for year ending receipt of actuarial report is December 31, 1974. scheduled for February 1975. Remove as committee referral pending receipt of said report. 4.-23-74. Proposed alternate methods AB 3395, providing for use of of court reporting. electronic recording devices, failed of enactment during the 1974 session. Remove as commit- tee referral and reactivate if similar legislation is intro- duced in 1975: 5-7-74 Memorandum from Director bemorandum pertained to immediate of HRA on certain aspects implementation of certain alco- of the countywide alcohol- holism proposals during the ism program. remainder of the 1973-1974 fiscal year. Required action was taken; -remove as committee referral. Referral Date Item Recommendation 8-20-7.4 Appeal of ItIrs. E. Aljets Committee has heretofore recom- and Mr. J'. Shera, deferred mended that county policy not retirees, for inclusion in allow for inclusion of deferred County Group Health Plan. retirees in .the County Group Health Plan and after further review has not found that excep- tion action is warranted in the aforesaid cases; it therefore recommends' denial of the appeals. 9-10-74 Request from certain school Arrangements are being made to. 9-24-74 districts that the Office provide additional staff for the of County Counsel be given aforesaid purpose through the additional staff to assure use of CETA funds. Remove as continuation of its present committee referral. level of services to the. school districts. 9-10-74 Proposal of Allied Fellow- Refer to the Office of County- ship Services offering Sheriff-Coroner for consideration their services to this for possible inclusion in budget county in establishing a requests for the 1975-1976 fiscal 'half-tray' house type year. Remove as committee program for ex-offenders. referral.. 10-22-74 Proposed amendment to the Hearing on proposed ordinance Ordinance Code relating to continued to January 14, 1975• tree preservation and Remove as committee referral. replacement. 11-6-74 Request that delegate Deny request until such time as agencies be authorized to Congress has adopted legislation appoint staff to 'approved providing assured funding of the positions without clearance Economic Opportunity Program. by central staff. 11-6-74 Letter from Contra Costa Acknowledge receipt and refer County Employees Association, request to Fhployee Relation _. s __ ff Local 1, asserting that law Oicer and Agricultural Com_- requires meet and confer m`issioher-Sealer_ -of 4tleghts and responsibilities on certain neasure­s-to-see that legitimate recommendations of Special_ county meet and confer responsi- Animal Control Review bilities are properly discharged Committee. in implementation of recom- mendations pertaining to the animal control program. 11-12-74 Proposed amendments to the Ordinance revisions to be con- Public Health and License sidered by the Board on Fee Ordinance 74-1. December 17, 1974. Remove as committee referral. 11-19-74 Claim from Superintendent County Counsel advises that there of Mt. Diablo Unified are no statutory requirements School District for costs that county assume responsibility of legal services incurred for costs of outside counsel in a suit against the employed by school district, and district. therefore recommends that claim be denied. The Board having considered said committee report and determined the recommendations to be appropriate; NOW, THEREFORE, on motion of Supervisor- A. M. Dias, seconded by Supervisor E. A. Linscheid, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid recommendations of its County Administration and Finance Com— mittee are APPROVED. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: Supervisor W. N. Boggess. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on December 10, 1974. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Supervisors affixed this 10th day of December, 1974• J. R. OLSSON, CLERK By L22�ry Dorothy,7Lazzae34fi. Deput Clerk cc: i4it. Diablo Municipal Court vDelta Municipal Court jWalnut Creels Danville Municipal Court ✓Richmond Municipal Court ✓West Municipal Court 11Contra Costa County Bar Association v/County Superintendent of Schools County Board of Education J Contra Costa County Mayors' Conference ;/County Costa County Transportation Advisory Committee County Supervisors Association of California 'IMrs. E. Aljets ', . J. Shera v9afayette School District akley Union School District Mr. P. A. Dixon ✓Contra Costa County Employees Association, Local 1 ''Mr. J. Roscoe vMt. Diablo Unified School District ''County Counsel ""County Administrator `Public Works Director /Treasurer +Retirement Administrator ✓Director, Human Resources Agency `Acting Personnel Director Auditor—Controller . ✓Sheriff—Coroner ,/Acting Health Officer ✓Agricultural Commissioner ✓Planning Director ;/Office of Economic Opportunity b��� (,m �e.� RECEIVED OCT AZ1974 J. C. OLSSON CLERK BOARD Or SUPZRVISORS CONTRA O iA CO. —By.. De v rte'" ee DK CIO a° QA fix a a �� san vamon homcownciQs association P.O. BOX 54 - SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 October 18, 1074 RECEIVED OCT Al 1974 Contra Costa. County Supervisors J. r OLSSON CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS P. O. Box 911 I�gartinex, Calif. 1)4553 Gentlemen: The San Ramon Homeowners Association has voted to sup- port the proposed SPAY Clinic of Contra. Costa County. in bight of our overpopulated, stray do- and cat population, we need a more positive, effective approach to controlling our animal population. The present "dog catcher" approach only attacks an exi.stin problem. A low cost SPAY Clinic would help prevent the problem and ultimately be less ex- pensive to the tax payers. We.:-urge ­yo-ar. financial support for this v.,orthWhile clinic. Sincerely, John L. :Nelson Director v � loo FOR YOUR INFORMATION THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JAMES P. KENNY. RICHMOND JAMES E.MORIARTY IST DISTRICT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY WARREN ALFRED M.DIAS, SAN PA8L0 EN N. HOGGESS 2ND DISTRICT VICE CHAIRMAN JAMES E. MORIARTY. LAFAYETTE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING. ROOM 103 JAMES R. OLSSON, COUNTY CLERK 3RD DISTRICT AND EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD WARREN N. BOGGESS, CONCORD P.O. BOX 911 MRS. GERALDINE RUSSELL 4TH DISTRICT h1ARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553 CHIEF CLERK EDMUND A. LINSCHEID, PITTS13URG PHONE 298-3000 5TH DISTRICT EXTENSION 2371 t � October 15, 1974 REPORT OF ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE COMMITTEE ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPECIAL ANIMAL CONTROL REVIEW COMMITTEE On September 30, 1974 the recommendations of the Special Animal Control Review Committee and testimony received by the Board regarding these recommendations at hearings held on July 23, 1974 and September 30, 1974 were referred to the Administration and Finance Committee for review with a suggestion that a progress report be submitted by the October 15, 1974 regular Board meeting. The Committee has met with the County Administrator to review the 45 recommendations by the Special Animal Control Review Committee to determine: (1) those items which support existing activities and require no further Board action; (2) those items which entail little or no additional costs and are endorsed by staff for immediate implementation; (3) those items which indlude significant additional costs to be considered for funding in the fiscal year 1975-1976 budget; and (4) those items which will require further staff analysis or are major policy issues which are appropriately deferred for further study by the Board. The following numbered items included in the report made by the Special Animal Control Review Committee noted in category (1) above are recommended to be acknowledged by the Board as previously accomplished: Items 1, 3, 5, 26, 27, 29, 32, 33, portion of 36 and 40. The Committee requests an additional two weeks for continued study of the remaining 35 recommendations of the Special Animal Control Review Committee which require action by the Board. RECEIVED U C T 151974 i J. ? Z ERV l' RS .... � . 3v.. _ 2. : It should be noted that the Animal Spay Clinic Study Committee has submitted a revised cost estimate to provide facility and equip- ment for a county operated low cost spay and neuter clinic. Along this line, it is further recommended that the Board direct the Public Works Director to review this matter and to provide' a cost and feasibility report to the Administration and Finance Committee regarding the recommendation made by the Animal Spay Clinic Study Committee in order that early action may betaken regarding pro- vision of a county operated low cost spay and neuter clinic. M. D /J. E. MORIARTY T Supe v' or, District I L' Supervisor, District III THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JAMES P. KENNY, RIcHMoND JAMES E.MORIARTY IST DISTRICT MJ A CHAIRMAN ALFRED M.DIAS.SAN PABLO CONTRA TRA COSTA COUNTY WARREN N.BOGGESS 2ND DISTRICT YICZ CHAIRMAN JAMES E. MORIARTY. LAFAYETTE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING. ROOM 103 JAMES R. OLSSON, COUNTY CLERK 3RD DISTRICT AND EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD WARREN N. BOGGESS. CONCORD P.O. BOX 911 MRS. GERALDINE RUSSELL 4TH DISTRICT MARTINEZ. CALIFORNIA 94553 CHIEF CLERK EDMUND A. LINSCHEID, PITTSBURG PHONE 228.3000 5TH DISTRICT EXTENSION 2371 { � October 15, 1974 REPORT OF ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE COMMITTEE ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPECIAL ANIMAL CONTROL REVIEW COMMITTEE On September 30, 1974 the recommendations of the Special Animal Control Review Committee and testimony received by the Board regarding these recommendations at hearings held on July 23, 1974 and September 30, 1974 were referred to the Administration . and Finance Committee for review with a suggestion that a progress .report be submitted by the October 15, 1974 regular Board meeting. The Committee has met with the County Administrator to review the 45 recommendations by the Special Animal Control Review Committee to determine: (1) those items which support existing activities and require no further Board action; (2) those items which entail little or no additional costs and are endorsed by staff for immediate implementation; (3) those items which indlude - significant additional costs to be considered for funding in the fiscal year. 1975-1976 budget; and (4) those items which will require further staff analysis or are major policy issues which are appropriately deferred for further study by the Board.' The following numbered items included in the report made by the Special Animal Control Review Committee noted in category (1) above are recommended to be acknowledged by the Board as previously accomplished: Items 1, 3, 5, 26, 27, 29, 32, 33, portion of 36 and 40. The Committee requests an additional two weeks for continued study of the remaining 35 recommendations of the Special Animal Control Review Committee which require action by the Board. RECEIVED OC T f51914 �tai D SUKAVI" rs 8 D C 2. It should be noted that the Animal Spay Clinic Study Committee has submitted a revised cost estimate to provide facility and equip- ment- for a county operated low cost spay and neuter clinic. . Along this line, it is further recommended that the Board direct the Public Works Director to review this matter and to provide a cost and feasibility report to the Administration and Finance Committee regarding the recommendation made by the Animal Spay Clinic Study Committee in order that early action may be taken regarding pro- vision -of a county operated low cost spay and neuter clinic. . M. D /-J. E. MORIA Ty Supe' or, District I J'/Supervisor, District III THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JAMES P. KENNY, RICHMOND JAMES E.MORIARTY IST DISTRICT CHAIRMAN ALFRED M. DIAS.SAN PABLO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY WARREN N. BOGGESS 2ND DISTRICT VICE CHAIRMAN JAMES E. MORIARTY. LAFAYETT.E ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, ROOM 103 JAMES R. OLSSON. couN4Y CLERK 3RD DISTRICT AND EX OFFICtO CLERK OF THE BOARD WARREN N. BOGGESS. CONCORD P.O. BOX 911 MRS. GERALDINE RUSSELL 4TH DISTRICT MARTINEZ. CALIFORNIA 94553 CHIEF CLERK EDMUND A. LINSCHEID, PITTSBURG PHONE 228-3000 STM DISTRICT EXTENSION 2371 October 15, 1974 REPORT OF ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE COMMITTEE ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPECIAL ANIMAL, CONTROL REVIEW COMMITTEE On September 30, 1974 the recommendations of the Special Animal Control Review Committee and testimony received by the Board regarding these recommendations at hearings held on July 23, 1974 and September 30, 1974 were referred to the Administration and Finance Committee for review with a suggestion that a progress report be submitted by the October 15, 1974 regular Board meeting. The Committee has met with the County Administrator to review the 45 recommendations by the Special Animal Control Review Committee to determine: (1) those items which support existing activities and require no further Board action; (2) those items which entail little or no additional costs and are endorsed by staff for immediate implementation; (3) those items which indlude significant additional costs to be considered for funding in the fiscal year 1975-1976 budget; and (4) those items which will require further staff analysis or are major policy issues which are appropriately deferred for further study by the Board. The following numbered items included in the report made by the Special Animal Control Review Committee noted in category (1) above are recommended to be acknowledged by the Board as previously accomplished: Items 1, 3, 5 , 26, 27, 29, 32, 33, portion of 36 and 40. The Committee requests an additional two weeks for continued study of the remaining 35 recommendations of the Special Animal Control Review Committee which require action by the Board. L� LVEDCS fSi914ZOSIA SU?ERvl- its 2. It should be noted that the Animal Spay Clinic Study Committee has submitted a revised cost estimate to provide facility and equip- ment for a county operated low cost spay and neuter clinic. Along this line, it is further recommended that the Board direct the Public Works Director to review this matter and to provide a cost and feasibility report to the Administration and Finance Committee regarding the recommendation made by the Animal Spay Clinic Study Committee in order that early action may be taken regarding pro- vision of a county operated low cost spay and neuter clinic. M. D /Z. E. MORIARTY Supe' v' or, District I v� Supervisor, District III ` cam' �rx,4 T QSPAY of Contra Costa CouECEl V EDP. 0. Eos 5261 Walnut Creek, California 94596 C-- 9 1974 682-38?3 j R. OLSSON 530 Odin give, CLERK ONTR° C STU�CO+�ORS Pleasant Hill. 94523- B October 7th. 1974. The Board of Supervisors. Dear Sirs, As a volunteer member of S.P.A.Y. I would like to tell you my experience with the public. Usually two of us set up an information booth outside stores and you would be surprised at the amount of people who no longer avoid such a set up when they see our poster, at once they come over and ask hobs close are we to getting a Low Cost Spay Clinic also ask if they 'can si-n a petition in favor. People tell us their pet problims, of neighbors moving a-,.ay and leaving animals behind, people driving by and dumping dogs and cats some pregnant in the hopes of some nice person will take over their problims. Children aged around o-11 years stopped and gave the donation box a fel•, nickles and pennies and ask if they can take our leaflet to their class-room. A teacher wants to organise a bike-a-thon for S.P.A.Y. We get stories of hungry do: s roaming the neighborhood, cats having litters in the bushes. Wearily I help take our stand down and go home very anxious and depressed about all this suffering. I also give out Low Cost spay & neuter information on the telephone and being Chairman of spay-aid I have our thirteen spay-aid workers send me a list of names and addresses each month of their callers, Septembers count 267. The public need and are crying out for a Low Cost Spay Clinic, the situation is getting worse and I see no betterness in sight if left as it is, if it is proof of public interest yr ou want let me know, I will get it to you. Please do not let these animals be born to die, Please allow us to have a Low Cost Spay w Neuter Clinic. Thank you gentleman. Yours truly. -�- �_ FOR YOUR 1NFORMAT.10N.., X Airs Y;i tlia r H. Vetter RECEIVED 635 Eim Street a Cerrtto a, Calffomlf 9�,3 o October 5, 1971 C C T 1974 Administration and Finance Committee cor;r�;, o a Co._Dcoutv Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa County a Nart i nez, Ca 1 i f. Dear sirst . Res Animal Contras 1 am k9ealy interested in.Your efforts to solve the problem caused by tiomastic animals out of control in our .County. 1bq sympathies are with the animals, nearly all of which could be well- behoved, IF their owners would 91ve them adequate training end supervision, The more i think *bout the problem of free-roaming dogs-i- awn when accowp panied by thofr •sten+ the mare 1 ave convinced that we need ,lepsh laws. This wavld be a hardship on dogs. that need to run. (baeause I of -their vary mitwro), sod who arm cartiflad to have gradtyted from Obeli ane* School... 1. had such a dog, *o always ram in figura oightse i *mid take her off fare lossh whore it was safe to. rune On the other hand, many dogs, suppos*dly otediont and mi lib msanered, who walk,. free-roaming, with tholr posters, can do considerable damage bOfore their pastors can stop them. It .is a. tRrrifying. experience to have onus dog att#cker._ 1w Sheltlo has b"n attacked three times by three difforant dogs since about the middle of dun*. Twice the attocks:occurrad while she was walking leashed witb r. I .4ve to carry a stick while ref king her, and, when convenient, a r.*Ighbor boy accomWiss me* I can no lmnger ehonce a -Confrontation by walking my dog in SART!s El #writ* Linear Park, an ideal ;romans'" for as 'snimsf walk". 1 propos* that Leash laws be imposed throughout .the,Gatntyl also tfisf a . special "exercise permit" be made available upon applicatipn by a dog owner for a specific ant mot thgt. is .thoroughly obedience tressed, so that it may engage in short runs under strict supervision. Because there ars more dogs maedi% hopes tkgn ttrsro' aro suitable homes available, and poch ;.offering results from the fact that there ora so oy un• wanted animals, 1. wrgo that you set up a Spaying Climlc•. *atever funds ere row geir*d would be welVspent. in at view* This is the hump" way, to treat the pet explosion* in time such a policy should tighten the burdens of the W mal Control agency. 1 oppose allowing the Animal Contool officers to carry sidearmso i also oppose permitting. thea to stop on private property to take a dog that Is in its own yard, unto$* it has attacked a person within the past 15 minutes* This prectice violates our most sacred property rights. Thor* are better ways to handl* questionable sitwations. 1 balievo animal control officers should stay at their stations, not patrol the stretta, They woutd be +sore welcome if they responded only to calls. Although t do not have a, copy- of the Ej6 recomtndations that your study committee made. I appreciate ttm effort that vent into its reporte 1 hope that the Board will make a rise decision that will be fair to ail coacernede Respectfully yours. l . FOR "SOUR INFOR" " , RECEIVED OCT 7 1974 J. R. OLSS014 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS g�N.T By.... .YO IA.?.CO. .. 000wtv-j Z4 u C l S qt f4t � �- S � �n� `��r �d cnn • OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRAT• CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 2ND FLOOR. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING MARTINEZ. CALIFORNIA 94552 ARTHUR G. WILL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR PHONE 228-3000 J. G MORIDISTRICT 2 TY, CHAIRMAN DISTRICT • - - W.N-BOGGESL,VICE CHAIRMAN DISTRICT 4 J.P. KENNY. DISTRICT I A.M.DIAS. DISTRICT] E•A.LINSCHEID.DIsTRICT i• For further information: October 1, 1974 Mary H. Dunten, Public Information Officer PRESS RELEASE (415) 228-3000, Ext. 2221 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE BOARD CONSIDERS ANIMAL CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS Dog and cat owners filled the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Chamber Monday night to support recommendations of the board's "special animal control review committee." Most of the two dozen speakers -soundly endorsed at least two of the committee's 45 suggestions: a county dog leash law and a low-cost spay clinic. After two hours of testimony, the board referred the entire list to its administration and finance committee. Board chairman James E. Moriarty asked the committee to report back in a couple of weeks on "at least those recommendations requiring little expense." -more- 0 Animal Control - 2 Dr. John Baier of the county health department said he sensed an "overwhelming desire" by the public for a leash law. . "I can't think of a single thing that would make more impact in animal control," he said, citing daily examinations of children with dog bites. "The problem of .animal control .gets bigger every year," agreed Dr. William Hand, a veterinarian. He suggested the county establish a low-cost spay clinic such as the one he operates in San Mateo County. Representatives of SPAY, who had invited Dr. Hand to speak, urged the Board of Supervisors to supplement the $20,000 they have raised for a neutering clinic. Patricia Shaw,- vice president of SPAY, said a semi-mobile unit could be set up ,for less than $352000. Dave Finigan, public service director for Walnut Creek, asked the board to amend the animal control ordinance to allow cities to contract with the County for stricter services or additional service at the cities' expense. Such a move, he said, is supported by the Contra Costa County Mayors' Conference. Mary Lumsden, chairman of the Contra Costa SPCA, said her group also supports increased licensing fees, building of a third animal shelter and the registration of cats. Other suggestions proposed by various speakers included: an animal control advisory committee, training of animal control officers in firearm safety, maintaining an officer at the animal control center through the night, and the use of licensed -more- I Anil Control - 3 veterinarian assistants 'to administer euthanasia injections (allowable through state legislation, effective in 1975). Answering the concerns of several speakers about the county'S: animal euthanisia chambers, assistant agricultural commissioner K. E. Danielson declared the county's method is. "the safest and most effective way." He assured them the county's chambers are in compliance with state regulations. -30- _ PRESENTATION BY THE CITY OF WALNUT CREEK RE E I Y E D TO THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RE: COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES - PUBLIC H ING, ` ���' f�7� SEPTEMBER 30, 1974 J. R. OLSSOW CLERK BOARD O. SUPERVISORS CONT. COSTA CO. By..._.........& _...Deputy The City of Walnut Creek appreciates the excellent work of the Special Animal Control Review Committee in the development of specific recommendations to improve County animal control ser- vices. Walnut Creek City officials feel strongly that measures should be taken to increase the basic level of animal control services in Contra Costa County. Information from the County Animal Control Division indicates that the service requests for uncontrolled dogs and the incidents of dog bites have continually increased in recent years throughout the County. City officials have experienced increasing concern from local residents over the presence of uncontrolled dogs and the increasing evidence of dog bites. Basic County animal control services should be increased throughout the County in response to the increasing need and demand for such services. A major problem is the inflexibility of the existing County animal control ordinance to meet different local needs. The existing County animal control ordinance is a "loose leash law" which provides that animals must be under the "control" of the owner. This ordinance establishes one standard for animal con- trol throughout the County and is enforced under a uniform level of service throughout the County by the Animal Control Division. The uniformity of the ordinance and its application makes it inflexible to meet local needs for (1) stricter animal control regulations, or (2) additional animal control services. A city or local area may not increase its animal control service without establishing its own service. Since County animal con- trol services are financed from the County general property taxes paid by all County residents, cities establishing and financing their own animal control services are at an immediate disadvantage because their local residents already pay for the County service which will be withdrawn if city service is initiated. Thus, the existing arrangement for providing animal control services does not enable cities with greater animal control service needs to meet these needs on a practical basis. It is recommended that the County amend the existing County Animal Control Ordinance to provide procedures for cities to contract for (1) stricter animal control regulations, or (2) additional animal control services under the existing County ordinance. In this manner each city can determine the level of animal control services it considers necessary for their community and contract for additional services, if necessary, with the County rather than establishing separate less efficient city-operated services. l - 2 - In order td.-' pr ide cities with the right to contract for animal control services with the County, it will ,be necessary to amend the County Animal Control Ordinance to allow this procedure for �expanded ;an mal control services. It is necessary only to amend the ordinance to grant cities the right to contract for this service with the County. Specific contract details and proce- dures can be -worked out on an individual basis between each city and the County in the development of the service contract. In essence, the County Animal Control Ordinanceshould: simply be amended with a new section, as follows: "Cities shall have the right to contract with the County for either additional animal control services or for the enforcement of animal control -standards stricter than provided in this ordinance. " Walnut Creek City officials appreciate'>the interest and efforts taken by the County to improve its animal control services.: We hope that you will give serious consideration. to our proposal providing for a more flexible basis to provide these services based upon local community animal control needs. ssoard of Supervisors, Contra Costa County County Building Martinez, Ca. Sirs: We the members of the Diablo Valley German Shepherd Club Inc. Support the need for good animal control laws, as we realize that there are too manor animals rumdng loose and they create a very real hazard to life and property. We take the following positions on the Special Animal Control Review Committee Report. RCEIVEV n 2: We feel that the exceptions of this section does riot go far enough. These exceptions do not take into account that dog shows, held in this county, must be exempt from the leash c4 ��r'� laws for advance obedience trials. Also no provisions are >-� j made for individuals training thier dogs in public parks, due J. to the fact that many homes do not have large enough R. OLSSON CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS to pratice in. CON COSTA CO. De ut B Q'= on 7: We support this section, but feel that it should apply to all animals. Section 8: We feel there should be a limit on the number of animals that can be kept at a residince. We feel that there should be a fancier license. There would be different types of fanci.era license, such as, a C license would allow the fancier to keep two (2) dogs. Proof that a person is a s" �sfancier could be obtained by a sworn statement or a statement from a reconized dog club as to membership, to the fact that a person does show dogs, and/or is breeding dogs, thus a fancier. The above would be in addition to a one (1) pet per residence license. Section 9,10 & 11: We support these sections. Section 18: We can not support this section for the following reasons; 1. There is difinition of the word "problem" 2. A dog can be under control even if the owner is riot visible. 3. Under this section, if we own a dog we Bather bring the dog (s) in the house or we stay outside. 4. Ther-,is no way that a honest judgement can be made to tell if a dog is going to become a problem. Section 19: We support this section. Section 22,23, & 24: We support these sections. Section 25: We feel that if the Board of Supervisors will make a real effert to set this program using volunteer help from cog clubs, and other such groups, that there will be much monies saved.. Section 28, 30, & 31: We support these sections. Section 36: We support this section, but feel th at in addition there should be a panel, of people from the Animal Control Depart- ment, at least two (2) persons from the general public, and other county departments as deemed necessary for a total of five persons. The head of the Animal Control Department should be the chaiman of this panel. This panel should rodew { all miring of side arms by an Animal Control Officer. Page 2 she reason for this reconm:andate is that the Ardmal Control. .. _ Officers do not continually train in firing fire arms or in it's safety, Law inforcement angencies that have regular pratice with fire arms, have such boards to determine if such firing of the fire arm was necessary. Section 40&112: We support these section. Section 44b & 44d: We support this sections. Section 45: We do not support this section because we feel that this mordes should be used for spayed/neuter clirdc. Vernon E �luhm Chairman, Education Committee , sa� RECEIVED 1yI/ VZ ;P 74 . J. R. o_�.ota Valley Action Forum LCLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PO BOX 993 DANvlcLE.CALIFORNIA 9(526 �O RA COSTA CO. � u [A. STATEMENT BY VALLEY ACTION FORUM" REPRESENTATIVE AT THE SEPTEMBER 30, 19749 ANIMAL CONTROL HEARING, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY: The Valley Action Forum, representing 27 San Ramon Valley organizations, including homeowners associations, PTAs, AAUW, League of Women Voters and others, endorses the establishment of a low-cost Spay Clinic based. on the successful experience of the Los Angeles program. In recent years it has been customary that government funds be expended for projects or services based upon the raising of some matching funds as an expression of broad community interest. We believe the organization SPAY of Contra Costa, in raisins about 20 per cent of the cost of the clinic, has fulfilled. the requirement of community interest. This group. should not have to shoulder the responsibility of raising all the funds for this county project. Therefore, the Valley Action Forum respectfully requests that the Board of Supervisors include the Spay Clinic in the present or next year's budget. 0 vlr 0014TRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEARING ON: 'alaat G E.- ry n DAT NZ-0 aQLQT_ FULL FAVIIE.- A A STREET ADDRESS: t-Us- Pi To r"E. r) CITY: -9a=K J. REPRESENT11M (FIXI' OR ORGAIMATIO 9 IF All) S. LSk 0*'_kDe+s gjw i iA tjLW ko ids sliy; on pod'Via or hal Nile ..Va or ha id to clerk) Fv• Speech before the Board of Supervisors . , . . .30 Sept . E C E I V E D �cr' JO 1974 Chairmana@Mkk and members of the Board. . . . . . . . J. R. OLSWN CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COST CO. Even though 'my physical condition, temporary though it may ber. onou preclude my attendence here tonight T feel that T, must speak before you, so great are my concerns . ?"°m not going to remind you_ of the'=statistics dealing i^ith animal overpopulation: 1. approx 125 killed per day at animal control . ?65% puppies and kittens 2. a 50076 increase in the animal control buc'oet since I.Q62 3. less than 1 of 1% of the county budget requested by SrAY 4. untold dollars lost in destruction of property by is pndcri.ng animals . Ita,ust be assured that these and other statistics are well .known by you crudiate gentlemen iter government. There seems no need to bel2bvr the point that fcr threw years the county veterinarians association has been shcin singular favoritism in being asked, time and time again, to offer their alternative to a low cost spay clinic. When they failed to do more than to say that there is no animal overpolulation the Board of Supervisors has again asked them - to present a I.lan.. .to in effect redo their homework. The latest veterinary endorsed newspaper articles, as recent as last week, say that (1) "pet owners have got to get it together" and (2) that animals must be taught abstenince. Really gentl.emen, have ;►ou ever tried to teach animals "Abstenince" when somewhere around there is a- female in heat. You have heard Dr. Hand, a licensed practising veterinarian.. t,,! ! 17011 hoz* a spay and neuter clinic can be profitably run. This is not friction but fact gentlemen. And the doctor would welcome a visit by yourselves. as he did by the board of SPAY, to see bis efficient and sanitary o�- 22222222 Y eratien in San Mateo. You have seen the L.A. statistics which show a decrease in both the number of animals handled and exterminated. Mr. Rush, the Gen. I-Igr. of the LA.Animal Control, attributes this to a number of influences and states, " of prime importance is public part ici.rat:Lon in the low cost spay and-neuter clinic program." The time has come, in fact it has been delayed too long, to have some p definate answers from the C.C.Co. Board of Supervisors in regards to the spay clinic. 'We, the Board of Director and elected officers of SPAY, represent some 600 taxpaying members of SPAY not to mention the hundreds who have donated to the SPAY fund which 'is now over $20,000.00. In these times of frightening inflation more and more people have gone from being able to get along to being in real difficulty in maintaining an adaquate standard of living. Goodwill announced last week that they feQ the double pinch of inflation. . .less donations and more customers . The mail to the SPAY post office box reflects the same trend. . .more and more people expressipg a need for low cost pet population control measures. 1`:OTv In June of this year SPAY offered documented statements that a clinic could be put into operation for a one time initial exr7ense of under $50,000.00. This data has been ignored with one exception. . .that tired question. . .what about the $80,000.00 that you promised to raise? The point is gentlemen, that even with spiraling inflation, SPAS" has shown that $80,000.00 is not needed to provide the desired service. -Lle people of this county, in these times of shrinking wallets , have donated over $2C,000.00, rroathiy half of the needed amount . God help us if the shot J I 0333-3333333 clinics provided by the county, not to mention the T.B. raW uinits, the new "rapmobile", etc had to be paid for by public donations . At the budget committee hearings in July when we presented our data on costa and our request for a clinic it was suggested by �_h board member present that a! study clinic be set up . To answer what questions I asked? Those would have to be decided by the committee 1 was told . To what ultimate end I asked? That would be answered after the Board received the committee' s report. Gentlemen, I can only draw two conclusions since you already have two committee reports endorsing and recommending the establishment of a low cost clinic. Cne. , .that you wish to delay even longer in making the inevitable decision; this in the face of a rapidly growing problem of epidemic Froportions. And, or, secondly,is there some hope on the Board that a third committee might come in with a neg- ative recommendation which would be acceptable to the Board. Tt distresses me to think that taxpayers money and animal life would be wasted by such irresponsible governmental tactics. We of SPAY carry what we consider to be a heavy burden of responsibility to (1) the taxpayers, (2) our membership , (3) the animal kingdom and (4) ourselves. After three years of study, report, and study again, we feel we have the right to ask for,' no demand, a yes or no answer. Therefore gentlemen. . . ,will you accept the $20, 000.00 donated by the \S citizens of this county and add to this less than SIM. 000.00 of the county' s funds to build the -10-.,: cost- c-inic that your constituents want% And, gentlemen, will. you do it now? To further delay merely reinforces the curMent belief in ir.~esponsible government and is at the ex;-.erise of the entire community' s well being. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ANIMAL SPAY CLINIC STUDY CONWTTEE TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: September 253, 197 . SUBJECT: Recommendations from the Board appointed Animal Spay Clinic Study Committee As per your request, the attached recommendations concerning 1. Building and equipping of a spay clinic 2. Alternative proposals to the operation of a spay clinic 3. Suggested ordinance changes are submitted by the Board appointed Animal Spay Clinic Study } Committee. The ordinance changes were originally submitted in August of 1973, and the recommendation to use a mobile unit, thereby reducing the cost from $$1,000 to approximately $499,500, was submitted to the Board on July 9, 1974. Additional consultation report prepared for the City of Berkeley by Dr. Brundage at Marin Clinic on August 24, 1974 gives a complete equipment breakdown at approximately $10,000, far below our estimated $22.,000 which would reduce the cost another $12,000 from our estimate of approximately $49,500. 3 Attachments RECEIVED SEP 26 1974 SON RK Q D OFA SUU?W ISORS TRA COSTS\,CO. 8tFj .Dcput f � . CONTRA TA COUNTY 0 A COS 0 Y ANIMAL SPAY CLINIC STUDY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS On August 27, 1971, the Board appointed an "Animal Spay Clinic Study Committee", comprised of representatives of various organizations and county representatives. (A list of the individuals serving on the committee is attached. ) The committee's assignment was to "work out a proposal for the mechanics and procedures for the operation of a low-cost spay clinic; following the acquisition of $$1,000 (please note recommentation #5), said proposal to be submitted to the Board of Supervisors for approval". On August 22, 1973, at the Finance Committee' s request, this committee furnished a partial list of recommendations to that committee. Since that time additional facts concerning costs, etc. have become available. The following recommendations, both past and additional, are here presented. BUILDING, EQUIPPING AND STAFFING Most members of this committee toured the spay clinics at Marin County, San Mateo, Palo Alto, and the Peninsula Spay Clinic. Average price was $17.50 or $20.00 for a female dog or cat (includes distemper shot, as most animal hospitals require this vaccination before animal enters for surgery and $10.00 or $12.00 for a male dog or cat (also includes distemper shot) . Physical layout of facility was studied for maximum efficiency, and from this, plans -were drawn up j (Attachment #2) . Equipment lists were obtained from various sources; Attachment #3 is a compilation of these figures. Each of the clinics did surgery in the morning hours, with veterinarian observing animals coming out of { anesthetic in the afternoon and performing other duties, depending upon clinic. Use of mobile unit was studied after asking other clinic administrators and veterinarians if they felt a mobile unit would work as well as a permanent structure. A- mobile unit would have the advantage of being able to move from one location to another, as well as costing far less per square foot, and avoids long delays present in building a permanent structure. Throughout the past two years copies of plans were mailed to mobile home manufacturers throughout California and Oregon. Two estimates arrived, one for $29,950 plus tax and license (if applicable), and one for $21,950 plus tax and license (if applicable) . RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Recommend that "Plans and cost figure from Dover Mobile Home Sales submitted to this committee be accepted. Estimated cost is $23,417'• ($21,950 plus sales tax of $1017 and license and title of $150. ) (Attachment #4. ) 2. Recommend that 11$22,152 figure is the estimated cost for equipment, but specific details should be left up to the veterinarian. The cost of individual items may vary from the estimate." (Refer back to Attachment #3 • ) 3. Recommend the pad for the mobile clinic itself be eliminated from the site preparation cost (neither county ordinance nor manufacturer require; units sit on stantions), this would reduce the present cost estimate by approximately $3,200, and further recommend the parking spaces for the Martinez Center be eliminated from the site preparation cost, due to available street parking (also there is no available space to put additional parking) . This would reduce the estimated cost by approximately $4,556. Total estimated cost reduction from site preparation-approximately $7,700. (Attachment #5 - Public Works Department - Site Preparation Cost Estimate. ) 4. "Recommends to the Board of Supervisors that cost figures of $45,569 for the mobile unit, and equipment, plus $33,$21 for site preparation (total, $49,390) , be considered the cost to establish and equip the spay clinic at one location." 5. "Recommends to the Board of Supervisors that the original cost figures be revised from $$1,000 to $49,390 for the setting up of the building and equipment costs for the clinic." NOTE: The original recommendation requesting the "Board to earmark $50,000 of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds for the proposed County Spay Clinic" was made before cost figures became available for mobile unit. .$30,000 of revenue sharing funds added to what has been raised through private donations will cover costs. 6. "Recommends that the county authorize as staff for the low- cost spay-neuter clinic two veterinarians, two veterinarian assistants, and one clerk." NOTE: It was generally felt that the clinic could start with one veterinarian and one assistant and might possibly consider one full time veterinarian and one part time, as well as one full time assistant and one part time. 7. "Recommends that the salary paid to the veterinarian(s) be competitive but above average to attract competent veterinarians and also that the persons be hired under contract, or as exempt positions." ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS Much of the committee' s time was devoted to the study of proposals from the local Contra Costa Veterinary Association and an individual veterinarian who came before the Board of Supervisors and subsequently to this committee. 1. A program of tubal ligation and vasectomy at reduced prices was instituted by the association for animals under seven months of age only. Dr. Blomberg later reported (August 14 minutes), that this program had not been accepted by public, as this operation allowed the female to continue to come into heat and upon learning this most people preferred the ovario- hysterectomy (spay) . 2. The Veterinary Association proposed a subsidy program whereby their fees would be dropped five dollars and the county would subsidize the veterinarians another $10.00. Example: Normal Charge County Charge Veterinarian Charge $60.00 $45.00 $55.00 (Fees suggested by the Veterinary Association. ) Report from County Administrator estimated cost of $100,000 to county. It was decided not to recommend the above. 3 . Dr. Schwab proposed a referral program of cooperating veterin- arians. This was the proposal that came the closest to that desired by the committee as a supplement to a county-operated spay and neuter clinic. (Attachment #6 was submitted August, 1973, fees subject to change, and must be agreed upon by all cooperating doctors) . MOTION: "Recommend that the county contact individual veterinarians to formulate a referral program for reduced cost spay-neuter services with surgical fees to be established with the cooperating veterinarians. This will be a supplement to the low-cost spay-neuter clinic." RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING ORDINANCE CHANGES The following recommended ordinance changes were felt to be an aid in controlling pets, and encouraging a responsible attitude toward pet ownership; thereby encouraging owners to use either the spay clinic or private veterinary hospitals. 1. That license fees be doubled for unaltered animals. (Already incperation due to Senator Nejedly' s bill. ) 2. That a door-to-door licensing and cat registration program be established. a. Registration fee for each cat over the age of four months would be $2.00. b. Wearing of tags to be optional. c. No late registration fee at this time. d. Establish in the County Ordinance, a provision allowing owners of five cats or more to obtain a cattery, cat fancier registration permit, paralleling the Ordinance regulating the kennel operators and dog fanciers. e. Establish in the Ordinance the definition of cattery and cat fancier to read as follows: 1. Cattery - An individual who owns or possesses five or more unaltered cats for the purpose of breeding, showing, or boarding, not to exceed twenty cats. The suggested registration fee: 5 to and including 10 cats $10.00 10 to and including 20 cats $20.00 2. Cat Fancier - An individual who owns or possesses five or more altered cats as a hobby or as pets, not to exceed twenty cats. 5 to and including 10 cats $ 5.00 10 to and including 20 cats $10.00 f. Establish in the ordinance that individuals owning or possessing more than twenty cats or dogs are to be considered a commercial establishment. Definitions of commercial shall be the same as the definition now shown in the county ordinance. Att:chment .41 ANIMAL SP*CLINIC COMMITTEE MEMBERSOPOINTED BY THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS District 1 Vice Chairman Mary Lumsden District 2 Harris Stone District 3 Nancy-Cale District 4 Alice Jeffrey District 5 Joel Jern, D.V.M. Agricultural Commissioner, Secretary Arthur L. Seeley Contra Costa Veterinary Medical Association Representative Contra Costa Kennel Club Nick Calicura Animal Protection Institute, Chairman Barbara Poppin (NOTE: Named changed to: SPAY — Stop Pets Annual Yield) Contra Costa S.P.C.A. Cecily Bradford Board of Supervisors—County Government James Kenny Operations Committee Warren Boggess IYy • N� t ; • :. lop OIL- no • o ' C,•ld.w�'rl � - Y ' R ! Attachment #3 . CONTRA COSI COUNTY SPAY CLINIC STUDY COMMITTEE REPORT ON EQUIPMENT COSTS TO SET UP SPAY CLINIC Surgical Lighting $ 688.00 Anesthesia Lighting 197.00 1 Camplight 20.00 Surgical Instrument Pack ($400.00 ea. - 10 packs) 40000.00 Hydraulic Tables ($420.00 ea. - 4 tables) 2 for surgery - 2 for exam. 1.680.00 Examining Tables (Anesthesia) 108.00 f Guerney 360.00 Steriliser 1,960.00 Anesthetic Machines 2,000.00 Stools 70.00 Clipper and Blades 133.00 Scrub Station 425.00 Stethoscope • 50.00 Oxygen Therapy Unit 336.00 Mise. Sutures 1,000.00 Electro-cautery 600.00 Ultrasonic Instrument Cleaner 200.00 Laryngoscopes 45.00 Anesthetic 1.500.00 Stapler (optional) 500.00 Pans, buckets, and wastebaskets 150.00 Small Refrigerator 80.00 Desks, tables. filing cabinetst and record-keeping materials 1,000.00 Stackable washer and dryer 550.00 3 sets metal cages (13 cap. ) • $1500.00 ea. (Prices reflect 10% increase in cost of steel as of 9/73) 4 ___500._00 Total equipment cost . . . . . $ 22,152.00 Prices were secured from several operating spay clinics and will vary as much as 20 to 50%. according to supplier. Respectfully submitted. Dr. Joel Jern. D.Y.X. Allen Jeffrey Jan 1974 Barbara Poppin Attachment #4 Pittsburg (AC 415) 439-2091 --DOVER MOBILE HOME S#ES • Fairfield (AC 707) 429-1440 WORK SHEET NAME DATE S.P.A.Y. 6/13/74 ADDRESS BnX SP61 I WR7 nut Crppk CAVI f. PHONE MAKE MODEL LENGTH WIDTH YEAR Mt.Valley O US o STOCK NO. COLOR ELIVERY POINT BEDROOMS MFG.SERIAL NO. IN MAKE YEAR PAYOFF TO, TRADE TITLE WHERE, ACCT.NO. FOR LENGTH-WIDTH-COLOR -BEDROOMS- OTHER TRADE-IN OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT PRICE OF UNIT S 20,500-00 PTIONAL EQUIPMENT OPTIONAL ACCESSORIES 1.45o.00 COST OF SET UP TRANSPORTATION SUB TOTAL 21,950-00 SALES TAX IF ANY. •00 (Approx) LICENSE,TITLE,ETC 150.00 DELIVERED PRICE TOTAL71 23,417-00 TOTAL DOWN $ PAYMENT UNPAID BALANCE.................. 1 MONTHLY PAYMENT 12 YEARS..........., rj MONTHLY PAYMENT-IS YEARS..............5 CARRIED TO OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT S ...................................................................... S 4 ton air conditioner installed 1200.00 .. .................................._...................... ........... $ 2 ste s with handrails installed 250.00 ."""""""""""""..........`......................-...S BANK OR FINANCE CO: O KVE O UCB APPROVED: FIRST PAYMENT DUE 1f MONTHS o S CARRIED TO OPTIONAL ACCESSORIES s 1,450.00 Attachment #5 j :,� VICTOR W. sAUER IOUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT R. M. RYGN 6 PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DEPUTY.RUILAINGS AND GROUND:: VERUON L. CLINE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Room 115. COURTHDUI.E CHIEF DEPUTY YUDLIC WORKS DIRECTOR J. E. TAYLOR GTH FLOOR. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING DEPUTY•FL000 CONTROL R. D. LIROATCH DEPUTY•D U+IN CSS AND SERVICES MARTINEZ. CALIFORNIA 94353 255 GLACIER DRIVE MARK L. KERMIT TELEPHONE 220.3000 DEPUTY-ROADS ID ElV May 17, 1974 IE . rmr ,3 Our File: Building Projects CONITRA G05TA COUNTY Animal Control Spay Clinic Qca:�t�Tr.�eyr a:-AunICULTUnE Ms. Barbara Poppin, Chairman County Spay Clinic Study Committee 3157 The Alameda 1 Concord, California 94519 Dear Ms. Poppin: E / f In accordance with your request I am sending you a list of items j covered in the estimate which we prepared on June 30, 1972, a copy of which is attached for your ready reference. I _ s The estimate covered the following: 1 I Clearing and Grubbing Paved Pad for Trailers jt Paved Parking Space for fifteen (15) Automobiles t Utilities Water Gas Electric Sanitary Sewers Inasmuch as two years have passed since the estimate of $9,000 was prepared, we would suggest that this figure be increased by 20%, which would bring the revised rough estimate of cost to $10,800. Please call if you wish to discuss any of these matters further. . f Very truly yours, j Victor W. Sauer Public W k Di ctor By Ted L. Smith Supervising Building Projects TLS:ds Engineer Attachment cc: County Administrator's Office - Mr. D. Bell Department of Agriculture - Mr. -Ken Danielson s 1 Attachment. #6 Dr. Schwab's Propo PROPOSED COOPERATING VETERINARIAN LOW-COST STERILIZATION PROGRAM STATEMENT: Doctor has the right to refuse surgery on any patient when such surgery would be hazardous to the patient. CATS* DOGS* OVH $20.00 OVH (up to 40 lbs. ) $30.00 Castrate $10.00 (over 40 lbs. ) $35.00 Tubal Ligation $15.00 (over $0 lbs. ) $40.00 Castrate $20.00 Vasectomy $25.00 Tubal Ligation $15.00 NOTE: Pregnancy or obesity - additional $5.00 On dogs and cats: Proof of distemper vaccination prior to surgery - fee not to exceed $4.00 i i *No refund if lost in surgery $/13/73 61 , jr CA Alvil VIA to IS Q ALA �t 3 �: .04, bt oy 4.4 i r i - r r g �' �• �. Vs SM bD VA t "C3% ;�„ `le ia �' `w P c� rpt+w.'v { L1i� d� -S :� 7,. d y D O"�� •-G' �'��''N��+ ,��" -� Q ,. '�'�.i y. �` � •�,ww� C �+.45 0 .., � . ';"�...p yam„ �. a ° = o 'm •. bop,. �,•� N0 C4,•{ V ►►� " ' ...` 4l.: p y y, • �. O'. O y • to o D ;D D �+.G3C O .c, an- ° .fl rot ,► y 'D DO v ed s y N 3 J►Z "G y✓N�-+c� C. O. �' ..+ �.+ -� © i ...• U Os.� U ..�(.� � v T U+ C.).� D d o 0 tz ca OA 0 • " U eco �S• w Gid N: .� to62 T D .`n to . _.o_ 4+ h c0 , to •1; -,;,, o o Si y v v v� as as `� G a" U �" ` y � ° °° 0 � � P-+ `� ° C��, ►�.. �, U ^�-d �� 'U "+� G V c+• r.�. :��,. Lam, ^� of-� ,� Ca, a 5o °: vo [ c o fro m b0o ,� syo °°a as�$' b xa �, � cs o as o ,� as 4. ,Z s as �: ��,„ a� p' u, i °a ,, > •U Q' �.� �! a pp >.� C.l ry' a .Cl`+•0- ci. CO .6.0 s po E� G- ,ate,' .0 a y a a' °�' `� ' �. }" u to � . CZp ' � sy ❑ ° cu. wc ^a ' oca7R (33 7131 E y �" � •�+ � Q1 3.0 a � �' t�D�� vv�++ 'L: ' ca Qa w m s S"• ° C� j >. CQ Q� p 00 WL cz •v �. ov > Sao . . .•v �5 � � �. ... ... 4- •� �. �� p to �,--• �, tz bo Q ct: Cd 1:1 x "" I=, o y o . y a� v ^ v � z ^ v s. cd Z7 � ? 0 - 'C (U. 0 c! .C:.0 > +- u Q) as '� a Q p c0 040 t � ``. . A G; F., •� a� cz 4J ° is {U 0 0 -. X p �? Q}rC O fy G y v, , a, ca y .0 .. c0 m ,., U i.+ W 67 f? i a �+ U c4 ✓ Gl i. G7 1.� �C U •� 3 r •1 -� cqcrzvM,� c t- m (7] a ,nccr- x (M — -� cvgcl � tia a� � i i N a F... ,a ,^.�. y,; as- O ° �, . ,G as - G U It �} U..4>..�;-�;'O -G-G,,,•�.. ,,, G � � �.+ G C7 � O p-,+.� b C� Gr..s U *ate' G ' p U �: ; `4? > O '' .�G ? F• cy. ai G '^ •� rte' `�i' - y4-1y ;,, y, v,; .�' U 0 .Ui,+, }• Sy y 4? �-' 4 G O `'' O U �'' '�p ..G.O..G � � �. �. . O •r+ O � �+ u°. N �,.G Qj `� '�'� "7'' �• _rj b4• m" tp., O 4� v. .p = {, ��+ G _ y .� .fl w b0 O " U •� SX+ .G to Y .. C6 '? end Q cC *� Cti O. 7' .j .: 7.:> c4bo - C I..'T� W N .-� OA � ,G_,+,, •� O � cyn ca "�_? -7`' y ... u.. �•� c�: 'SiO."' '� 7, ;�I� . y • ,U _� 7•*� �� A ry.. U tfj ' + 3 G a 61 0� y Q ?r •• p q) p pp , y y , �3' 'G tiA ' ,f'' O ''` G A '"' •fly t�U `'{'3,x"3 Cj . G oo U G.a� ¢+ taU G+ C3 cv cd O G C O ca > W d ' O O G f. 4� G U y.to � ;b'� •� o y a �'G p ,o �1 Q d �, ,►� � o m �'S � O TM VD .cn � p t� � y_ � O yt� Ga '�'� U U H G ,4.4 �" r a U "C ° G Sj,;a G cf� U G a3 cu.C . '3a a� �.aQ• G '., y, Gv va� . � ° � � oo � o ;Go � � ' '� °n USS" b4 G03 rd vi YN U ctS O G :a F" U �" U a)A �• "ts E"` j+ U 4> O ..G '15 Y O t3j y ? 3 y 0 cid .0 O ° - 7 c� 1.. cts N U �' ,�rG d ° G w .. '� U U --� c� c7 c� pYJ � � � ��- 00 N a w, (L} ce 4.. .O c*s > �, 'CiJ-0 I Q1 I I :CIO a �. Q fy CIA 0 10 Gn ca 4.0 CL ^� .�+,p ca ca O 'o ^d o. . v aa-cs > o :cu as H �, �. >,.= o ►d � rn"CY i�.+'�',y,, �"„ 1-. O c,i,, -�' z �.+ i � �t ». O .+.� �- p �'- �3' `t' �:-y,� •� +.+' al" Q ca m co (3) 4+ ca v 0. -L+1 `cla c.w. p �. .. 7+ DD.+.+ P. , r.+.,..., "�. C3, y,,. , ... �,:_ {,,, �' i•,, RS ...^" b0 O > Li 41: c4 �.+• 3. n .0 O o, C o o a) GL. � U C) O" ^d cn w• p �'. y; A.0- a? v bU �c ^O O c0 cn " .. > v; O .0 n•�.G s. 4.0 7.. p. � 0 ,.� c4 b,= 7, J^O 4> d T1 = s.+' lit l 3y 4� >, n cd O G3. b0 O ta0't7 >. r. ci CIA un C=4 C4 V o v 3.• _.. r CA Oo be nfl ;� to OA Z1. pol U ct5 � y. .� .� vn ..• dS -•" td td .r+ :CS � T td .. 1►.¢ .•(� H-. F+ --. �', � ��„'' �_, � 1� ,� Q �' QS��� ,� ++ � vy.: � � may,," p ai G rn y Q+ 61 'G U .V d�spy"y "<N' p Cjj �• .0) O ,fy t�4'�.+ c1S 0. �;�'O N �" �- 67y .Q'�'O d 7 '� O ,3 • y_ {•y-s+ r � 414 '�, .�:+ y-.,G �^' !4) ,U '.cy Sl.,��v O:� O ^�` .ts ''" 'O � �'S'1 •�","v ,Op "�'� .�✓����M,''¢+'�� ,.+ +� O�v ;�.0 y .y � 's^ � "�",� cd ,� �', �•, �,,, '��,;;�,,, � �.�,oto �, ,�+.� ", p,,.r � u, c,> ✓ 1+ +.. 4) � 8i �? �r O O m �N rp t4 S�' ;W�✓ :� -c4 _v .O Tn �p c� =_ d 'O • 7 r ,.fl +.+ y „� r O y o> O ++ :� � ,G O -✓ G U y �..'� vl - ,. y .O tll _� U U G U as y ty.A- o f" O ✓ ZC r c4 u' pU .d' •'�--, .�, 0� O til r :01 � �'O � *O _G'O v 7` n 7 3 cC ''' y C,u.. ` � ��✓ ¢ r y !'.5 *?-'o G ,.O V, O' ba,''S G'y ,, T ,. ..• T 7 _boy �, y Qy •�.Fa V ,_ .T U •- y �, .•N• r' �n O � � U cd 't�13 y O ''" y t� 'G �. c4 pit'? cd'" U bb � :.p 65 � � bD� i• � �U+ rL1 v •`> r'd U " 'tS C' td U• U .�`S� .� �' O �Z�i y,U �j ,j4.+ �0 y ei'•-" t� .,• `•r� q1 Cj •p tC�j`c�j .� �� yob ��y -. .- � ..• G�G3c� UD - -c,, jo -01 Ln y4.4 _ �-"`'r O �j 0.1 v� T - H •d 3� :� � �' j,e y i+� � U � �.� v •fl H ol re. Q . cn rao pcis° as 3 _ .'O •S,'� d� y y ° y as •�, v �'•OkS '� ty C1 S+� Q ° U N std U✓ V •+ �} p y ? IPA yEn 1•+ 4> p t1 p �, .'' �+ oa U o p an 5 a rD p c p 0 T�> w � .� vel *CS rp• v+ o ;� OA ¢+ ..G• e5 ,�j �d �,V'� ... 7,y u:• � p � ° � y 4? ,-(} +' - � d(.�., T y -� � � �` .� U H O�"` 7,.• 4J ^� y� �, O v, y 'r' r G A.+ r• U H y ' s• T �', O rr v .0 �. O c9 91 O y+ F"' '�' . 7 � GoPA � `' O4.4 A N„�' �' � ,- v �e _ t^ m � w" cu b��•-;,a t! v �. v -d t" ccY� M OA— H y �, U O 7 'gid % �a• �Sz o u. a5 �} C'? cl PA, oo v ° y ..• 3 t. r� a' c3 c� CIA COD 0 cc L O y,, G 4) cet � q as ^ o ' ''d .o �" o > •G 000 o0. °.c -8o WR 0NA prs+ y04 .., �o tv O cn O X V > cn v --- 0 bo cd cn 3 as.� �•' Q �, �.' a b0 v G `� >,Zj ° �. CN ... ° Ua C~ o a. 9b � ov41 �; o � ^ ,mos o3a bi) b OCd bD a7^d m + ca ^ Q b y U v U �? aC�v � vo. � � a,o Qy O -j m xo .� G +' ° vv I:GOa) v ++ wa) w. yr � abo 0 bO O C' 04 cC x.. v U ..a Cl Yncflr- aocnQ �� � �+, ���wa�s � � � � c�ic'3 000 .» t4 y LG 44 Qd �" Qi , " a 2 �' "' w `4 DO 04= a3 r� v .�. �"�"y, aOd`►�.� r"r �+ C"' .v's�„� v gO y.,^6 v Q0 oLv aye � C3+;y b '� cst'0 ap"o C 1. � F... "0 w * 0 Wo 0000 y, - `� . ,, >. ' 3 ,a t� as -h y a� S vc v .r v - '� � oU '+ > y v O •.., C♦ "` Q} b0 v I,C,` v � v • rn U.0 i.+ �y' y, y �,,, �•. rr� CJ C� 4� d� • t61 0 CM c�.Gr+ C •�C� `'`" " ?. S�e G+ O '"' �.� U Qy, C O 03b0.`^ y z ° > � � ed� N v'.,c+ �} S G C 033 :y' :w da cC 2 3�C_',SQuil ;•��a)� •� �j .� � V b � °�,y .�,y ama� �q ' �' ���,`�a� ,y� Dt ZU.�L Gcacd a .�" y. �.i.u � TO 0 •�by O (30 u� ccr- «acnpp.c, c ` cc� t�' 17ic+� c�� ccrc' °c+�� d' ,..i Ly c'1 �i CG h 04 P--4r� w .-+ .-� .-� .—i r-1 GV s 1. I $ !' �• 94 ,. /11. } r. .,. tI. ` -S ! SPAY"CLINICS ARE INDEED; PROVING THEIR tJDRTH =: , maw. - i4.{ .S'�"'�.-va li"F•��+�t. t r } h yc j �y ` y r. ... �T ''' .y,�; L 'a %,- 'F`"i`%,, ,„,k�~''',s,c ' xz_ t ` {»5_. r ,.w "'X`�� •s{ ` ,e* Sry,S A y y... nae ,� 3ya-C';: �,;�` f C y, w i.: r z 4� "" ., 3 y.... # _ 'Y t N ^3-, er r r c N •�'•G�1 ?TF7 Y!� SC ! 11.191; i'�A 7 � a$`.kuM.r a -+`{ r r _ t > } l G � ',, v.`Sk,' �• � xa Yry, .. jr. ..E3`c '" 111 �"V Z�'t fl r �r '"ll_ t•3 - r ,y, -zC.'��— ,; Yx x, I.c'r'�I � '[E gci4a� 3 ~:. r ,{�.L'.if.1d-x`.Y i�xi r •' _5'��, iw 'fir Ur"RI FP.....�� >tw`r`�s l' y �_ r . '� -x ea tw,ca' ° "` c a '= ss }`xxr n� �i�( r'//�s'{�'�j t �i.'� _ •"� ti' rw^f x,�'f-..e2 'F2 .,,.. .f x w1j 9 r �.li)4 V 1974 �. i.,. -�$ + if j. t ,� h-`v;!3'`i s5. Ff. { N 4 7-il } L� y--- t�. gtr 'Y��1'S'r. E L � ' j r 1 4 �S:< w ,'�r Y `cr jail.?':- a.? rix�..k t ;yRS � �+,'- y s a IMPC}UNDMENTS DECRASF ,g J-' } 'd W. ,j YJ Kj 1, tox CLE a $OAR rcax'"iw'k X, t s,,it X-.,,w.ln a.0 'Gt,St rh F " r ' rib : - _ -.11-1-A, r _�`;*- I,r. I . �a S`W-Ifa . ' .1:',, '', , , ;-Ne :_, ut' `,_ -,,--,,a .,,*i., M. �n� s Cr-:1e �tnlye�i", !�:�;r�:�'� ftp �-' "'I"j ,­ F `s. � 1.11 �g : , : _�'�;,-,�-�-r-;�-,M� " ,� • � 1,h-� ,% -,: } % Tom+ a 10,47 r_. , _ . p 3 ?-*I { :-..-, - �� ,I X_ 2�:,"", ;_� ,- ,O, Ucfft _�f�'� "�-_�� �-`;�, -�,: -�­. • ­� .�_ k A 1 - ,_,, vll� , , _.. Mr i_1! ;zl� __.-Y �p �sayss "'� ��jm�� I M __� . ­ - ell �_11 i�,.. ' �'_ *1`- w ,,4�: . ,r , , - � , z x,7!�-,,?'l��'!-,-�"�x x - " , -, e�1 �,�-,',,; t, -: �- __ ,�,.,. _� ".' -��I ,�.�­ ,,'.:, �". ­t��I JWW��YN� � PW, ­rl Z� I'll, '.,,-, ,'.,;,,.,r - ­ ,1:r,,r I 1 1 ,i��i��, ,­­ . r I �_rr -I . IA �,,�m ""I,r ' '_'�� I M I� " , - .;'-­_",�' �: I- �_��' ;-,_':,m.�: . �, 1....... - - -, ,,,�:tl ��, ."*� :1..,� - i .. .�� . - -4 1�.�,�;�'.,_M le -.--� "-, , q, ,� ,'!'�t_�g", �.,,�,re`I'�_�_____.,, x��. -,,,,, - a '_"M,� �­.,, � z „- - ­ -�,"',' I�+arr,`ss ��,yt^,sk .�,�. r,,, " �1 '�1,-�,, '7 .. K� ,.�,�!,, , t -­' - - ' r�:r'' - , .,� ­_A -�,,-I-,"..�-,----:-�.��z,m ' ' ,1"-.�- S��II-"��_-Y'�l RN!\1,1, Blb1 K ��,�­, -," Y 'sr r NMIai. s-.,,­��, �r x`* � � �"1.7 ,.�,��;:!� -- , , ,, w, I:-C,:, ,- M.,,, I :_: �_r , 'M­�, t,- �,,".,-r.� - :7-1.,_�_",��__,`,,`,,.��,�,�u,, .)I ,� - ", ,"�,--�, , r ". ,__� ,­ -I 'r, ' - m ': _: r. , M.I- ," -,r ' � �_.'� - -,,, :1, , ry rrZ� .,­I I ,, ��",,,%'L��Z' i. S, f'iNl,f� 4l� Gz_E,,�,: [Y 8ut•ao CtM[ ,e y�w_:�_"_ '�_'," 3� -��-, -- M�7�,_.�� - r ; r' `�•""``,ps'r • - ?r t c `tl.�,�', [ r? "_�,.��__-_''"`�.-"",_� 'r M- , ,�,�--i,--",7�-��,�,'r.�.:�,...-_ �I�,I ' r;. -,�-4;;, ,,,���� ,L'�,' ,e_���'.%. "� Q r . �� r h �.. . -. ,-1 ��',- :::.,:�:�:' �L . -�:'_�'- '�-_�,I c+,'..1n CIe.� ,iapccrin� i trli .� c fat i/ItCrCII?. a"1 ­',­ z r �' p��Q�l� � y "` , -M- - ! p �,r- fritter el1fOCCeI11P.J1C ar � r' �` ;_ r. � `gwv °i^ lc�x -(ut },11°;sett neuter Glttttc�^plu-dui Qie 14a�lllaly% ails! °a�eeper.�ense ° �O[.the 49,1>Of111tcxpst � t ; y"[iitTlr � aUCt�!CIt211a�J31 11�gOaJ Ilf,7 U( �X`L OtL'.Il@2 hIN:r{' n5ihlilt u5t�� p rpu0113r �ea ,fn1� 2 'ts z'' �turin�tt,c'dna W cw t pn}2ula$atrtn' fntrl ted b�'iut�li""-1,, "-- luiy ';t1— h�,ah'. fi � � r. h s ..,. i r f C1t20t1 a� F 2rea. tta[_. mew �'�'T'I, ,. y X 11 t¢C lil(iltitl)0�1l:Ut a2Ci2;1►,ud�tx`�j)QI1 �z111 r$•.!`a�(leCrC�tSt ln";an „ + �' 18 s =�? ? { U r x F. 2tla) 2Tl�= nl '1 u,wl.+, '` , , 's 1(lu c nient�,.ilti.t$;.rero inl lr ' we�(r_�tr_tor altered t og " f q 4 ` /. ♦ F rf� �r .,..r;•f" 'f �2�41{:ftl�rti(4�;., �` u.{,,,�.,� 1 S ltol, t i i I u h t r2e1�!man f„/t / ,,,t, �2i1-1 1 s �''j't" o. 1(� ,22t . Dt rt�nen►�olr 1mrn.,t; s - "IL that ratioogri1' ea,"'' •i-.. _•1 .ti�w 5--r r^L l e Da121 'bx lyes h a ,..,. ` , ,;Ia>GB)dthtil. �ititl ►h t�%<<!n(e t21t..121 t1 ^ fin,Lam: auk @ '17f1t;4a�uaeyl" s ' � : a . 'Irr .t•+f:2 it 2n inf,tc,1,-;ftl,tuo»nlati�iI �Tiii�1.ire rs tlel lecreaiea rRelesiavelion�ihe;tvap.t0 ^ 2u=t' �e xt:2nt ct o[�ul2m.(s r .j „' .. , 'ttllL'( �! ,lam ai!;U tt1PrC'il<a.ut!Zji 1 t,l r 12eCOi111Qs{'d �it y� l ' _.;may , . h>z llT('ILS.;::2[ Cl cII1( )] Q) Mm [ :; ...' t�1�/� ' nific t{t( ;I r%I lil tnf n i UZt lit 2 ln, ��,,=rrc ur-cf + • c �. •_ F' ..t SO,o altei d'�og,.; t. x lwll)1tt111421t, man . 'x s c '�'�c K t^ ( v +> tIOD, W111C}t 1�[O11Id" � ' A ,1'(T7> 'Cft, (1lK `r t Jr;., 1.• .��tf, �'�.* ,i: ..,5i�' t:�-s�t2t'-�'m�Qtrs O..:t -.� •F y a ?+ Jn�41 ,iCC11l Of ng11 Cry 1'11° a '' r..• t �.+;(',:h;,- twej)�thr;1!11111C.f6111't+ s a�.,0 ani +e s y.Mp@Ctat2017&! ,+,t. , „t 11" ? r, "- ;,171)1.111t 1)et IUf IOltt CI LU•tr1,a tnat=i=j.ctti 2nia)ounclect 2n ia?U-7Lant! iii estimated t2GU � ? � 1'1r! }'12.21 thc'}210;2 i'iii Ueta tnt tlnt,l,r ]JS tJ()-1 g11riJi the'1:t�t fl5cal}car _,a' .,�-, dog licenses4�vilt lie j ��` �. ' lw,t ;U ltl?d tilev iawnUerirti 1 , c12op;of na, UG Ruall reported �$ 1f tbt�.jiear he t;aid.1,, kl 1, ,r } /'1 t}c_-.fut 'lh ft 1licluJeiI 1'Y.;L,t,3 Ile-numLet of,dog, anct`cdtti.'!e -, ftke clixii° _- o e "` �''MY .11 ,troycc!!et!„fi ont-11U.83u'in'19'i0-?�F` :lioiirla .t p . 'p''�.,o},t[auun, and =u,3GSncutet _. � t ., _y h2rouShFr�d2 : : ,ei } ropct i0il�, Rt�`h Sard` 1,-,�` , , to S63a0 2n IJ73-?�f11: ant [0 4 m are Joca ,-' k « , T}te f22�t :.2nuitici)a1J jr' fid_;` J coj k ate-Lal.,ng Bette,,ca2•e,of, , .! Y�operated��� ,val'the rinn `Street A?litnal ; s iI p,t ” lie i.& "1'hcre 2s°'lea p' �I2nlc-=-*aJso.ihe first<u) the>ilatton== ._,gT tier ala t(� t }� Q"; � ' � '+ (t ti. - J+'^a�. .f Y tlllfLa It7Y I,I 'yk :Wrrr 1>,[CI artl U2reiliug",F w 11'¢� opened;in Fet�ruary, 2y71, a d 'p wt11e i_];th avenue`Slielter� '. Ruh;a.t2t1 tl}�(t rtanVaothe2�apa� i':t110 acldiilonal on'esJi6gan:operal nb � ;.tG13 .11th_�1j'e,,aiid_the e> last.3-ear cnut neuter sur Otic., tool` Lace at a.,].�1sG�'at1e�Y=:Shelter,?I3131 a' + 11 ' ,{71'1 ,ic ete2u;as 120.Fi1t-1f. ._utglcal fees ate SZ7 2Q for�pa�til; 512et'2nan 11rey;Aorth;I3o1 ._' r Jn tcit;iuot2 tuahr yjay nt utci pu) autt Sll ,U feu'ncutcru)� , .l 'ivot><i; Y ii t,1oi12n�: 2uUllc acre tauee of,tlte �"'" - 4. x t.2e n i12c 2mprolcmeilL ul+al>nn31 o I p to1111ut `I�u�ll �altl alaO Cdl 11c'atUl -l1llUCa:r)> 2ntXatecl._121.the cu2tcIltN� z �* , u .11 inted to the;ily l2ccn�e fe,r cl(2g tlren to nro�iari rush'.t24i ` �` � : ' �, a.r A ., ... x. '.ltlrttC -. p 4 :f e .r t c Eq. tt!!t:tSl for unaltered ttog�dlld$'d�U Plcn�e Tarn to I'a�c�.1,CoI 1ti+ '� z '''" t 11 w ;_Izu f ;^•3.... e X a Fs .� -2C t'"�'.. _ N t r* X_� ' 8 v a }� ij '' ... s.+r 11 ^+a .�'S C j ay '><u„ C ,�y `M i 'y-3 "" ltJ 4°r me �. x r �r��(. 5 �( Y.,.,.-1.4-r .,., y h� 'A^S Cs'�*Z x'�-K PtG y3-S� 'J . Lh'I,. 1 K^ ("-'}�.,'p S PEC IA L ; n �� %ti"�� �� V100 ,4* � a s , �� INTERESTr GROUPS; CLAIl�1;,,CITY AND;;-COUNTY 'R.UN , .F, "t� r' ,! ' *t��' n+R 3 v !aaJ� !i - _LOW` COST SPAY/NEl1TER CLINICS, "DQ :NO GODD "� 'r' ' r� .e .� WAI a TO REDUCE THE PET<OUERPOPULATION" �11 K ;� � �- Al .� "� Y yrs a r '7. ;-41 • '$�� ���.j.I., t-2'�.i zc IN FACT, ,THE (NUMBER OF_ ANIMALS. GOING TO , 4 f R%% "` SNEL,T;ERS, ANO BEING DESTROYED HAS :BEEN. _ r i = �` REOUCEO I;N �A,LL AREAS liIHERE_11 : LOW-COST CITY } ` � �TPON I � 11 awD CrOUNT�Y` RUN SPA-Y�NEUTER 'CLhNICS`. ARE IN �" �� �� '� � r OPERATI1. tON: N �b ~r^' '_ _ �� s` r -. )'Ud1 R.Q h" t 7 4 N u i 1 Y{ �.• r VA, :., .s ", },5,f r ; '' c 1 yes 1 }`x .S't a-1-,f--!F., „ v'' §-'a *L ` it a a yr �<+ .- f'?v ^e n.' L tit 5'l i't _ a . ".A_ ` ""� �..a' T-`��*�''S'�F ti�S',`Y �,N, ;� s :c'� r .: rig '*, `` [',,,`,'� a �., t �"y'. c� s 4. .!� 'c3 p �' r ':�{'' S a" ✓ i :i'[j, z -s°. ..� +"'+ ,a. a 3 a-„ ,a' ,3• . a �.> t� ' >' a.. r7'" ^-4'';.., <=i- - �•O9,7' s�L " -'-: e,f,:ht�',,,•,gc.. Y;'f.� ,�, ." y ;? !,+",K: .-...t...... ,�a.-.'h... {•'w .2: '-:tv�.<...-e..*c'�e ",,,7rii� _ .r'"w,-. ,a"k,.3tC .' -s�P.ateLkrS{, `a '-k� _ .'$..S '+tF "� a-'�.,:?. �" -s� Animal Control Tops Cities' Complaints Thr nation's mayors and city councilmen get more complaints about animal control problems than about anything else, according to a recent c.,;mcy conducted by the National league of Cities. This iurve) results, printed below, were based on the responses of 519 ma%,nr% and 51.' city councilmen of communities of all sizes from all parts „t th-ration. tt'.us suggests that humanitarians use this information to convince their r+»n municipai officials that animal control is of highest importance to their onst,tustti. Msus will,be glad to supply literature and assistance to anY_, f,� .,, �. :-; _. ,; ,, _, .--.v • ro:r..m:�rtity Int+emteed in improving its animal control program. ` S .. FREQUENTLY WHAT DO CITIZENS' y =� COMPLAIN ABOUP. (Percentages of Mentions) - T.. Council- Ran lx . : ,, ,, `�; �, men ,._ s•{, ''tel Dog and other pet control pro^y�roblems" 50.7 44.3 „o_ . - ,:r."� :t.�, ,'•.>'_'• 2 Tratir ar signs& fights,.perking) '40.7 53.5° j 3 Rezoning problems 30.1 46.3 . `• - ; 4 Potholes in streets .30.6 32.4 5 Tax rates 22.0 26.0 ; a ti: ' v' = . l el a' y i ° �.. ' 6 ' Sewer service 23.119.3 7 •Cleanliness of streets neighborhoods 18.5 19.7 f _y r $ Crime 17.0 14.5 9 Housing' 15.4 14.3 T 10 Other";; 14.1 15.6 11 Water service 10.6 5.9 12 gs 6.2 4.3 : 13 Health care 3.3 2.1 14: - `Fire protection ' .. . 2.9 1.4 ;: RECEIV • ED 5r_Pa?71974 CLrJ. R. O=N Sept. 25, 1974 50"'3 O? SU?ERV{$O� 8NTRA C Board of Supervisors Administration Building Pine and Escobar St. Martinez, Ca. 94545 Dear Sirs : I am one of thirteen volunteers that give spay aid referrals by phone . During July 25 calls, August 21 calls and so far this month 34 calls. If all the other volunteers got as many or more calls, this amounts to quite a few people seeking reduced spaying costs. People are becoming more and more aware of the animal over-population, and are interested in spaying and neutering their animals, but it has to be at a price they can afford. This population explosion affects the whole county, not just a small group of people called SPAY. It 's now time for the county to assist SPAY in getting a clinic started. Thank you, Mrs. Helen G. Rice 2049 Walnut Blvd. Walnut Creek, Ca. 94596 Please read this letter at the Sept. 30th meeting. cc; Supervisor James Moriarty AGENDA ITEM -~--�- 1 -- __--- • for (date) t September 20, 1974 Mrs. S. Nomura 880 Bates Avenue $l Cerrito, California 9 .530 Dear Mrs. Nomura; This will acknowledge receipt of your September 13, 1974 letter suggesting possible proration of yearly dog license fees. We are enclosing a copy of the 45 recommendations of the Special Animal Review Control Comaittee.' which was appoint- ed by the Board to study all matters relatet to animal control. You may find that Item 10 relates to your suggestion. The public hearing on this report was continued to September 30, 1974 at 8 p.m. Perhaps you would like to be present at this hearing to express your views on the matter. Very truly yours, f J. R. OIS SON 9 CLERK u ene B. osep Deputy Clerk AJ:ckt Enclosures cc: Supervisor W. N. Boggess County Administrator Attn: W. C. A. Hammond September 13, 1974 Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 100 — 37th St. Richmond, Calif. Gentlemen: We just received the license for our 41 months old dog but already it will expire December 31, 1974. It is not fair that we have to pay $4.00, the full amount, for this short period of time. It should be prorated or the expiration date be extended to September, 1975. I would appreciate hearing from you. Sincerely, S. Nomura (Mrs. ) 880 Bates Ave. El Cerrito, Calif. 94530 RECEIVED SEP 17 1974 J. R. OLSSON CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COW 1A CO. In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California August 13 _, 19 74 In the Matter of Proposal of the Contra Costa Veterinary Medical Association for Animal Population Control. Supervisor Wo N. Boggess having stated that in - connection with the July 23, 1974 hearing on the recommenda- tions of the Special Animal Control Review Committee9 George Eo Eberhart, D.V.M. , President, Contra Costa Veterinary Medical Association, had submitted to him a written proposal of the said association for animal population control, and _ a paper entitled "Results of an Animal Population Survey: Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California, 1970" by Robert Schneider, DaV.M. , M.S. and Michael L. Vaida, K.A. , Ph-D; and Supervisor Boggess having recommended that the material supplied by Doctor Eberhart be furnished to �1ro A. Lo Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner, and Mro Nick Calicura, Chairman, Animal Review Control Committee's Sub- Committee on Population Control, frith' the suggestion that Mr. Seeley and Mro Calicura meet with Doctor Eberhart to study the proposal of the Veterinary Association and have available for the Board at its September 30,• 1974 continued hearing a suggested program for low-cost spay and neutering; On motion of Supervisor W. N. Boggess, seconded by Supervisor A . M. Dias, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the reconnendation of Supervisor Boggess is APPROVED The foregoing order was passed by the following vote:. AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, W. N. Boggess, E. A . Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: Nonea A BSENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc : Mro Calicura Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of 14r. Seeley Supervisors County Counsel cfxed this 13th day of August , 19 74 Acting County Administrator ,Q J. R. OLSSON, Clerk 8yt r '' Z7 Deputy Clerk Arline Patten H 24 5/74 - 12,500 r. t ice•..� July 23, 1974 Time- 8".--3& a.m. To Board Members: Mr. George Lamb, 430 Mt. View Drive, Martinez, called and wanted you to know that he is strongly in favor of the leash law and he thinks it would be a good idea if a 5-foot leash was used. Mr. Lamb said he would not be able to attend the meeting today, as he is at work. so to In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California July 2 19 74 In the Matter of Fixing Time for Public Hearing on Report of Special Animal Control Review Committee. This being the time for the Board to again consider the action to be taken with respect to the report (filed with the Board June 11 , 1974) by the Special Animal Control Review Committee on its appraisal of the animal control program in the county; and Supervisor W. N. Boggess having again urged that the Board fix a time for public hearing on the Committee recommen- dations; and Supervisor E. A . Linscheid having requested that prior to a public hearing the costs of implementation of the Committee proposals be provided to the Board; and Supervisor Boggess having agreed that the request of Supervisor Linscheid was a desirable one; NOW, THEREFORE, on motion of Supervisor Boggess, seconded by Supervisor .A. M. Dias, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED J'u2y 23; . 1974 at. 1.: 30 :p:1m.: _ is fixed as the time for a public hearing on the aforesaia recommendations of the Special Animal Control Review Committee, and Mr. A . L. Seeley, County Agri- cultural Commissioner, is requested to furnish Board members with estimates of the costs involved with respect to the various proposals of the Committee . The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, W. N. Boggess, E. A . Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None . ABSENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of cc: Congressman Jerome rJaldie Supervisors Mars. William Ray affixed this 2nd da of July , 1974 Board Members y County Agricultural Commissioner J. R. OLSSON, Clerk County Administrator By �f ���� u Deputy Clerk Arline Patten H 24 5/74 - 12,500 V Statement befor&he Board of Suiervisors, ntra Costa County, Ju y 23, . 1)74 by Mrs. David ,uch of Danville, President of S. P.A.Y. of Contra Costa County, an all-volunteer organization with paid membershii of over 500 throughout the county. Gentlemen: All of the problems of animal control stem from the fact that there are just too many animals in the county. The animals handled by the County Animal Control are only a small +part of the problem--the tii of the iceberg. We do not feel the *public is fully aware of the enormity of the *problem and its root cause. There is an over- nonulation of cats and dogs, and we must deal with it in the most effective and humane way. Promit action is needed, not only for the sake of the animals, but also to meet our resionsibility to 1rotect the health and welfare of the community. Animal control will cost the taxpayers of Contra Costa County almost three quarters of a willion dollars this year, u, from one half million in 1971. A large percentage of this money goes to im-iound and destroy animals. What S.P.A.Y. is suggesting is an alternative: an imiroved method over the present system. This is not a question of the county assuming a new obligation or resionsibility; the county already has the resionsibility of animal control. Ultimately you must control the number of lets being born; this is the modern concent of animal --io-)ulation control. Man has re-)laced the natural ecological factors that would normally function I . as controls. Slaying and neutering are the only effective methods of net ioiulation control available now. Exnerts agree that no other effective methods will be available for many years. When other methods become available, they will all need to be utilized. S. P.A.Y. nro-)oses that the county establish a low-cost, self-sunnorting Slay Clinic based on the successful Los Angeles Snay Clinic Program. This will be suinleraental to the County Animal Control and will provide a service which Animal Control is not now handling. The Board of Supervisors by a unanimous vote in August 1971 annroved the conceit of such a clinic and committed the county to its oleration when funds became available. We submit that it isn ' t a question of availability--it 's allocation. During this delay of three years we 've witnessed a rise in the annual budget for animal control of more than three times the amount needed to establish the clinic. With the establishment of a Snay Clinic there should also be an educational program. S.P.A.Y. of Contra Costa County is organized and already working in the field of education with information booths, fact sheets, media publicity, and with the assistance of several teachers within the group has established a nrograrr, f•-)r school children. If relieved of the burden of raising the funds for the clinic, this group could organize a more extensive a-ep__ ONAdL4 &� educational nrograrnnto comilement t e cli is and could reach many niore neoile in the county than the ironosed L u j,� :u " animal control iublic relations officer; AND, it would cost the tax-)ayer nothing, because S.P.A.Y. is an all- volunteer grouo which would function as an auxillary to the clinic. i The imiact of this -problem is county-wide; no sector is exem•it--urban suburban or rural. The solution requires the cooneration. of all. Pet owners must be motivated to neuter their gets--such an a-)-)eal for action _. must have the irestige of the county to be successful. This is a public res-)onsibility; it would hardly be fair ' to ex-)ect the irivate sector to assuire the full resionsibility. Individual oractioners are hard pressed to meet their own medical demands, , have invested considerable time and money in their iractices, and are entitled to exsect a return from their operations. A public clinic would not be faced with this requirement and is the only viable alternative that has been offered to the citizens. The set over-noiulation -problem will continue to grow exponentially without an Education Program and a Public Snay Clinic offering reasonable irices that is available to all county residents. Just the fact that the county had established such a clinic would be a powerful force in educating the lublic about the problems of animal control. It is im,)ortant for the county to set 4 the examile. It is the forum for reaching the greatest Page 4 of 4 portion of the nonulation. Private iractitioners would i 1 also benefit from the county's stimulation of the -public. A coo,3erative program featuring a county operated, self- , sur)-►orting Snay Clinic, and AM- educatio al program using t the resources of o rivate, interested citizens through S.P.A.Y. , together with the continued dedication of private veterinarians, would have exciting possibilities. f We urge your affirmative action now. t F ' i i 1 z 1 SPECIAL ANIMAL'CONTROL REVIEW COYMTTEE REPORT A meeting of the Special Animal Control Review Committee was held on Thursday, June 6, 1974, at which the recommendations of all sub-committees were presented I � and reviewed. The following recommendations were approved by the Committee and are submitted to i the Board of Supervisors for review and appropriate action. i ! 1. The County should immediately, proceed to remodel the euthanasia chambers to comply with State law. Studies reveal that other methods are too i costly and/or impractical. (Comment: money has been appropriated.) i ` ! 2. The Committee recommends a leash law for dogs. Exceptions will be made for working dogs, such as sheep dogs, and for dogs attending obedience classes. Obedience classes will issue appropriate identification cards. This ldash law would repeal the "at large" definition which now exists in the Ordinance. 3. Ranchers should have prime responsibility for protecting their livestock. Animal Control will respond only when practical or when an Animal Control z Officer observes a dog harassing cattle' in which case he should get out and shoot'the dog. ! 4. Suggestion forms will be' made available to Animal,Control employees I enabling them to express their concerns regarding policies and operational procedures. j ! 5. A Lost and Found Card File should not be kept by Animal Control. Telephone identification of an animal•is inefficient and impractical. Owners will continue to be notified if the animal is identifiable by license, name and address tag, etc. i' 6. Livestock; with the exception of cattle, should be held for sale by sealed bid aftet being held the required account of time. The livestock is to be displayed regularly on Thursday, and•sold by sealed bid. 7. The holding period for unlicensed. animals shall-remain at 72 hours. .This • applies to dogs only. 8. County Ordinance should limit the number of cats and dogs per residence, , r with the exception of special licensed facilities. 9. The County should increase the availability of low cost rabies clinics because of State requirements regarding rabies vaccination prior to licensing. Low cost rabies clinics should also be available in the area of each Animal Control Center at least once a month, March through Dqcember. r 10. There should be a fiscal and calendar year licensing program. i 11. The dpg•'license fee should be increased to six dollars ($6) for unneutered dogs, and three dollars ($3) for neutered dogs. 12. License tags should be distributed at the rabies clinics. i 13. A door-to--door licensing program should be established if the program would be self-supporting, educational and "soft-sell". 14: Ahimal-Control should issue license tags. Section 30806 of the State- Agricultural Code reads "In-any county that does not have an Animal Control Department, the county clerk shall perform the functions ' assigned to the county Animal Control Department." , 15. The Committee recommends cat registration which could be handled in the same manner as dog licensing, with a fee of four dollars ($4) for un- .neutered cats; and two dollars ($2) for neutered cats. The cat would be afforded the same benefits that apply to the licensed dog. Cat registra- tion would be contingent upon a door-to-door licensing enforcement program. Recommendations from the Board-appointed Animal Spay Clinic Study Committee i are submitted for the .cat registration program (Item #4, report dated August 22, 1973) 16. If cat registration is NOT enacted, the only cats that should be held for 72 hours are those that are wearing identification, appear well cared for, appear owned, and those cats caught in cat traps. 17. The County should establish a self-supporting County maintained low cost _ spay and neuter clinic. The Board of Supervisors should make a firm ` effort (with a deadline) to meet with private-veterinarians to try to develop a spay/neuter program utilizing the services of private veterin- arians. The agreement with the veterinarians should be renewable yearly. Fee charges should be low enough to indicate a public service, but such i that they would insure the co-operating veterinarians a reasonable profit. All this to continue while members of a private group work to obtain funds to establish a low cost spay/neuter clinic as agreed to previously by the Board of Supervisors. 18. When a dog is on his ow-ner's property, but not under control (the owner is nearby.:, but not visible), a warning notice should be issued. If there is reason to believe the animal has caused a disturbance, is a problem dog, or will become a problem, a citation should be issued. _ 19. The Animal Control Centers should be open on Sundays. If the Centers are-not open on Sundays and holidays, these days should not be counted in the holding time,but the daily fee shall be _included in the impound charges. . 20. Establish an ordinance restricting the holding and keeping of exotic animals. Limits should be 'placed on the keeping of exotic animals. Animal Control should be responsible for the:•.enforcement of the ordinance. 21. The Board should consider the possibility of a 10-hour per day, 4-day work week shift. If approved, it is recommended that adequate staffing be pro- vided to allow for improved coverage. 22. There should be no change in present procedure that animals impounded by law enforcement agencies shall be taken to the Animal Control Centers. This would apply to all police agencies who impound animals for whatever reason. The impound fee should be paid by the owner of the animal. The Committee sees no practical alternative. 23. Improved communications between Animal Control and the public should b'e part of the licensing program. , 24. Publicity would be most effective if it emphasized such areas as the advantages of a neutered pet, responsible pet care, functions of Animal Control and the citizen's responsibility. 25. An education program should be provided to the general public and elementary school children and one full time representative.•from'Animal Control should carry on the program. 26. Animal Control should accept and screen all calls regarding wild animals and provide advice, and should respond in emergencies. (Danger to human life, or if an animal is suffering.) 27. The cat trap use information form should state that "cat traps" are not to be used for trapping wildlife and that wildlife accidentally caught will be the responsibility of the citizen using the trap. It is also the respon- sibility of the citizen to release or dispose of the animal. By signing the loan form, the citizen accepts:this responsibility. 28. Cities wanting to provide right deposit cages at various locations within their city be responsible for buying, maintaining and cleaning those cages, and properly caring for the animals -confined therein. Animal Control will make pickups during normal working hours. 29. Animal Control should continue to respond on a high priority basis to calls regarding animal packs in areas where people may be endangered. 30. Penalty fees should be revised as follows: the second offense fee, $8; the third offense fee, $1.6; the fourth offense fee, $24. (Comment: there is no penalty.fee for the first offense.) 31. Material of an educational nature dealing with the animal over-population problem (a problem that the County deals. with) be allowed to be displayed on County bulletin boards subject to the approval of each department head. • 32. The County Department of Agriculture shall train one Vertebrate Pest Controlman in the skill of predator control for the purpose of taking target Animals (coyote) when there is a proven depredation to livestock. This motion supports that recommendation made by Mr. A. L. Seeley on April 25, 1973, to the Board of Supervisors on the subject of Predatory Animal Control and Squirrel Eradication Program. 33. Present kennel supervision to prevent dog fights is'adequate. The only other possibility would be to provide one run per animal which is not practical. 34. The County Health Department request the State Health Department to modify the California Administrative Code Title 17, Section 2606b(3) to eliminate the isolation of biting dogs that have been properly vaccinated or, at least, give the local Health Department discretion as to whether or not such vaccinated dogs shall be routinely isolated. . - 35. The County Health Department should. reimburse Animal Control -for rabies control activities. w 36. Because it is a necessity that Animal Control Officers carry firearms, • the Committee recomends a psychological testing system and a one-year probationary period be instituted for animal Control Officers and Kennelman. It should further be required that Animal Control Officers be adequately trained in the use of their firearms. 37. The use of County vehicles for travel to and from the Animal Control Center by officers be discontinued in an effort to offset increased • costs of the service. An exception would be made for on-call personnel. 38. The,Civil Service Department•screen clerical applicants'as to their will- ingness to work for Animal Control, perhaps by a "box" to be checked on the application form. The certification list.-will then have only pre- screened applicants. 39. A system should be initiated so clerical personnel at the centers can easily determine what.type of animals are being kept. It is suggested that.a chalk board list animals such as dogs, cats, sheep, goats, horses, etc. Opposite the animal 's type would be a• check mark after yes or no to indicate if this type of animal.is.being held., . • 40. No action should be taken to change .e:dsti.ng law which prohibits guide dogs being trained from entering restaurants, bowling 'alleys, etc. A guide dog trainer was contacted and stated that,it is not necessary for the young dog at,this period of training to be in such public places. 41. The matter of a toll free line should be referred to the County Administra- j torts Office to answer in the same manner that they handled a recent similar request. j 42. County personnel should work with the Courts to establish uniform fines and forfeitures for at-large and---license•-violations. 43. The County Animal Control Ordinance should be amended-to allow cities to _ contract with Animal Control for increased services and for enforcement of stricter local regulations which may be adopted by individual cities. 44. The following actions should be taken to improve the Animal Control public image and the community relations aspect as a means of effecting greater compliance with animal control regulations: a. request the Couaty ?ublic Relations officer to develop a public information program to increase public understanding of the Animal Control function; I b. provide for an on-going community relations training program for all Ani-al Control personnel; c. seek funding for a trai'ninprogram from County appropriations, CCCJ* { grants and/or from the State through legislation providing special i programs in this field statewide; and d. encourage the League of Califo2ni.a Cities to support legislation to provide for such a training'program.: ' 45. It is recommended that two additional facilities, one in the Pittsburg S area and one in the Danville area, be constructed as a means of increasing the field effectiveness of Animal Control personnel and as an improvement in service to a large portion of the Countyr po ulation. �;'�"22 Warren N. Boggess, Chairman Special Animal Control Review Committee • Dated June'll, 1974 J • HEALTH DEPARTMENT Contra Costa County TO: WAIW.a aessass DATE: July 320 W4 Sup4mylsor District 4 FROM: SUBJECT: R *44ttioa to titl* 416-4.4 tie � i if ss of FrOaLS49 "No porsot pias or Y*1sassing .aVy WAR41 shall a#intain the PjA 1 bC or Article 416-4.4 miscellaue*" Add SoCtiou 416-4»405 - Cleaniivass of Pr=ises "No person owi,.ag or peasessing any anal moy pera t any prouises belonging to hiaa, Or OCCUPied by bin, to b*cM* nm sous, foul ov offensive by the attnmlatLou of filth and doCaTing anima eatsamat. He shall be. notified to rmove and abate such suiXawa within 24 hours. RECEIVED J , UL3 1914 ,� J. R. OLSSON CLERKCBOARD OF OS7APCOISORS B ....f,�.... ....._. O...De GA-9 4/74 2M ODEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURI0 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Supervisor J. E. Moriarty Date: July 15, 1974 Supervisor J. P. Kenny Supervisor A. M. Dias To: Supervisor W. N. Boggess Supervisor E. A. Linscheid From: A L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissoner-Sealer of Weights and Measures Subject: Estimates of Costs - Proposals of Special Animal Control Review Committee (Board Order dated July 2, 1974) As requested by Board Order dated July 2, 1974, the attached information is enclosed for your review. ALS jnw attachment cc: County Administrator -i��lerk of the Board RECEIVED JUL 161974 J. R. OLSSON CLE&K EOARD OF SUPERVISORS RAC STA.CQ. 7/73 (500) August 5, 1974 Mr. Vladislav Bevc 51 Hardester Court Danville, California 94.526 Dear Mr. Bevc: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter request- ing time on September 30, 1974 to address the Board of Supervisors with respect to the animal control program. The continued hearing on the recommendations of the Special Animal Control Review Committee, scheduled for 8 p.m. on September 30th, is open to the public and all persons wishing to comment on the committee recommendations will be heard. 7n such instances, we do not schedule individual speakers. Very truly yours, J. R. OLSSON, CLERK By Geraldine Russell Deputy Clerk GR:vn cc : Members of the Board Agricultural Commissioner Acting County Administrator VLADISLAV SEVC. PH. D. /, 51 HARDESTER COURT 27 July 197`1- DANVILLE.CALIFORNIA 94526 TELEPHONE(415)837-7612 Mr Edmund Linscheid Supervisor Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County Martinez, California Dear Sir: I request to be placed on the agenda of the September 30, 1974, meeting of the Board of Supervisors which will be hearing matters related to animal control. At that time I would like to introduce into evidence or on record a report on results of an investigation concerning stray and loose dogs in support of the need to restrain free roaming of dogs and their uncontrolled breeding. Very truly yours, Vladislav Bevc RECVED W. . JUL 311974 I R. OISSON CLERK ARD OF SUPERVISORS TRA GOSTA GQ. a _ i 0 DO YOU KVOW 40ERE YOUR DOG IS TODAY ? CASE AGAIN 8T THE SACRED COW. Anyone who lives in a city, suburb, or in the country knows that dogs are a nuissence. Just how great a puissance has been documented in an extraordinary little book called The Ecolooz of Stray Dogs by Alan Fi. Beck, based on fieldwork he did in Baltimore while a John Hopkins University. By stray dogs he means free-ranging ones -- the ownerless type and your own dog when it is out by itself. Among his findings are the following counts against man's best friend. Each .year about 700 people per every 100,000 city dwellers are bitten by dogs; most of the victims are 15 years old or younger. .almost half the bites are inflicted by mongrels, while German shepherds are by for the most dangerous of the purebreds. Females bite more than males, younger dogs more than old ones. Running from a threatening dog appears to heighten the chance of being bitten. Significantly, most dog bites are inflicted by pets (pests actually) near their owner's horses. Ten times more people are bitten by the beloved dog than the hated rat. In fact, dogs are something of a comfort to rats: they tip over trash cars, making it easier for the rats to forage, and Dr Beck has watched dogs chasing away cats which were chasing rats. Rats, as well as pigeons, can apparently do fine on little more than a died of dog excrement that fouls the sidewalks and lawns. This unpleasant stuff not only is credited with doing away with maxi coats, but it attracts and affords a breeding ground for flies, overfertilizes grass, kills trees, and is sufficiently abundant to cause water pollution problems when it runs off in storm sewers. Also, it transmitts a variety of diseases to humans, from worms to tuberculosis. Furthermore, dogs bark. indeed, nervous city dwellers encourage barking and, as Dr Beck points out, "In a city filled with un- predictable and uncontrollable noises, dog barking is yet another potential for lowering the quality of life." For :municipal or county officials seeking instant unpopularity, Dr Beck's book contains various suggested remedies. The Ecology of Stray Dogs by Alan H. Beck York i-ress ;:9 .50 101 East 32d 6treet, Baltimore, Maryland 21218 • • In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California July 2 1974 In the Matter of Request that Dog Leash Law Not Be Enacted. The Board having received a June 25, 1974 letter from Mr. Curtis Gray, 3257 Tulare Avenue, Richmond, California 94804 stating that in his opinion a dog leash law is unnecessary, and therefore requesting that said law not be enacted; On motion of Supervisor W. N. Boggess, seconded by Supervisor A. M. Dias, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the afore- said matter be considered in conjunction with the hearing to be held July 23, 1974 at 2 p.m. on the report of the Special Animal Control Review Committee with respect to the entire animal control program. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote : AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: None . I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of cc: Mr. Curtis Gray Supervisors Supervisor W. N. Boggess affixed this 2nd day of JulY , 19 74 Agricultural Commissioner — County Administrator 7l J. R. OLSSON, Clerk By Deputy Clerk Vera Nelson H 24 5/74 -12,500 June 25, 1974 Board of Supervisors PC Box 911 IvTartinez) Ca. 94553 Dear Sirs: Of all the laws we don't need, a Dog Leash Law is about the worst 1 can think of. That would make • law-breaker out of every dog oiimer. All dogs need • chance to run and play once in a While. T .1. am a member of the S.P.C.A. and I attended the hearing last winter of the Animal Control Review Committee. At that meeting LIr. Seeley stated that present laws are adequate to cover every dog complaint. Are we a county of dog haters? I hope you won't enact this vicious law. Yours truly, &;I'�-f. 4y Curtis G '-M7 Tulare Av. 1.� Richmond, Ca. 94804 RECEIVED i U N Pto 19 74 J. R�OMOH LCOST--- ) OF SUPEWISQRS COST� FOR YOUR INFORMATION In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California June 24 19 74 In the Matter of Request that County Animal Control Ordinance be Amended and "Leash Free" Areas be Designated The Board having received a June 12, 1974 petition from Mrs. William Ray, 1100 Larch Avenue, Moraga, California, 94556 and others, requesting that the County Animal Control Ordinance be amended to allow dogs to run at large on the dog owners property; and The Board also having received a June 13, 1974 letter from Mr. Patrick Halligan, 7104 Potrero Avenue, Fl Cerrito, California, 94530 requesting that in connection with the study of the recommend- ations of the Special Animal Control Review Committee consider-:_ , - ation be given to designating dog exercise areas which would allow animals and pet owners to function without the restrictions of leash laws; On motion of Supervisor J. P. Kenny, seconded by Super- visor E. A. Linscheid, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the afore- said requests be considered at the hearing to be held on the report of the Special Animal Control Review Committee. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A . M. Dias, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J. E . Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. c c: Supervisor W.N.Boggess Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Agricultural Commissioner Supervisors County Counsel affixed this---?4th day of June , 1974 Director of Planning J. R. OLSSON, Clerk County Administrator -�— By (�/,�_.�r� p G`� Deputy Clerk Arline Patten H 24 5/74 -12,500 June 13, 1974 RECEIVED Supervisor James E. Moriarty �UN �T���� Board Chairman, County Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County Administrative Offices J. e. OMIt PA M Martinez, California soiR of su�avisoas A CO. Putv Putv Dear Sir: I have read an article in the Oakland Tribune, Junel3, 1974 in which animal control 'recommendations were made as a result of a County Committee study. This article Tromped my letter in which I would like to express these concerns and personal convictions. -- Many dog owners, such as myself, believe that leash free areas should be available in all parts of the County, and within each city to exercise doges, free from leash control. -- Specifically in El Cerrito I would sagest that the "green area" which accompanies the BART route through El Cerrito should be designated in this area. -- The "green belt" area along the E1 Cerrito hills should also be designated as a free leash area. -- Both areas in r judgment should be so designated in order to service the needs of E1 Cerrito residents. Those citizens who could not physically walk and exercise their dogs in the hills should have a less vigorous exercise area such 3s the BART area. In total, the newspaper article suggests restrictive and punitive approaches to pet control. Hopefully the Board of Supervisors and the Camnitt.ee will develop a "balance" in their recommendations. Part of that "balane$"is to designate do; &tercise areas ;:-with allcn! the animals and pet owners to function without the restrictions of leash laws. i would appreciate a response to this cc:tarn in which your recomr:.endations regardi.r.S free leash areas are expressed. Sincerely, • Patrick Falli San 7104 Potrero Avenue �+ E1 Cerrito, California, 94530 RJC IVED June 12, 197: Board of Supervisors �. a 015-101.1 Admission Building 0KRK �•OARD OF su-r:.�,r1'a?,S P.O. Box 911 Cr'Ni to COSTA CO. 8-'• .De Martinez, Calif. 94553 Dear Sirs: Since the Animal Control Ordinance is being studied and, as noted in my letter of February 28, 1974, I have felt it my duty as a citizen to express my opinions. In addition, as no people at the Public Hearing in January expressed these views as well as the fact that these views do not appear to be particularly important to the committee studying this aspect of the Ordinance, I have a petition stating the feelings of many. (See attached petition wording.) Having talked to the Chairman of one Committees it was suggested to me to present this petition at the Meeting of the Four Sub-Committees on June 6 at 3:00 Ptd. Unfortunately, I was not notified that the meeting time had been changed to 9:00 AM. Therefore, I would like to bring this letter and petition to your attention at the next Public Hearing. As I obtained most of these signatures in a very short time (as two 1/2 days), showing also how many people enthusiasticly support this concept, I feel the petition represents only a small percentage of the people who feel these views are important and should be considered. This petition is relevant whether or not we have a "Leash Law", (for which I personally have no objection). At the Public Hearing in January, approx. 75 people appeared to be in favor of a leash law, however some 150 signatures on this petition make another point relevant. I am not in favor of dogs "running at large". (We have many that visit our lawn daily.) I also feel having a dog is an advantage as well as a dis- advantage. A dog is an asset for children as well as for protection. The disadvantage is the problem of keeping it contained. This petition repres - ents a solution to the problem for these reasons: 1. If a dog is allowed the freedom of its own property, it will be more likely to remain there. People usually (and can) try to train a new puppy to remain on their property. If a dog is given the opportunity to be properly trained, it will not be as likely to take advantage and "run off" schen the front door is opened and in particular when children are running in and out. 2. DOGS THAT ARE OFF THEIR OWN. PROPERTY ARE THE OFFENDERS. A dog that remains on its property IS under control of its owner. 3. It appears Unconstitutional and against an individual's personal and property rights to have anything taken or removed from his property. (Dogs are even being picked up off of peoples' front porches.) rr or opt.. � w 4. The Animal Control Department should take care of all the dogs running up and down the streets. Admittedly "dog catchers" have a difficult job and catching these dogs rather than the one sit- on its front yard would make it more difficult. Concentrating on the dogs running up and down the streets would keep them more than busy and certainly be a better use of TAXPAYERS' money. 5. Any dog that steps off its property (or someone else's for that matter) is the OFFENDER and should be cited or impounded. Under this procedure, the offenders would be caught and controlled. In conclusion. and in consideration of this petition, adding FXCEPT ON OWNER"S PROPERTY_ to the present wording or to a `Leash Law" would hopefully, in the long run, bring fewer complaints from the public, and the dogs that are the offenders ie."running at .large" would be fewer. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully Yours, Mrs. William Ray 1100 Larch Avenue Moraga, Calif. 94556 I PETITION FOR CHANGE IN WORDING OF ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE WE THE UNDERSIGNED, Petition that the wording of the Animal Control Ordinance be changed as follows: . . . .a dog is to be under control and in immediate presence of owner at all times, EXCEPT ON OWNER'S PROPERTY." (The underlined to be the addition tote present wording. WHEREAS, dogs running "at large" are the offenders and should be cited, dogs have been cited while remaining on their owner's property. A DOG THAT REMAINS ON ITS OWNER'S PROPERTY IS UNDER THE CONTROL OF ITS OWNER, Adding the words CET ON ERPROPERTY" tote appropriate section of the Animal Control Ordinance (whether to the present wording or to the wording of a "Leash Law") will serve to clarify the Ordinance by defining offenders as dogs running at large, off their owner's property, and prevent dogs from being cited while on their owner's property. 1 IT V Y1� Y SS fir'©�r�r',�1, '�i9-�-�.► �=��t A 71 • ` L.J. ,,�/I/T to•'-"/��?- C.. �'�.-t-.r=• � � 1�,�GtCI�(,` S41. % IcL / ,J � 10 lc�O•F PETITION FOR .CHANGE IN WORDING OF ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE WE THE UNDERSIGNED, Petition that the wording of the Animal Control Ordinance be changed as follows: ". . . .a dog is to be under control and in immediate presence of owner at all times, EXCEPT ON OWNER'S PROPERTY." (The underlined to be the addition tote present wording.) WHEREAS, dogs running "at large" are the offenders and should be cited, dogs have been cited while remaining on their owner's proper y. A DOG THAT REMAINS ON ITS• OWNER'S PROPERTY IS UNDER THE CONTROL OF ITS Adding the wor s tote appropr ate section of the Animal Control nance (whether to the present wording or to the wording of a "Leash Law") will serve to clarify the Ordinance by defining offenders as dogs running at large, off their owner's property, and prevent dogs from being cited while on their owner's property. c, i• � �'1�... a7til`r�-"•�..,..`.,� . t 1 Y',,'F�..gC•..� ✓�,�¢,rt..e.�...�.r'h�fC�"Y--'"" l Y /� �icf�:flx�'" •..i',/�J � p� J !/ C /`//�,r,�/jV.i �V'..• �Il`/'f'j��////''jj j M 5` Wil D� r�•,c.�s� Z—.� yam. . JX-lz 2 \j 1-17 C :tea 7 PL ..�/ .E% J _ •• ,•t0010 iJ11 71J ,. .-"t.:.; ..t�L%' .-c�'.+ %' '`- L�"f•, "/ice' �� L'".,�1,{'�+('1Lc�` �ri'L�""'t �Z� � �''L t.+r, � J •,� ! 4.� ',�: c� �'`.... I 1",T.t1J _ d4vr too w t_n,% "ifte �I�'t,,;,,e,�,,,,.,,, �~���.cf,�:...► -�x:3.7 !'..�c,-e�:.� �,3'_ I!G`I"ry/ "'e,S YV-t 40 VA, djl c r 17Slt'-Gt7 10 tum PETITION FOR CHANGE IN WORDING OF ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE WE THE UNDERSIGNED, Petition that the wording of the Animal Control Ordinance be changed as follows: . .a dog is to be under control and in immediate presence of owner at all times, EXCEPT ON OWNER'S PROPERTY." (The underlined to be the addition tot present wor ng. WHEREAS, dogs running "at large" are the offenders and should be cited, dogs have been cited while remaining on their owner's property. A DOG THAT REMAINS ON ITS OWNER'S PROPERTY IS UNDER THE CONTROL OF ITS t words R . to the appropriate se—ct�on of t9 Animal ControlOrdinance whether to the present ding or to the wording of a Leash Law ) will serve to clarify the Ordinance by defining offenders as dogs running at large, off their owner's property, and prevent dogs from being cited while on their owner's property. 44".1L 1 Goa 10. . . .... o -�1► '�,�'� h' gf Fi a 16 tak . q A6A f' /iw /P� le2ilel 19gf--e t. � .r S 36 3� v Rk s C -7 • • PETITION FOR CHANGE IN WORDING OF ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE WE THE UNDERSIGNED, Petition that the wording of the Animal Control Ordinance be changed as follows: . . . .a dog is to be under control and in immediate presence of owner at all times, EXCEPT ON OWNER'S PROPERTY. " (The underlined to be the addition tote present wording. ) WHEREAS, dogs running "at large" are the offenders and should be cited, dogs have been cited while remaining on their owner's property. A DOG THAT REMAINS ON ITS OWNER'S PROPERTY IS UNDER THE CONTROL OF ITS OWNER. ing the words "EXCEPT ON 0 ERTY tote appropriate section of the Animal Control Ordinance (whether to the present wording or to the wording of a "Leash Law") will serve to clarify the Ordinance by defining offenders as dogs running at large, off their owner's property, and prevent dogs from being cited while on their owner's property. Name Address Name Address Of d (� /i 9 �e. bmf e.. � �.. ----,� -err 2?V �4 eiL a�2� IAS' # � •.�' ,_ �. : �Y7fC� / /+x .. ! �.. CONTRA cosTA COUNTY A.L.SEELEY • . ,T",g� . DEPARTMENT CIF AGRICULTUM AGRICULTURAL CQI/NINION101 i 101 JOHN GLENN DRIPS SLUAR tiMCtONM JUS NCAOUPW • ',,yy��r,• ! R. E. DANIELSON • _ A'.I•=J�.' CitCNANAN AIRPORTAMSTANT GONNIM1011*R a'' *�•. ' CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 640=0 Ag10fANT NKALIVI 682-7050 BRANCH OFF/CES 0!p.am GT..RICHNIGNO NCOIE 1"D"N"AY 4.MEMO=so" !m"1160 Ea. slZ11ll #"-an May 20; 1974 RECEIVED Mrs. warren Knight MAY 2 21974 4241 McDermott Drive Pittsburg, California 94565 1 R. OLSSON oARo TRA of sunwisgRs Dear Mrs. Knight: ACO. Your communication of May 1, 19?4, which was directed to Supervisor Linscheid, was referred by the Board of Supervisors oa May 7, 1974 to me and the Special Animal Gontrol Review Committee - for review. Many of your suggestions are good and will be studied by the Special Animal Control Review Committee and, hopefully, the outcome of their recommendtions will make our Animal Control operation more efficient, both in assisting the public as well as protecting the animals. Of course, to provide the services which many citizens wish would require much more manpower, equipment, buildings, etc., than we now have. I have numbered the paragraphs, sentences, statements, etc., of your letter to more easily assist you in following my comments. 1. The 4:00 p.m. time is on the form to help alleviate the 'Mast minute" crunch of business. 2. Our standard procedure is- to tell possible owners that the unlicensed dogs are held for 72 hours for the owners to reclaim. 3. These unlicensed strays are available after the 72 hours - but to new homesor disposal, etc. 4. Animals that are strays are not put to, sleep until after 9:00 a.m., or one hour after the center is open. 5. We do not include such information on the green door card, because in many instances the dog may not belong at the address. C.G. �o. Gam• FOR YOUR I KORMITION Mrs. Warren Knight -2- 5/20/74 0 0 6. Apparently the 72-hour period was mentioned per item No. 2 but misunderstood. 7. We do not make this kind of entry, as we do not "hold" dogs nor do we determine ownership on the phone. We found it is more practical to require an "in person" identification. $. We don't usually make records of telephone calls received, as the Martinez Center handles an average of 261 calls daily. 9. Livestock are kept as strays 5 days. 10. It is not always possible to determine what has happened to a particular animal through a file search for many reasons; therefore, we do not research the records. This is why the staff would not be in a position to directly answer your questions. 11. Animal Control procedures are similar to those of the rest of the state. Confusion may exist because of alleged practices of various humane societies. 12. This could be done, but will result in more overcrowding. 13. This is correct; Animal Control Officers do not usually leave a green door card. 14. This could be done, but does result in additional demands on clerical time and kennel space, citizens would be un- happy on arriving at the centers to find the pet they read about was already claimed or sold, and, of course, publication should be in every paper. 15. This is an unfortunate impression. It is our belief that the dog owner is usually at fault, not the dog. As I have stated earlier, your suggestions 1, 2, and 3 will be considered by the Special Animal Control Review Committee and their recommendations will be forthcoming in the near future. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely yours, Arthur L. Se7ele5F. Agricultural Commissioner Sealer Weights & Measures ALS/nw attachment cc: Supervisor Linscheid .,_,.Clerk of the Board __CI.E I May 1, 1974 PIP j ME01 Mr. Edmund Linscheid rt . � •7 1974County Hoard of Supervisors �jf� Civic Center �. R. 0MG:1 Pittsburg Ca 94565 CLERK BOARD0.7 SUPE;VW1G CQ`l.3A COSTA CO. By .G. Dear Mr. Linscheid: My family ju3t had a most upsetting experience with the Mattinez animal shelter. Briefly, our dog had gotten out into the front yard. She was not wearing her collar and tags. Animal control picked her up out of our yard. A notice -/ was left on our door saying "We may have impounded your dog" and diving a number to call BEFORE 4:00. The ootice wa3 left Friday. We got the notice after 4:00 and therefore did not call until Saturday. We were informed the dog would be quarantined for 72 hours. The impression was given that she would not be z J available until the end of the 72 hours. Therefore we went in- for her on Tuesday. She had been gassed first thing Tuesday morning. While the low had probably been observed in this procedure, we fool the whole attitude and approach of the animal control people tends to be secrot dog extermination. Nowhere an the i-`5 notice was there any warning that the dog faced summary execution in a very brief time. At no time during the '- b telephone conversation was any impres3ion of urgency or dead- line in picking her up given. We were je t with the impression that her card had been marked to hold s" her -xmer would be in. Actually, no record that we could find had been made of y� 9" our. call. Nowhere on the papers with her license! or any other place was the warning of the extremely brief chance a 2 � dog is given. However, livetrtnclk i." given five we"kn. Also, during the hour I spent with 2=1zkzyxxsa33:5ss:znxx31zn)t#X nnkxsxixy the clerks trying to find out the facts, I was evasively answered, given a runaround, and generally got the impression that the workers attempt to avoid informing anyone of the possibility or fact of the dog's death. None of the notices say directly G that the dogs without licenses or unclaimed will be euthanized,put to sl- killed or any other synonym. Unless you ask the direct question, you are vaguely informed that the dog was probably "claimed", and most likely -.rasn't your dog anyhow. And yet the practice is an assembly-line to the gas chamber. 1 realize that the small shelter, perhaps large enough �:or one City but totally inndi-quate for 2/3 of a county, the mcsest buAicat and other pressures make it difficult for a dog to be given any .�, consideration once the owner suffers a lapse in vigilance. �r However, the least you could do is make sure that .every possible contact the Animal control has with the public shouts :Vie message loud and clear 'that your net is counting his time in seconds once tro imp�cundment procedure starts. Certainly people who are ss supported by and supposedly serving the public have an obligation ' to let their practices be known. ,r•' a RIMN } t ' s , ; a z; R A2C "'A lso, Mr. Linscheid, since we could not have picked up the doge t `on` Sunday, it wns unfair to count those bourn from noon on Sa*-uxda�► until 8:00 Monday in her la-.t hours. I know that the Animal Control people will tell you that no matter how long they give, someone will always show up too late. True. But - each additional day should save some pets. Also, T wns informed that I had been given more ronsiderntion t)-an most not owntra. Notices are not u9ually left because t" cost "stray-" are not obviously living at the hcrae where they arc picked up. If that is the case, I would Suggest that the local n_�+spapers and the Animal control pt together and follow the practice of the Marin and Sonoma Humane Soci-ties and the Independent Journal. Each day the strays are listed - does, cats, livestock, others - and the lintinq is ou5li3hed for h the.! d•sv- in tee daily oaqs,�r. This Would be alight additional pipe-work but would probably improve your retrieval rate. The Paper volunteers the space as a public service. Briefly, then, I have three suggestions to mnk"! to try to save some other pet owners from this experience:, r �f ;Y 1) Examine each animal control notice and poster and make .sure it points out that unalaimed animals will be destroyed in 72 hours. This should be clear and unambiguous. ?) Exnmpt Sundays and other days the pound is closed frnm �r 'the 72-hours. Try to set a policy of slowest pozsible c1tarir_g . r X s ;of kennels instead of fastest possible, <3) Try to arrange publication of listing of strays with -animal-loving publishers. This could go right in the wnnt ads along with other lost animal ads. The impression I got from the Animal Control was that dogs ::•s are dangerous nests and should be exterminated. I would like 5 to see that changed so that they beliave that each dog is a potential member of a human family and give a dog every chance to find its family. Thank you.for any help you can give. " �� / .. .. � .` / ...•L�^�. ,�l �:-�f•1u� ��'}..fig„ F•" a��"�s�� �. � Mr3_ -rren Knight � 7 Q- 4241 M.cDerlllott Drive ls• , i, [� �•!f ' 1 s Pittsburg Ca 44563 : 1 / a 1 r In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California May 7 , 19 7J.k__ In the Matter of Letter from Pittsburg Resident Pertaining to Animal Control Practices. Supervisor E. A. Linscheid having brought to the attention of the Board a letter dated May 1, 1974 from Mrs . Warren Knight, 1241 McDermott Drive, Pittsburg, California, 94565, relating to the operations of the "Martinez Animal Shelter" and offering certain suggestions concerning operation of the shelter including extending the holding period for animals; On motion of Supervisor Linscheid , seconded by Supervisor A. M. Dias, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid matter is REFERRED to the Special Animal Control Review Committee and to the County Agricultural Commissioner for review of the suggestions made in the above-mentioned letter. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote : AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: None . I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc : Mrs . Knight Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Special Animal Control Supervisors Review Committee affixed this 7th day of may 193-4- County 93-4-County Agricultural W. T. PAASCH, Clerk Commissioner By ( r � �,�,,.�,C� Deputy Clerk County Administrator Charleen K. Travers H 24 7/72-15M 4 May 1, 1974C: I E Mr. Edmund Linscheid County Board of Supervisors MAY , 1974 Civic Center OL=N Pittsburg Ca 94565 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS C0�1T COSTA CO. Dear Mr. Linscheid: My family just had a most upsetting experience with the Martinez animal shelter. Briefly, our doghad gotten out into the front yard. She was not wearing her collar and tags. Animal control picked her up out of our yard. A notice was left on our door saying "We may have impounded your dog" and giving a number to call BEFORE 4:00. The notice was left Friday. We got the notice after 4:00 and therefore did not call until Saturday. We were informed the dog would be quarantined for 72 hours. The impression was given that she would not be available until the end of the 72 hours. Therefore we went in�,for her on Tuesday. She had been gassed first thing Tuesday morning. While the law had probably been observed in this procedure, we feel the whole attitude and approach of the animal control people tends to be secret dog extermination. Nowhere on the notice was there any warning that the dog faced summary execution in a very brief time. At no time during the telephone conversation was any impression of urgency or dead- line in picking her up given. We were elft with the impression that her card had been marked to hold an* her owner would be in. Actually, no record that we could find had been made of our call. Nowhere on the papers with her license: or any other place was the warning of the extremely brief chance a dog is given. However, livestock is given five weeks. Also, during the hour I spent with *at_ xaaPsXZ*xu*xL*uxk*yx � the clerks trying to find out the facts, I was evasively answered, given a runaround, and generally got the impression that the workers attempt to avoid informing anyone of the possibility or fact of the dog's death. None of the notices say directly that the dogs without licenses or unclaimed will be euthanized,put to sleep, killed or any other synonym. Unless you ask the direct question,fY,"S1*4 you are vaguely informed that the dog was probably "claimed", �l and most likely wasn't your dog anyhow. And yet the practice is an assembly-line to the gas chamber. I realize that the small shelter, perhaps large enough for one city but totally inadequate for 2/3 of a county, the modest budget and other pressures make it difficult for a dog to be given any consideration once the owner suffers a lapse in vigilance. However, the least you could do is make sure that every possible contact the Animal control has with the public shouts ;the message loud and clear that your pet is counting his time in seconds once the impt:oundment procedure starts. Certainly people who are Zu supported by and supposedly serving the public have an obligation to let their practices be known. w Also, Mr. Linscheid, since we could not have picked up the dog on Sunday, it was unfair to count those hours from noon on Saturday until 8:00 Monday in her last hours. I know that the Animal Control people will tell you that no matter how long they give, someone will always show up too late. True. But each additional day should save some pets. Also, I was informed that I had been given more consideration than most pet owners. Notices are not usually left because most "strays" are not obviously living at the house where they are picked up. If that is the case, I would suggest that the local newspapers and the Animal control gat together and follow the practice of the Marin and Sonoma Humane Societies and the Independent Journal. Each day the strays are listed - dogs, cats, livestock, others - and the listing is published for three days in the daily paper. This would be slight additional paperwork but would probably improve your retrieval rate. The Paper volunteers the space as a public service. Briefly, then, I have three suggestions to make to try to save some other pet owners from this experience: 1) Examine each animal control notice and poster and make sure it points out that unulaimed animals will be destroyed in 72 hours. This should be clear and unambiguous. 2) Fxempt Sundays and other days the pound is closed from the 72-hours. Try to set a policy of slowest possible clearing of kennels instead of fastest possible. 3) Try to arrange publication of listing of strays with animal-loving publishers. This could go right in the want ads along with other lost animal ads. The impression I got from the Animal Control was that dogs Yrsm are dangerous pests and should be exterminated. I would like to see that changed so that they believe that each dog is a potential member of a human family and give a dog every chance to find its family. Thank you for any help you can give. Mrs. Warren Knight 4241 McDermott Drive Pittsburg Ca 94565 • 0 In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California May 7 19 74 In the Matter of Dogs and Cats Running at Large. This Board having received letters complaining of problems created by dogs and cats permitted to run at large from the following: Joaquin Alves , 366 Garretson Avenue, Rodeo 94572; Tommye G. Welch, 1621 Everett Street, E1 Cerrito 94530; Bette Brown, 4339 Santa Rita Road, El Sobrante 94803; On motion of Supervisor A. M. Dias , seconded by Super- visor W: N. Boggess , IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that said letters are referred to the Special Animal Control Review Committee. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES : Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc: J. Alves Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of T. G. Welch Supervisors B. Brown affixed this 7th day of May ' 1974 Special Committee ion+ M I.R. OLSSON, County Clerk - Agricultural Commiss �_�/ County Administrator By ��/ 6 Ldp Deputy Clerk D. Harkness H 24 7/72-15M RECEIVED J. R asses+ Of SUPEDPMRS /� B 72�& /� D-Gc�!/ i7c.�GgfiG��Li�d�i' • Cfir���t' 3fo /�?i1�1 Gam/ G 8 • • 1621 Everett St. E1 Cerrito, Ca. 94530 April 25, 1974 RECE VED Board of Supervisors A'PrI a419i4 Administration Building I R. OLS;,O;J Martinez, Calif. CUR TRo APERv�SORs Dear Sirs: I am mailing the enclosed letter to all addresses on my block, which is not exactly going to endear me to my neighbors who own cats. Please consider some control of these pests - they are unlicensed, transmit diseases to humans, and are no respectors of fences or any other property boundary. My dog would like to roam freely also, and not have to wear a collar and be under control, but in a crowded city it is not possible. I believe you are not considering the general welfare but are being governed by the wishes of so-called cat lovers, when you continue to leave cats without any control. How long must we continue to tolerate this situation? Yours very truly, \-�U , / Tommye G. Welch cc: Animal Control Dept. 4849 Imhoff Dr. Martinez April 25, 1974 Do you own a cat? If so, do you teach it to use a sand or litter box, and take care of cleaning up and disposing of your pet' s excrement? If so, you are appreciated beyond words by your neighbors! If you have a cat and turn it out to roam and find some nice, soft culti- vated spot in your neighbors.-', yard, then this is written to you. For several years I have put up with many, many cats using my yard for their elimination - having plants killed, soil and compost scattered and fouled, not to mention the stench under my dining room window, one of their favorite spots. I have discussed this with other people in our vicinity, and find this to be a common problem with non-cat owners. All of this is of minor importance, however, when I consider the financial loss and health hazard to my family when they begin to use my vegetable garden for the same purpose, in my fenced back yard. The flies are numer- ous, at least one of these cats has worms, and cats carry diseases communic- able to human beings, not to mention the smell and the impossibility of eating anything pulled out of a pile of cat mess. The idea turns you off, too, doesn't it? After trying everything I ever heard of to discourage these animals from using my yard to no avail and deciding this year that I would not put up with having my vegetables contaminated and thrown away, wasting my labor and expense, I consulted the Animal Control Department of Contra Costa County for help. I was told that, when cats create a nuisance, I could go to 790 San Pablo in Pinole, near Sugar City, deposit $10.00 and obtain a cage which could be baited, the cat trapped, and returned to the same address. I do not know what disposition is made of the cat. The most frequent users of my back yard are two young kittens, one yellow and white and one grey and white, a large charcoal grey cat with a bell, a large black and white cat, and a large yellow and white cat. Are these your cats? I urge you to obtain a litter box and teach your cat to use it. It is your pet, why not take the responsibility for cleaning up after it? You may rationalize that dogs use your front lawn and therefore you are justified in not taking responsibility for your own animals, but the people whose yards your cats foul are not the owners of the dogs who use your front lawn. I am writing this letter to ask you, if you care about your cat, to train and take care of it. If you don't care about it, why not get rid of it? If your cat continues to roam and disappears, you might check with the Animal Control people at 790 San Pablo. Since there is no _leash law for cats (I wonder rnt�?v� ? I must apparently continue to tolerate these animals in my front yard tut inside my back yard fence and in my vegetables, I do not have to accept this. This letter is unsigned because what happens to your cat is your responsibility, not mine. 0 4/17/74 Sirs; This seems to be a good a time as any to lot your office know how I foal about the Animal Control Coater. It is by far m7 loast favorite. I live in E1 Sobranto where it seems as though thrre are more dogs than there are people. Somewhere there was a dog in heat because our place was ever-run with dogs luring the night, some, awn stayed during the day. I called their office every day. Nobody cam out. On the fifth day in a raw, I called again. She asked me if I had the dog tied up. I told her no, it's a Gorman Shepard, and I didn' t know if it would bite me or not. She informed me I'd have to have the dog confined before thoy'd come, net having a garage, it wouldn' t be too easy. I told her I was a 113 pound woman, and it wasn' t my job to confine a dog, so they ark refused to come. I told her the dog has bean laying in my front for days and dust com and got it. I finally called back saying I'd tied up the dog. When he finally came out, it was still laying in my front yard just waiting for him. I have not spent 1 single night sleeping without dogs barking all night. Dogs chase my kids while they ride their bikes. Dogs crap all over my yard. Personally I'm sick to death of dogs running around, and would like to start shooting them myself. It does absolutely no good to call Animal Control Center. Their personnel has se much to be desired. They also insist on calling their procedure-adoption. I adopted a little girl, but if I want a dog, I'll got a dog. I resent both deg and child sharing the word adoption. I do not own a dog. Thank you for your time R_ �CEIVE Gftl_,� y1 v E�-e APR �3 4339 Santa Rita Rd, 1974 E1 Sobranto, Calif . CIM BOARD of SUPERVISORS RA,COSia CO, CL& In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California May 7 1974 In the Matter of County Ordinance Code Section 416-4.402 Relating to Animals at Large. This Board having received a letter from Mr. James H. Welsh, Sr. , Sportsmen's Committee on Political Education, 2635 Yuba Avenue, E1 Cerrito 94530 transmitting its Resolution No. 74-4-18 requesting that Section 416-4.402 of the County Ordinance Code relating to animals at large be amended to insert, after the words "immediate presence of the owner," the words "or person acting in the interest or at the request of the owner"; On motion of Supervisor W. M. Dias, seconded by Super- visor W. N. Boggess, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that said letter is referred to the Special Animal Control Review Committee. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOjgS: None. ABSENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of cc: Mr. Welsh Supervisors Special Committee -i afFxed this 7th day of May 19 74 Agricultural Commissioner JAMES R. OLSSON, County Clerk n - - / County Administrator BY s'xti�� Deputy Clerk D. Harkness H 24 7/72-25M 1 / \/J SPORTSMEN'S COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION DEDICATED TO PRESERVING THE SPORTSMAN'S RIGHTS THROUGH INFORMATION, EDUCATION AND REPRESENTATION a a 26u' Yuba Avenue 9 9 EI Cerrito,California 94530 Telephone: (415)231-4656 OFFICERS PRESIDENT April 15, 1974 Bennie Wright,Richmond VICE PRESIDENT ECEI Don Mossestad,EI Sobrante SECRETARY C.N. (Bud) Hill,San Jose Honorable Board of Supervisors MAY - 1974 TREASURER Harold R.Saksa,Berkeley Contra Costa County LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE R. OLSSON James H.Welsh,Sr.,EI Cerrito Martinez, California RK RD OF SUPERVISORS RA TA po. DIRECTORS B -.De Donald Batten,Tiburon Gentlemen: Lane M.Currie,EI Cerrito Norman G.Foley,Orinda George Giannaras,Pinole Christopher Lee,Sacramento The attached resolution drafted by S. Co 0. P. E., Clarence M.Olson,EI Cerrito R.D. (Red) Riley,El Sobrante approved and adopted by the Western Houndsman Association, Jerald L Swain,Richmond Walter R.Wiley,Alameda Pinole, California. The Richmond Rod and Gun Club, Richmond, Edward Worlund,Sacramento California. The Richmond Hunting Club, Richmond, California. Requesting an amendment to Section 51-2.462 of Article 6 of Ordinance 69-16 pertaining to regulation of animal activities. Sincerely JAMES H. WELSH9 SR. Legislative Representative JHW/me IWKWRI �Qw�- ,` APR 2 6 1974 c'a' ldrx >Ij� N-) JAMES P. KENNY SUPERVISOR, DISTRICT _ l.�lJ CONTRA COSTA COUNrt' SPORTSMEN'S COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION DEDICATED TO PRESERVING THE SPORTSMAN'S RIGHTS THROUGH INFORMATION, EDUCATION AND REPRESENTATION 2673 Tube Avenue EI ferrite,Colifernio 94370 Telephone: (413)232-4616 ORDINANCE No 69-16 OFFICERS ennie ENT Wright, Richmond BARTICLE 6. REGULATION OF ANIMAL ACTIVITIES Bennie VICE PRESIDENT Don Mossestad,EI Sobrante Section 51-2.462. No Animals at Large. No person owning or SECRETARY C.N.(Bud) Hill,San Jose possessing any animal shall permit it to be at large or be pastured TREASURER Harold R.Saksa,Berkeley or kept on any street or other public place, on private property LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE James H.Welsh,Sr.,EI Cerrito against the wishes of the owner or occupant, or in any manner DIRECTORS Donald Batten,Tiburon or place to the injury of the owner or occupant of any other Lane M.Currie,EI Cerrito Norman G. Foley,Orinda George Giannaras,Pinole property. As used in this section, "At large" means an animal Christopher Lee,Sacramento Clarence M.Olson,EI Cerrito not under restraint by leash, not in an enclosed area, or not R.D. (Red) Riley,EI Sobrante Jerald L Swain,Richmond Walter R.Wiley,Alameda under the control and in the immediate presence of the owner. Edward Worlund,Sacramento For purposes of Agricultural Code section 30954 (female dog in heat), "At large means outside a house, garage, enclosure or vehicle. ` � SPORTSMEN'S COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION DEDICATED TO PRESERVING THE SPORTSi)IAN'S RIGHTS l \ THROUGH INFORMATION, EDUCATION AND REPRESENTATION 2M Yuba Avoca ® �@ EI Cerrito,California 945W T.l.phona; (/15)272-46M RESOLUTION No. 74 - 4 - 18 OFFICERS PRESIDENT TO AMEND SECTION 51-2.462, ARTICLE 69 ORDINANCE No. 69-16 Bennie Wright, Richmond REGULATION OF ANIMAL ACTIVITIES VICE PRESIDENT Don Mossestad,EI Sobrante SECRETARY WHEREAS: Residents in Contra Costa County owning dogs .as pets C.N. (Bud) Hill,San Jose and hunting companions, can and have suffered harassment under TREASURER Harold R.Saksa,Berkeley Section 51-2.462 of Article 6 of Ordinance 69-16; and LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE James H.Welsh,Sr.,EI Cerrito DIRECTORS WHEREAS: It should not be the intent of any legislative body Donald Batten,Tiburon Lane M.Currie,El Cerrito to iniate or support any law, ordinance or regulation, which could Norman G. Foley,Orinda George Giannaras,Pinole COUSe harassment t0 the C1t1Zen8 Of the area represented by those Christopher Lee,Sacramento Clarence M.Olson,EI Cerrito legislators; and R.D. (Red) Riley,EI Sobrante Jerald L.Swain,Richmond Walter R.Wiley,Alameda Edward Worlund,Sacramento WHEREAS: The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County should stand ready to amend any law, ordinance or regulation, which could cause harassment to the citizens of the county; now THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County be requested, to amend Section ;;1-2.462 of Article 6 of Ordinance No. 69-16 in the following manner. Commencing on line 2 of page 4 of the published ordinance, after the word " owner ", strike out the period and insert, " or person acting in the interest or at the request of the owner. " The above resolution has been approved and adopted by Western Houndsman Association, Pinole, California Richmond Rod and Gun Club, Richmond, California Richmond Hunting Club, Richmond, California San Pablo Legion Rifle Club, San Pablo, California _ . f G w M - �. - �✓ T ✓ :...:.: y '... "':"?7 �:"rt tib,> ti s s' -- 3 OR - 0 II PERVI . ' THE BOARD F • OF - rS • .. COrTRACOSTACOUNTY, STATE :OF CALIFORrlIA'`'�_ _ �:��;:�- : _ In". the Matter ofAuthorizing ) - - :., Count ; A ricultural` . Comm�.ssioner y' S - To' Provide Predator Control :A - - ) ?_ Services. ` v .. :, Supervisor E. A. Linscheid having advised: the: Board . ' that he had received from citizens a number of complaints and. appeals for assistance with respect to depredation .of- livestock. by predatory animals, particularly in the eastern area of the county; and Supervisor. Linscheid having further advised that be had .discussed the matter with Mr. A. L. Seeley, County Agricultural .. Commissioner, and Mr. Seeley had indicated that one of .his staff could be trained as a trapper; and The Board having called upon Mr. Seeley to comment. and Mr. Seeley having reported that the State Department of Fish and . Game_. Division of Wildlife Services, had indicated its willingness to ' provide training in trapper services for an animal control employee at no cost to the county, 'and Mr. Seeley having stated that . there would be an expenditure of approximately 150 required for initial equipment and that said employee could be utilized in predator control work as required (approximately one month each gear:) ; •and Supervisor A. M. Dias having inquired as to whether . . "trapper services by the county employee were to be provided. fars.fara - ....-.specific length of time, and Mr. Seeley having responded that-it. `:should be an ongoing, yearly activity; and The Board having discussed the matter; On motion .of Supervisor Dias, seconded by Supervisor Linscheid, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the .County Agricultural:: : Comsriissioner" is AUTHORIZED to train and utilize one of: his trees AUTHORIZED pest control .personnel in predator control :activities: ;for..:proven livestock predations. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the overall matter of predator- .:':..!.. .. ;control problems is REFERRED to the Special Animal Control Review:': su Comm*ttee. The .foregoing order was passed by the folloiiing vote*. . ` AYr;S. Supervisors. .' •. sors J. P. Kenny, A,:' M. Dias, - W N. Boggess,, E• :A.• Linscheid J. E Moriart'Y. . . R. . Zne. - 1 I- Tone. WOER, o _ . .. : .. ....... -ABSENT...- -None.. : ....: ....,: ,.•..::. ....;::..r3% -CZL' -iso L �. Cont_ cc.,. Sv„cal .Anzmal _ :,+rr .. .. .. ... .yam?C.it .:t'. Ell2Tfico.Ti e,=.:. - ..:....•,:,. �� Court zT�-�cule+ura_ Coi+-m- _s,,sio__er:= On , .... ... ... :... In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California April 16 197h In the Matter of Letter from City of Los Angeles explaining operation of its spay/neuter clinic . The Board having received a letter dated April 5, 1974 from the City of Los Angeles briefly explaining the operation of its spay/neuter clinic and offering further information in connection with same ; On motion of Supervisor W. N. Boggess, seconded by Super- visor J. P . Kenny, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid mutter is REFERRED to the Special Animal Control Review Committee. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote : AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: None . I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of on order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc : Committee Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Department of Supervisors Agriculture affixed this 16th day of April , 19 7 Animal Control JAMES R. OLSSON, County Clerk Division County Administrator By DeputyTer! Charleen K. Travers H24 7/72-15M ACOMMISSIONERS C*Y OF L O s ANGEL DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA ANIMAL REGULATION MS.JOAN PECK PRESIDENT ROOM 410.CITY HALL SOUTH SAUL REIDER LOS ANGELES.CALIF. 90012 VICE-PRESIDENT 495.5771 MS. NANCY AVERY MS. DORISSILVERTON R j �-E DAAD DAVID F. LEE ROBERT L RUSH GENERAL MANAGER PEGGY BODFISH �}9 SECRETARYn r0ED �� ROBERT W. PHILLIPS APR (y 1974 T M BRADLEY EXECUTIVE OFFICER '" MAYOR J. R. OLSSO?I Kt BOARDP.A OF'SA 'C. O. IS .. ,_... �d.......oe April 5, 1974 Alfred Dias, Chairman Finance Committee County Board of Supervisors Administration Building Martinez, California 94553 Dear Mr. Dias: It has come to my attention that concerned groups and individuals in Contra Costa County are requesting county sup- port for the establishment of a public spay/neuter clinic. I would like to bring to your attention the following statistics, in hopes that they may help the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors make the correct decision in this matter: In the three years since the opening of the city-run spay/neuter clinic here in Los Angeles (see enclosed brochure), there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of animals im- pounded and destroyed in this city. That number had reached almost 125,000`in 1971, and, from the last statistics available (fiscal year 1972-73) had decreased to some 97,000. Concurrent- ly, the number of licensed dogs that are altered has risen from 8 per cent to 30 per cent. It is anticipated that this trend will continue, and, in the long run, save the taxpayers a great deal, particularly since the city spay/neuter clinics (three are now in operation) are almost self supporting and are expected to be ful- ly so in the next few years. A more detailed explanation of how the Los Angeles clinics operate may be obtained by writing Robert 1. Rush, General Manager, Department of Animal Regulation, at the address above. 1 hope that 1 have been of some help in this matter. �� Yours truly, �' :6an D. Pec :r f I I h � I + + 1, J r ! J , c r 1 II.!} ! t _ �E t t ! '+ t r f( - i r�' tS' ! � + I I ! r jr I `t I + e rr t I + + , i t 1 1 �`t 1 t� }1 ! t r ! �� r ! tu` t + t 1 Itff, s r i i; r!, , �,s 1 ��n r + !t t y S _ r + IcG. 1 a r I �;;�- rr .! t �` ] r tt r,! ! f 7 r� ; l 3 ! , t 11 1 -s 5 �. ' r ti - �t ))r Fll l 1 ! 1 I L f 1 A�1 1 S. r1F 7-(���f r 7 r 1�3 ! r + r i t yl r 6 tl - t R I'. ?1 x7 1 tl t. + l; a 1 �r I r +� i 5 1 - + I! ! ! It + 1 t �r1,i I ;I ,, I } a s h S' t+`� + ���i :,, a S -r - t r r t ' ';tit s lI �, +r. '' r J + t t - ,, a {,.. _ + + C 1 l7 l'. �� _� -fig . { ft -r 4 S Iw 9 ist R�A+i1r r tt �,� ��., I ��+t 4 �t 1 (- 1. I 1 �. �( � 16 r r t s �,�j ��yy � ! y , ;+ i. £ . Tr.� f 111 I 1f t + v, , J ! 't ir t�t +£ r tt�,�;� .e r:,t r �YV i 1t r� 1�3i1}! t, i ft''.r r� } !{l 'a + N i S< ,. !i 7 y f ti-1,k. iI �) t't i } i Y.� k; +( r S ! i I _ t j �>.t l+}4}+�h rr Ii'�rr?I F ! t r 7 r f ,'r.: !e 1 1 a ,, k1 a tip rI 11 r��_ I.�� g tI rf }}}���}}� t j r � i f� d l��l pr:4 f,� r 1 r+ ! ).�+t 17r 7� � Z��7 jjL 1Y t C; > '$I '{ �1i,-,, i1 - 7�I Ii, ;1S idj'(t�"i' I'�k idf �) � ii .11j A r,, 1 fr.�j;t !�{. Ftt,r t ty '! lii z.; 1'1" rr��sr' �5lSr I fIt 1 + e 4:°tt t r ttpj( r..� I '1 .1. i > il _ tI ,t 1�` �1 o- },. t it' f'Iir 1 q et, Pr (1F trtrti,frx w�'.` s t+t,'7 t ""a��I �, "> ! s f t t +t t "�t 1 t 'r s i { i t + +.,1 -�� s� r t r +1: 7t.1 I ,_ +tt + fs✓ f Iii li �,- A ,r jt11j r t-1!'{ri c > t t 3� 7' ! iF ? r -? t + t i r7 1. �{rl11la t - °t + f i �t# 5 i _�S - 1., t � i �r ;1 f `I ',f 51t ! ri� J t � � i � 1+ t. f ' L }I ar l - ( , t + rl'� 11 A� -. i!+ ;+ ls�r S + + 4 t I; i� + f I iil!1R �, }. I l; .,+ ,,,�I r r r +Ii t + _ (Irk i L ��� ( i t. +,{I" i t.' 1 I .• 1'1 .+ -r I t ( r 1.I, t' Cf 1t•I d ' t vri r _ f 4 /��J _ + V F t r 1 I Fly_` , T+� r , % } i,r + �tl F< t � I ° lF I + } +4u}t 7 1 I, °{ SNOON* l I �)1 7 + i S rl ' t ylr r r + • I �ij y +`11 I r r 'f , ` t t 1 .S �,-jr r1 + 4. t , - + fi 1 I, + -s,l r� t i" t 1 ,, t ; t > 5 '11 1 yt. r 1 t� j ,� Ii .ta } r.. +E ,,, - j f ,L' t �` t J p7 tl r� ` ` ' I1tQ s s ! ' , ! a° E s E�i�r >F r -+ i, 1�- 1 I„i {'; i 1�Trl.} alr�2 i S + IIf I� t'.'t Sr s I S, e r-I Y., t1{4zP, �. 1 . t -'! 1:r y �„ Ir i I t -4: t ! r. r r,r ,a N t P{ .I I -. ..6 r dt-! I}+` r T l 1. rlild�a t ";EII S t 5 4+ '.')r r,r 7lI `+ s. f ;,+1 11 y I{ + ! { f :� •! tf Irl�r p £,e I;<� lftf4 v i uJ; }° - a; °{ a Til t}t1 ;r..i iii I t�t t t} . .,j z1 !1 r4 r 4.171lj1lIr ti+ rye` _dj:f }} loll r +.. J�7 ' °i tXggr - } r { •'; :1 i. I I ( w,, �4, i t i. .�, r� 4 A ,r� X i r lts� , + _ IlI rI io i+l U- 1 I t >'of ry! I ifs 'y}It 1 �, r-rI- 1 �F�'I ¢1°qII A r� 11 I r l j r ..4.,t� w fl �S ! , s C e l�t C S S}r it 1 ! r rt l ld vS 'Ntii °f�3it ')�� '; '' �t.i;,!}I 1, hlr 1{� `x13E £ ��P �r��rr liA'I s f l i +qtr{rI {t! 17a +�1 {bilk} dkl' �,i� 0 11 9 n,� Y n"1 Lti r 1 tii l 14 i'�.. 1 F" I r t3 ' i 'e t lace �k } #'{ 1� rtR }a .t s, +Y.k� ”, , 93 x E ��t 3 t { t 3{i t d.f 4� a} ti, K f IFt�I �y I 4 � {t s s�t j?+ d_, c ,fa t> }ter �a}1 t 7'`�, Pf v ,-i£ is iia z 1eI !• ti f e} f'3 i" ! t i { fir t, �i l � rSI t + 1 in +st r, il.rtp� {�l�v 1 I`I!- j:S s 5 r. rti Frr, l��t Stir„C "x ytl i� r Jfr��I'a !I:'r�117 �-�{S� Ii�14'i13 rI.2Y•�rt tw t_:�' i� 1°��.�I� s �I.'t �i,g to ftY trk� '''")�. f,' - i I + L. ); +� F,t + r t a. 9� r + '7 { d i s 1 > aIi .efl if' 1 a �.' f t.:. frs.. t't .£, i, S t I t I° I ,il 15�.I I ��, ,1. tl`�jIit ,�, "' r i, -r.'•et r 4 tt s ; } t 3 `, it 4 f s x���r4 t+! -I t - sS�'Ii' l., '�� 1 ��` 1'f� tri+�I�,1 I `�.� at i i ,),fit iay trT�} ��,�r, "�F sl�i, !g. t t tr A < < i f r i. r 1 u �-I ?_ l r tK t t9, � + r N t 11 L�Ii rI ('� a ' 1 s- �i t >'3 t,�j ”, 5 b, r.s 1 1 i if l 1'a r.+ Y ,�§f a L.x. 3' -_ S)r t 2 ! N fi °'Sri ` r L 1 r �4 �# F �r� #.r ,! < I. r t, �� �¢a,�. vh iE, '3 f t st �' ��rar �? i�, ! !! i t. 4 t F,' , t { t F F c ! {1 ill xfjl;i j i +.} [ry Irti 't 1 t r,�", +� }I g If- --C },9x- ( 4 '.� y s r ,� a!, -I'i f i r t ( ` r fI p.�I -p y.S;� I* �l i1 t P 1 �kf a tfF;T t' f11 4 y 'ter '.c a•... .>•4{4. N..a. t dt}I 1x} r I, t f ,.I f t { 1 , I 3 f -3 J 1 4 .t 4 "g yQ" PI�N f.:'t , 1 .r g. I i", - i i I i l I!I (- '� 7 lea' . ,i 1 ri, 3 j , r I ,a G�Itrit l ! > -.r�, ¢!1 ara r' r Y, ,jfl 4�� ,, k It r Inti £ r,, a' S,`:,, ll�t°'�� 'dt 1 S� + E t f'1 c �t'I + ,f r ! '�' a �t +Ir 3 rI I J I. ?. �,l>�' � Zn r d + vr�h IZI,,, s11 r �F iri', Fr✓'y 'tI p 11�� 1.�� 1 1. � rl �ff lI 1 t f 1t % rl f+ It �, �fl I ! l�hl y I ,S ? I �. ] �i i (ti 5 f i '. I f rk+ �1 y .:,;'Ili f + f I i } I j,F 1, ; �,. 1 )j. t t r' c+. I j t 'fA fJ s� , >..1�t 4. + i i- a , ,lr �.l s t ,'.r � s Syr, a f 1(r ..i 1 +I t } i ti ! + + f :� 1 r � 1 1 rt Ii I n t r 11 s P Y Ir'.4 S t 4 ti i Y14, t. yfs f7 �. wi Ir I�lj,d { rlrf l r ti + r;I, y t �� +�+ f r r' ,. lark 711 r ; z + 1! f cF 'f t r q if r I r ' y rf Lt - al d ! t r I.f !s t f (r 1 I tq r +l t+r rV.F ii ♦� r t f? r t� 1 r d �! a s t r G S t q r } 1� t r t.t 1� R i I 7S + t c I ,, r �. +! .c t .� t IJ4 z !I%�l, )t..11 I + t{+ i I + LS-.r .� 1 tIi r•t i q £ t,,. t S 5: a U rt ) E ! t r (t 1.1 ni ,�e�i, rs f.r L t ". I t <r �+ 7 r A 11 , t i tr fs t ! + t 1 t r1 : 11� a I r I�, t l I"."�4�S. a r t ti p i+�tf �� ria.�t£{ r 1 1J b.a >l r 5 e r �� ,+ t ,.�, jr;. �t 1) �f.r➢ -S 't ,i I + tt 1 i tr i11J, 3q - �r IS ?'tl 3 . {� ti -1�� k a )t�� L,I �� � __fi��y r^` i ! 1 i�ttr I; l71 r 1t l N j t n t- '''t 1 , a t y f'�t r y ?'! s ' J t �§ *al I te z 19 i ct�u ti, x� 1 ; f r a r;{j t { 1 3 t , Sd .t 't��-_ 1�} h' �� e, + ,fi t I ,5} �, Y '+r�� r, fi � }aI{ �£��) Lit �f ! j +� C I t t4'r�+ � ,rt,,s(Ylf t -i.1 r(� ',. 4 a' a.� r ,, h t �}1 r 1y i I a =r S r}4$ira �,u - �_�ti � r. , r a t € " F r i �r �' t I } R� ct cnr, . i b �_t�l z t sk i' �r if r 1 !�," :��i nlrl f �d �e � �,, ,�I �, t d Tilt sF1+ � its "o 4 E ttt_ktl rr a y:' ear 1 sl e h�fir fifi �, t i' k r� ' U 1. r+� l,t. i qt•x Hg � y,'�1'� 4.t ir' ": Yr j,,r} fir`�,r a �,�' #ii .,tib, ' Vfl� . E j 1�„y ' it}�E t Y "SF r c4+ k��� f� sj v 1,,.I `o tt °� 4t,I a :. �p a i , ♦-F'.S 1 h t w 0 0• $ . 4o 41 � v NG 'QAs w _ ikels loo C � - y L. �Q �r k O C... � D � �i �.— "�j �.,�„ •'Sj � O w L 'may ,� ..ii �; f t o ` v g .►- a u. c = y 'b ' ys "asp ll sl ItS , 06 IV '10 5t lw -� lip ' M� OON � . Zo g 3 m a y S y rnrnc 'a' � W +r awn G a� 4. `+' � avt� '� � �' +�► � Z��y , u o »- Z 3•N 42 n. �' < • �' � A. it A w- � � ��y�� '�QV,F < �.+ � C4 TA f, u " cA g r W k w The Sp1y and Noutsr C*wm bop bwt alablighW to pry'w& " citawti of the CIV 40 Los Anploo with the seroce of wiryirq` ark /* pots at the -in to,~cess pmuble to "OSA o pwniscox" inMd- 1. flsls an+i�ttrt t . � of and cats &,W smima� ** n, abon of �►�.a f+er . unw *W pRgpiss and k)Mwt. Oft to not a hoop": � �t it is a Vocialized droit, specifically for ` tirl 44t ri-' " epeyin� a++d rreuterir�p, weR tl+e trMtnwnt of T - oovaer. sink or iryuvod wiL # #wfrlrk agsewtiast va TK WAY 48 OWNWIlow, ms s VMrs MW it T%w fw t SM I. Mast sf4wctive Meares of prop- 1. Puppies or kMaw wwy♦ o 4MWIP- A o is unuody dam bogne+t 11.1w vw*igV pmgna cy and 00^0 in able if yow pet is a Wp" fltilt th y. in atilt sbdh rer n* tits iwriei�e. M 4r*"I Ow its sporw ahor shy 2. Eliw+inates the attraRion of Un- goodtsi tr owity mey hao Ism , vKar+ted mak snirr►s#s aft psa- *WA"MW 60"W hamjx* vwft omception and Mtn of 2. In the vide: pot, ca ONCOMIl .#t voiow,iflCaapsre eMith 1 'a cowld arise two MweIN+I Iinsoosow, 3, Elk+ei W" the powA41 y 4* Jw of the > fray r r or erraa do* Vw *a* may o=w Jww 1* 3. If yaw pa is a eegi�IrA '� id4 Orre, she vvw to #�, ow4wt bw �4-- I. #mer a khi� r iM111 *we �1111 �iMi! �i bar0";z hasw _ t dri+ii�e pet. r 0 9 In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California April 2 19 74 In the Matter of Problems Connected with the Impoundment of Cats . As requested by the Board, •'[r. A . L. Seeley, County Agricultural Commissioner, having appeared this day to discuss conditions at the animal control centers as related to impoundment of cats; and Mr. Seeley having advised that the large numbers of cats received daily at the centers make it a physical impossibility to hold all cats as long as might be desirable; and Seeley having further advised that a subcommittee of the Special Animal Control Review Committee is presently study- ing the aforesaid problem and will submit its recommendations as soon as possible; and The Board having considered the matter; On motion of Supervisor A . M. Dias, seconded by Super- visor E. A. Linscheid, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that further consideration of the problem pertaining to impoundment of cats is deferred pending receipt of the report of the Special Animal Control Review Committee on overall animal control matters . The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A . M. Dias, '1. N. Boggess, E. A . Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None . ABSENT : None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seat of the Board of cc: Special Animal Control Supervisors Review Committee affixed this 2nd; day of April , ig U County agricultural JAMES R. OLSS N, County Cl Commissioner County Administrator By 6 Deputy Clerk Arline Patten H 24 5/73-15M 41 IVY • HEALTH DEPARTMENT • Contra Costa County TO: Supervisor Warren Boggess DATE: February 1 , 1974 District #4 FROM: Frank J. Angelo SUBJECT: Suggestions for animal Super�vng Sanitarian control review committee Hazards or nuisances associated with animal control are now being handled in this county by more than a dozen city, county and private agencies with resultant inefficiency and confusion over responsibility, authority and jurisdiction. Complaints received by this office often require multiple referrals making it difficult to follow up on the disposition or solution of the problem. The lack of a strong comprehensive animal control ordinance is , for the most part, the cause of this fragmented approach to animal control. Our office now attempts to abate these problems through the use of non-specific nuisance ordinances and vague guidelines . This process all too frequently irritates the taxpayer, frustrates the field sani- tarian and wastes many costly man hours . It is the recommendation of this office that a comprehensive animal nuisance section be included in the animal control ordinance now under study and that primary responsibility for enforcement be assigne4 to the Animal Control Division. All other agencies noir involved could be utilized as secondary resources for advice and consultation. FJA:bc cc : Environmental Health Martinez Planning Animal Control Agriculture aP RECEIVED ��" FEB 1 1 1974 J. R: OLS:ON CLE K RD OF SUPE1;✓fSORS CR B A COSTA CO. PUN GA-9 10'72 WA • -1, - - -lq.,.,:- . I . . --... '. -,- I.- 1- .1 . 1--- I� !i-�,-, 11 — �-�- �-, , -,� : ,-, : -I " � I I I I I I I - I . ,.-�,� I I I 1. ,-.I I .�- I I,- - I I I • 1 l`. I -'- , " -- —� , . �,�,.� A, ., ... . .-- , �, . ':,:,�, - ;�,,�- -" --- �-�-,*�;- "-, , , � � I.1u T k a", +,., t a, 5 q FEB 1974 ` 7i �x4°+r W { 1 i f) tom` R .� A { I ie___ i. Ryi r _ A ,.,-,A I C�a� r L. � ,', 1 x fi 1. I • Vit. `1' G:2 ltn�.trr l Con trol; iZc" - - Cor:�ai. I +C�.sr Yc�?ns Lrdflr Rcfp-rance ie u�.:cle to the Ja �r� i3, 1974 letter .o£r tie ;�cc,` •- r the I GV -1 tlai e£ Crrs.:e3 y .o t�i� -tla# requn t � •' , � �'.�t:.-- ��uh �.�a,=&" o al.tera ions ca th3 .eutlu sicc >-tie3 ' V. w ��, ::t c�: a�. Y.�ae ��a cru ty Aniaml Control Ceizt,er�; u copy o£ = w ;... let,cq­ .11 �s at L• cheda - {'` � le :.973 .9' 4 bzWSct crrxZt:ains 1 7,©{ICI tor- al6crat 3 ona s_�, � �urc , a tl ec ui te:iG estLi m, tad to be neo tsar dor car��liance v .r-- -, c0n;; ?e;3.slai: on conccring cutli==ia. . , �x�:... . :.�. ;)Mro?. rzete mnd desirable that .t-lrQ` Sw ec�.aZ ; 1 c _� Cfi Lace be p.ivan the op2ortzniW,to sL-uct; c =tiva,S :to --mO, resect lan ricer L-o �7 siraz ^=it t -e.�:a : ae v L a.rear o - ze cons riot can pro act. �. ;. a e prepared to dict ,tho Public ILorks- Department to ,4 s �V;:. � vlitIz tie do ect ar ori tl�e farojcot Ya .�:ia a c!ll:fereni ' ` ez... ,,i--. ,.-vn{ �r./e�calpt. of recommandatirn� Ero�rs the E1n z n3. CcraLrol w,L: all.,11Vi�:4Giittee F'' r :. A' 11 .� `"'+ �.� ��.�r qk.t 1 s y t./ {d S 7 e i 7..,mss -i - -. ''syr''` K c S `:.* ,e.c,5 {^v e ,� 4" `,> 1 "•T 3l7 3r,�'a �-2.ti<4 5 '� fir"'—u.° T .t:g t5 +.� ''-'„,.' a,*+ro �2,", 2 a.D �*t ? w rC`�rr� t wJg Z � '� c r Mfr x :t �,ikf " ., sk r-s".t ".S'� n s.'L"*'t r�uK�'""', c ax,.�j0.7,3'`"�,�" r ..tl,` `krl tf x+Tt r + -'Q coy ���. :GcorbB Br d�o�d, Jr, , President � ��, �" ,Z 4 �- l Conga Costa Societ ;for the lhxavent3oi� , x of =;Crcae3ty to ni- 3.sK,J � w }4 b Street � : . ? _a2�.Et C .t trc^. � � "xv � . �, �:3.c� !DACE Cc1i2. O:.Z1�L1 94$� � ;� , r 1. r s xp, S,�.4.i' aS+' Ft ✓ �`., ..a..•*e�Y » ,y{;: bc. J. E: Iiendrickson r M 4 r � ` K _ ; { f k "�' i 3 t,z , y' '+,+ z"'2' �" 7 "�-"`st '� is -1 a 'K zR- 5` �v"' ri mY i .rt T � < � � v i t ,� -�, t'�'+,.�a^'..x'hi�•cr"":F '�'c��`.�' �gt r,..�tz. ts.,✓f u„?F�.r i' t r? ""1°-3 .k :i Ki �0-1 `. - t o- x s ;k _: _. Hpp''� } T; 1 y N� � ,y,�4 �pd�"' ' • � �� �" �. �' ��� �� ,�� �� , , � w, � - AICA �y� �� THE CONTRA COSTA SOCIETY for the PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS 1622 Santa Clara Street Richmond, California 5 Q Phone: 525-0566 January 13, 1974 James E. Moriarty, Chairman Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County P. 0. Box 911 Martinez, Calif. 94553 Dear Supervisor Moriarty, on June 23, 1973, this society requested information regarding the allocation of funds to rebuild the present euthanasia chambers at the two county Animal Control Centers to comply with provisions of SB 400 adding Penal Codes 597u through 597z. It is our understanding that a budget appropriation has been authorized to cover the cost of necessary renovations; however, we have not been so notified. We would also like to know the date that alterations of the existing cuthanasia chambers will be completed in order that Contra Costa County will be in compliance with state law. Receipt of the above requested information will be appreciated. Respectfully, George Bradford, Jr. President ml RECEITED JAN 16 1974 J. O ofF SU w sons � � �31� c� f In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California January 28 19 74 In the Matter of Letter from Orinda Resident with Respect to Animal Control Laws. Supervisor J. E. Moriarty having called attention to a letter he received from Mr. Gary Graumann, 11 Eastwood Drive, Orinda, California expressing the opinion that certain animal control laws are unfair to dogs and their owners and should be changed; On motion of Supervisor Moriarty, seconded by Supervisor J. P. Kenny, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that aforesaid letter is referred to the Special Animal Control Review Committee for consideration. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, W. N. Boggess , E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc: Mr. Graumann Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of • Special Committee-C/ogupggePervisors Agricull Commissioner affixed this 28th day of January , 19 74 County Administrator JAMES R. OLS ON, County Clerk _-- County Counsel By Deputy Clerk D. Harkness H 24 7/72-15M t RECEIVE uary 9, 1974 JAN�P1974 r _ James E. Moriarty camK aiuw su Jnr I �1f 3338 Mt. Diablo Bl TA Lafayette, Ca. 94 SUPERVI OR 2s1U ;. i f Dear Mr. Moriarty; I have been researchl.ng the problem of the Dog Leash Law, Article 6, sec. 51-2.462. As a dog lover, I fRel, as well as many others that this law is unfair to dogs and th6ir owner. The one problem of the law is the meaning of "at large", which restrains the dog from it 's freed-am. Presently, the meaning of "at large", is that an animal not under restraint by leash, not in an enclosed arra, or nit under the control and in the immediate presences of the owner. By this meaning dogs do not have any f reod om of doing an� thing. I feel the meaning of "at large" has to be changed. 'At large" should read that, any animal not under restraint by leash in a public area, or in a confined area in public, or not to be impounded without a complaint. This would enable to let the dog be freer and the owner will not have to worry as much about having their dog on a 10-ash at all times. The favorable pdUite Df--;tbAQ-law change would bring, less crowded courts. Some people, who get f fined for doge "at large", go to court to fight the fines. If less dogs are picked up, which the restating of "at large" would bring, then by percentages, less court appearances by dog owners. Another good point about the change would be the dogs could be out in the yard, instead of being penned up inaa cage or chained. This roaming of the on it 's own property could mean less burglaries, since a dog free of being chained, is apt to discourage a burglar more than a chained dog. Although with good points there are always at least one bad one. One, being that the county would lose money coming in from fines of impounding animals, but the county might save by slacking off on men who pick up dogs. I hope you will consider this change. I would like a reply on how you feel about the lkwe?itsw3t thd 16h68p*opbaw4eQhange. Thank you, Gary Graumann 11 FA stwood Dr. Crinda, Ca. 945-43 c& T� 7 i CONTRA COSTA COUNTY • DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE A. L. SEELEY AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER 161 JOHN GLENN DRIVE SEALER WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BUCHANAN AIRPORT K. E. DANIELSON y� ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 64320 �• 3••' ,- � � O 682-7380 ASSISTANT SEA LCR SrA COUNt� BRANCH OFFICES 100.37TH ST.. RICHMOND 94806 1420 HIGHWAY 4, BRENTWOOD 54613 233-7060, EXT. 3266 634-3618 December 20, 1973 Mr. David R. Lowe Ms. Ann B. Olmsted Marsh Creek Kennels Costa Crafts P. 0. Box 194 P. 0. Box 59 Clayton, Calif. 94517 Port Costa, Calif. 94569 Ms. Lila Van Zanten Ms. Phyllis J. Jarreau 100 Oak View Terrace 442$ Taft Avenue Danville, Calif. 94526 Richmond, Calif. 94804 R. R. Reynolds 3629 Wren Avenue Concord, Calif. 94519 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: The Board of Su ervisors on February 26, 1973 referred your complaints and%or suggestions on Animal Control operations to me. As indicated on the attached board order, your complaints and/or suggestions are to be considered in connection with the proposed overall review of the Animal Control operations. The Special Review Committee held its first meeting on December 10, 1973 and I have added your complaints and/or suggestions to the items for the committee to consider. We have scheduled a public meeting (January 14, 1974 from 7:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. ) for all citizens to bring problems and suggestions for improving the program to our full committee. All items submitted to our committee on the night of January 14, 1974 will be considered at a later date. The committee's recommendations will then go to the Board of Supervisors and then interested citizens will be notified of the Board's decisions. Please be assured that your items will receive full consideration and I will keep in touch with you. RECEIVED Sincerely yours, DEC 2 41973 Arthur L. Seeley .It. OLSM Agricultural Commissioner ac cOF SUPERHISM Sealer Weights & Measures COCA r.0* ALS/n att nt � . Clerk of the Board of Supervisors f ' WARREN N.BOGGESS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SUPERVISOR • FOURTH DISTRICT 1331 CONCORD AVENUE, CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 94520 • 687-6900 December 18, 1973 RECEIVED DEC 2 Q 1973 J. R. OMM Mrs. Chris A. Kenyon, Jr. CLERK 80ARD O� wPERV�SO a 281 Castle Hill Ranch Road w► Cosh Co. Walnut Creek, California 94,595 Dear Mrs. Kenyon: Thank you very much for your recent letter expressing several of your feelings concerning animal control here in Contra Costa County. I will make copies of your letter and forward them to the other members of the Animal Control Review Committee. I would like to call your attention to the public hearing which will be held the evening of January 14, 1974. at seven o'clock in the Board of Supervisors' Chamberg i n .ham mi ni str on Build- ng in tinez� Hopefully the full Animal Control Review Comm- -it awe be in attendance, and this will be an appropriate time for citizens to comment on any of their concerns surrounding animal control procedures in the County. Thank "you again for your interest. Very truly yours, Warren N. Boggess, Supervisor Fourth District, Contra Costa County MM:dcg cc: Animal Control Review Committee . . . . 1, ,�.x.;�,:,;%�x.,.,,,•/rod. /,���'—,,, i - .. 281 Ra, Cj 10 t- c.,t-:--V t..:..' t �. 40 , ..� - t t4 7(.-4 ,r�'��^...,.rte , ,•1' ./:9-�''�r �,,../�z_ .C,t.�..r�..�'--� �'�e'Ls' 05 JJ `ter fey...• ��.r//V,j'Y Li+• f {►r�+J'fj�.r.�•V_-i•/ �' � / ' J � •t�C'`•'ji•+t'► ✓✓./(,.y�/\r rif')'ifi�i:�."L^�t__,.s' tiL�1'S'..Grj.'1�.�'�.t ��".�..�'i'Ls^L� r C,r.-.v.►•'L-�' l;(,.•'�-.C''��E..G'''r f�.� ��"� .,f r�-fC=� e�:..Gr..2.-i:. +,.?fr.,G+ • r• f��"e..7'."^7i'2•^4-✓ � !..-al?^4.. »��-s,rf...:�.�,;�,r�'-. �r`<� moi.:/L.C.yC j, ��i—'"...—c.C� i�L.t1 .� ..0 f 00071, 1 t _ • •• f f� V fit-✓ 'C�. �� .G_..-i/�•-i�f��• - r J r r_� / r OF On . e �ij .. . r� .�^�.,vC� :I•C...�:-!yZc`�•:Z��•"car' �j••�'ti�C�`L•., �- /�' xef- v /, _ 17. ./y.1-�c�:�L./i��...- i%` �-�-^..._:�►s-�-r-J .1/.�!j�'liL�f /�i3.t.�iY''`/ IV aa nll� 177 L ,1 (_.�. ,��=.�-: �/.�.. � .� �-�-�-ter__.-�•J ;, ,u������,:�Y:• c� . . O ✓�v ' /�. �,Q,�,li ='�� ,��.c�j^,..fit-'% �% • � �'Y`' �.� 1)'L�'.4trC .•;.�cl .",C.! �Z.:.ti.-r.� .::.!'.Jt,fi`L �✓1��-�.-yt} ,/,��•�c, �y'j/ �L��wcfiy�.�'::: �/,..-t-�'„ rt n�/L/w�-�rC/'-! ���-i- �"iL,.GA.� /`.Za�.c/�•`_..j�.✓�,,.L•:L✓C!{i'�-,Z- ���11�'.. In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California August 14 , 19 Ll- In the Matter of Letter from Berkeley resident suggesting a revision in the County Animal Control Ordinance. A letter having been received August 3 , 1973 from Mrs . Ruth L. Goldman, 514 Arlington Avenue, Berkeley , California suggesting that the Contra Costa County Animal Control Ordinance be revised to require a longer "holding" period for unlicensed animals, stating that three days is inadequate; and On motion of Supervisor E. A. Linscheid , seconded by Supervisor J. P. Kenny, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that aforesaid letter is REFERRED to the Special Animal Control Review Committee. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote : AYES : Supervisors J. P. Kenny, W. N. Boggess , E. A. Linscheid, A. M. Dias . NOES : None. ABSENT: Supervisor J. E. Moriarty. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of c c : Mrs . Goldman Supervisors Committee affixed this 14th day of August , 1973 Agricultural Commissioner W, T. PAASCH, Clerk Administrator County Counsel By )�� , Deputy Clerk Lourette Kincaid H 24 5/73-15M 3 tai T-70 A!!!C 373? W. T. PAASCH ci:zsK SOARD OF SUPERVISC'13 514 Arlington Ave. , oepu:y Berkeley, Calif. 94707 August 1, 1973 Board of Supervisors P.O. Box 911 Martinez 94553. Calif. Dear Sirss I had just called the animal regulation center in Pinole and inquired, "if a cat, dark gray, white paws, etc. " "You will have to come down and look for yourself,"' the voice at the endof the line advised me. "How lona do you keen animals after they are delivered to the Q-enter?" "THREE FULL DAYS, " she said. "Ten days, if they are licensed. " This obviously excludes cats since they do not require licensing. THREE FULL DAYS ! It takes at least three full days for the owner of an animal that is permitted to go outdoors, to determine if the pet is-.actually missing. Since I live on the Berkeley - Contra-Costa border, I hurried to Pinole to determine whether my-- cat was among those behind bars marked for execution. As I approached the "regulation" center, I was taken back 8 years to the time I visited Auschwitz, concen- tration camp, now museum. There was the tall smokestack silhou?tted against the sky to dissipate into the atmosphere the smell of the burned bodies of little victims of a brutal society. Their crime - being homeless ! In Auschwitz, after 25 years, the earth had still not cleansed itself. It still reeked with stench. It is more conveniet; NOT more economical to kill these animals, our pets, than to prevent their birth. Killing in our culture is so easy. And after all, they are only animalsl Why is the count of Contra Costa in such a sweat to exterminate ese .unfortunate creatures? The pound in Berkeley keeps them for $ week or as long as possible. That is the very least that can be done. I urge-:you, the Board of Supervisors for the County of Contra Costa to re-evaluate and change the ordinance that sets such unrealistic, cruel, and inhuman guidelines for rushing innocent creatures, to their doom, Nazi-style, into gas and decompression chambers, ___ o Respectful yours, Mr Ruth L9. Goldman " 1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Inter - Office Memo � ate: March 1973 To: ittee for elopm t se Animal Spay Clinic, C/o Count 'nKX is to From: Clerk of the Boar Subject: Proposals and Suggestions with Respect to Animal Control Procedures The Board of Supervisors today referred to you various proposals and suggestions with respect to animal control procedures. dah ISI THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUINTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Referrals of ) Board County Govermment Operations ) 21-larch 26 , 1973 Corti-littee. ) The Board heretofore having made certain referrals to its Countv Government Operations Committee (Supervisors E. A. Linscheid and J. P. Kennv) ; and Said committee having reported and recommended as follows with respect to aforesaid referrals ; Referral Date Item Recommendation 2/6/73 Co-unents of Cities of City of Walnut Creek opposes j 2/20/73 ,'alrut Creek, Lafayette and any change in existing procedure, Martinez on proposed alter- Lafayette still has matter under nate procedure for nomina- study, and Martinez indicates tion of com*nissi oners for a it is agreeable to a rotation fire district encompassing plan although its first choice more than four cities. is an expanded commission. Consolidate items into one referral and continue in Committee pending receipt of comments from Cite of Lafayette. 12/26/72 Proposed position of public Initial administrative actions information officer. toward establishment of posi- tion have been taken; proposal to create position inclusive of job specification and recommended salary allocation will be submitted to Board of Supervisors for determination in the near future. Remove as committee referral. 12/12/72 Report of 1972 County Grand County Administrator is com- Jury Lair Enforcement and piling comprehensive report on Probation Committee. recommendations of Grand Jury committees. Remove as committee referral pending receipt of said report. 1/11/72 Suggestions of David Roberts Board of Supervisors on concerning Animal Control February 13 , 1973 authorized Division procedures. establishment of a Special 3/21/72 Report of Supervisor E. A. Cornamittee to review the entire Linscheid on dog problems Animal Control program. These in farmland areas. proposals and suggestions should 4/24/72 Suggestion of FIs. Judith be referred to this Special Morrill that high fines be Committee and these ite_*as assessed against owners i•7ho removed as referrals to this allow their dogs to run Committee. loose. 5/2/72 Letter and copy of petition from B. J. Davis requesting investigation of certain procedures practiced by Ani-mal Control Division. 12/19/72 Letters from interested Request Clerk to acknowledge persons pertaining to letters and retain on file for recommendations of 1972 reference; remove as committee Countv Grana Jury on Countv_ re=erral. Planning Deoartr..ent. In discussion of the aforesaid recommendations Super- visor J. E. Moriarty having advised that with regard to the last item he wished to state that he, for one, took exception to the report of the County Government Organization, Planning, Public .-Torks , and Audit and Finance Committee of the 1972 Contra Costa County Grand Jury insofar as said report pertains to criticism of '?r. A. A. Dehaesus , Director of Planninq, because in his opinion Mr. Dehaesus is doing an outstanding job in a controversial functional area of county government; and Supervisor A. r•?. Dias having stated that he concurred with the comments of Supervisor 'Ioriarty and suggested that it be made knoten to the aforesaid 1972 Grand Jury Committee that the Board had received a number of letters from organizations and individuals indicating their staunch support of the Planning Director. r;Of?, TFEREFORE, on the motion of Supervisor Linscheid, seconded by Supervisor Kenny, IT IS BY THE BOARD OT_ZDEILD. that the aforesaid recommendations of its County Government Operations Co=:iittee, as amplified by the suggestion of Supervisor Dias , are hereby approved. The foregoing order tras nassed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, J. E. -Moriarty, W. N. Boggess , E. A. Linscheid , A. M. Dias. NOES : Mone. ABSENT: None. CERTIFIM COPY I certify that this is a full, true & correct copy of the ori.-inal document wlucli is on file in my office, cc' City Of Ualnut Creek and that it was p::scd & adopted by the Board of City of Lafayette §upervizors of Conus Costa Cou:-Ity, Caiifo^da, on City of riartinez �?� date show:. A=ZST: W. T. P_21SCH, county Personnel Director }g = @K9ffici6 clerk of said Board of Supervisors, Uty Chairman, 1972 Grand Jury Judicial, Lasa Enforcement '112I'IIAR 2 6 1973 and Probation Committee rlr. David Roberts ��o �>, Agricultural Commissioner 1 The Contra Costa Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals `1s. Judith 114orrill =Is. B. J. Davis County Counsel Director of Planning County Administrator THE CONTRA COSTA SOCIETY for the PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS 1622 Santa Clara Street Richmond, California Phone: 525-0566 February 1, 1972 RECEIVES a W. T. PAA r!:: Supervisor A. M. Dias, Chairman CLERK ['OAF. .ONT �O".• .. _• County Government Operations Committee A Contra Costa County P. 0. Box 911 Martinez, California 94553 Dear Supervisor Dias, Re; Board of Supervisor's Investigation Or-der of. Mrs. Patricia McHenry's . concern re Animal Control procedures My investigation of Mrs. Patricia McHenry's complaint to the Board of Supervisors regarding Animal Control procedures reveals the following; 1. This very unfortunate case would never have occurred if the McHenry dog had not been allowed to run at large for her "usual 15 to 30 minute run", unobserved - a violation of the county Animal Control Code. 2. Either the Notice of Impound was not mailed by Animal Control on the date of impound, or the Post Office inadvertently delayed forwarding the Notice of Impound to Mrs. McHenry until December 30, 1971 (date of post mark shown on envelope). It is impossible to ascertain which organization made the mistake. 3. Communication between Animal Control personnel and Mrs. McHenry failed to make it clear that some sections of Lafayette are served by the Pinole shelter, the other by the Martinez shelter. When I talked to Mrs. McHenry on January 26, 19721, she still had the erroneous idea that ALL dogs from the Lafayette area were taken to the Pinole shelter. According to Mrs. McHenry's letter of January 49 1972 to the Board of Supervisors, she was advised by Animal Control personnel of the Pinole shelter, but she failed to comprehend that both shelters should have been checked. 4. Excluding human error, communication procedure by Animal Control personnel to individuals attempting to locate a missing animal appears sufficient to give owners of missing pets every To: Supervisor A. M.9as Chairman • County Government Operations Committee From: The Contra Costa Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals February 1, 1972 Re: McHenry complaint opportunity to locate their pet. (Procedure copy attached) NOTE: When reprinted, there will be an added statement to the written Visitors Instructions to indicate to pet owners that both the Pinole and Martinez shelters should be checked to locate their missing pet. 5. Excluding human errors Animal Control procedure for notifying the owner of an impounded licensed dog provides sufficient time and information for redemption of their dog. (A ten day hold and written notification to the owner. I understand that the one optional telephone call to the owner shall be increased to three. RECOMMENDATION: Many people work during the same 8 am to 5 pm hours as Animal Control office personnel. Telephone contact in these instances would be impossible. Some of the telephone calls should be made by Animal Control after 5 pm. If all attempts by Animal Control fail to contact the owner of a licensed dog, this society is willing to provide additional "due search" to locate the owner of a licensed impounded dog before the dog is destroyed. It is extremely regretable that a dearly loved net was destroyed because of human error and/or lack of communication. If you have any questions, or if further information is required, please contact me. Sincerely, e Mary E umsden State Humane Officer cc: Agricultural Commissioner County Administrator (2) 1•, it inimal Control Procedures Telephone calls regard ini 'lost do-gs. We do- not take lost and found reports - ask the person if the dog is : t wearing a current license and/or identification. if so check the stray board. --'" Advise the citizen it is the owner's responsibility to come down and look for t ' their dog. Even if the dog had a license on when first missing, advise them that it might have come off and they should code to the center and check for ' a the dog. Ask for the area the caller resides. If it is even a remote possiblity that the dog could be at Pinole, be sure to suggest that the citizen , visit the Pinole Center also. (or !Aartinez which ever is applicable) DO .NOT SAY "I'm not allowed----", say "we do not---- t . Uenat Center looki.nrx for,dog. Give the citizen the "Visitors Instructions" slip. 0 ; j ro ' f ri f ' f VISITORS INSTRUCTIONS attaches;. The part 'for at the Finole - {i►lartinez) r• Centers' is being added to our new printing,. g CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREi + ANN"CONTROL DIVISION " VISITORS INSTRUCTIONS To we pets far adoption or look for your lost pet please• ( L Fallow the yellow line to the kennels. , 2. Inquire at the desk if is licensed and ' j your dog you don't see it, � L InQuire at the front desk if you do not find your pet- it may be in sick animal section or at a Ve�ttwInary Hospital., or at the Hnole (i4art,inez)Center. d' e 6•'C}• 4. Intorm the clerk of the cage number of the animal you wish to purcftase or redeem. 5. Do not pat fitagers in cage or handle animals. ARf, -ry IM r CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Inter - Office Memo Date: January 11, 1972 To: 1972 County Government Operations Committee (Supervisors A. M. Dias and J. E. Moriarty) From: Clerk of the Board Subject: The Board today referred to you for review the suggestions of Mr. David Roberts with respect to the complaint of Mrs. Patricia McHenry on animal control procedures: As soon as Mr. Roberts submits his questions in writing (as requested by the Board), we will furnish you with same. 38 cc: County Administrator January 17, 1972 Contra Costa Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 1622 Santa Clara Street Richmond, California 94804 Gentlemen: The Board of Supervisors on January 11, 1972 adbuted the enclosed order pertaining to operation of the animal I ' ntrol centers in the county. Mr. David Roberts was requested to submit his questions in writing to the Board. As soon as these have been receivel-t, we will forward a copy to you. `�•. Very truly yours, r _ W. T. PAASCH, CLERK By Dorot y '.h: Harkness Deputy Clerk ti Enclosure `.t \ 1t 1 l In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California January 11 19 72 In the Matter of Animal Control Op era ti ons. Mr. David Roberts, representing Mrs. Patricia McHenry, 3317 Mildred Lane, Lafayette, California appeared before the Board and posed certain questions with respect to the procedures employed by the Animal Control Division, County Department of Agriculture, in connection with the impoundment of dogs; and Mr. Roberts urged that the Board hold a public hearing on the operations of the animal control centers and engage an inde- pendent agency to conduct an investigation of same; and The Board having considered same; On motion of Supervisor J. P. Kenny, seconded by Supervisor J. E. Moriarty, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that this matter is REFERRED to its County Government Operations Committee (Supervisors A. M. Dias and J. E. Moriarty) and to the Contra Costa Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for investigation and report. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote of the Board: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, J. E. Moriarty, E. A. Linscheid. NOES: None. ABSENT: Supervisors A. M. Dias and W. N. Boggess. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of cc: Mrs. McHenry Supervisors Committee affixed this—11th day of January �9 72 The Contra Costa Society for — Prevention of Cruelty to Animals W. T. PAASCH, Clerk Agricultural Commissioner B j ,-r:. =" ' y Deputy Clerk County Administrator Joan R. Schoettler r N 76 11/71 inu I?•✓J IMP- If�� January 4, 1972 r � PAASCH { W. T. t Lafayette, California f MERK BOARCON D F T PCOVISORS Deputy 94549 6y County 0oard of Supervisors Martinez, California Dear Gentlemen of the Board, 'So acquired "Babe" our Germnn Shepard shortly after moving to our home in Lafayette. I had promised my sons that as soon as we moved from our apartment into this home they could have thier dog. chis •jas in October of 71. During the week of December 11- 17 I was hospitalized. My oldest son informed me on December 15 that "Babe" had gone out in the morning for her usual 15 to 30 minute run and had not returned before he had to leave for classes although he had tried to locate her before leaving, and that she had failed to return that evening. The boys had futile efforts in a neighborhood search. I'm sure "Babe" sensed the change in our home during my absence and was possibly a bit confused and bewildered. I was released from the hospital on December 17 and checked with the Martinez Animal Control Center that day. They said she had not bNen brought in to their center. The clerk informed me on the p.'-..one then that there were several Shepards there and if her dicks chain bearing license and rabies tag had been removed they had no way of identifying tier, and I should come out and cock their kennels. On December 20 I visited Mat center and "Babe" was not present. I asked the clerk at that time if "Babe" had been brought in the victim of an accident, would I be informed, porviding she had her identification. She informed me they would have notified me ilh that situation, but if she had no ID they did not keep records of description on unlicensed animals. I requested her suggestions on other ways of locating "Babe"s She informed me of the Pinole A.C.C. but assured me if "Babe" had been taken there and was tagged they would notify me immediately. I del: , inquired-f Usshe thought it would be nece.,sery to call them and she t.'stated "sometimes psopls find a dog and shelter it for a few days before calling the A.C.C.. Why don't you check the lost and found adds in the local papers and if you come up wits- nothing then check here again. It would save you a long distance call or an unnecessary ' trip out there. She did not, at any time, inform me that animals picked up in t1ne Lafayette area were in t! e Pinole district A.C.C.- During the following ten days I made 'two:- more trips to the Martinez A.C.C. and three more phone inquiries. I also checked the adds in the Contra Costa Times, calling on one in Moraga on December 31 that seemed to fit "Babe" very closely. Returning home from that, there was a letter from the A.C.C. waiting for me, postmarked from Crockett on December 30, 1971 . Due to the late hour (5:30-6:00 pm) I assumed the Pinole center was closed, but did make an attempt to call. I also called on Saturday and again on Sunday hoping there would be a caretaker there to look after the animals, but still no answer. My first contact with the Pinole center was at 8:30 am on Monday, January 3, 1972. I spoke with Mr. Moon, explaining I had recieved notice they had impounded my dog on December 16, 71. I also questioned him at that time about my re- cieving the notice 15 days after the impound and the cost to me to re- trieve my dog would be nearly prohibitive as I am sole support of my two sons. I asked for suggestions as to an appeal of t�,e cost. Mr. Moon left the phone for a few moments and on returning, asked if he could call me back as soon as he had some answers for me. He returned my call within 15 minutes and informed me that they wait 10 days from mailing of notice and then destroy the animals. He then told me they had destroyed "Babe" on December 28, 1971 due to my failure to respond to the impound notice. The death of "Babe" came three days BEFORE I recieved notice. I have since talked with Mr. Charles Crill, Uirector of the A.C.C. asking for and explaination and investigation of the proceedures used in this instance. I was called later that day (Jan.3) by Mrs. Davidson, Clerical Supervisor of the Martinez center as part of that investigation. I also talked with Mr. Moriarty, District #3 County Supervisor and re- quested information on appearing at the next County Board of Super- visors meeting, and relating my plight to nim. I also questioned Mr. Chemycz, Postmaster at Crockett on reasons for delay of tr.e notice, and got his assurance that no piece of mail is held by his office for later delivery. He stated " If the letter was dropped at the ost office or boxes in the pickup area, it is posted and Forwarded to the adressee immediately. It is now my intention to request that Mr. 'David Roberts name be placed on the agenda for the next County Board of Supervisors meeting January 11, 1972. Mr. Roberts will be representing me in the pre- sentation to the Board. I will also be present to answer any questions from the Board. I hope my appearance before the Board will initiate a combined effort between the County A.C.C. and Supervisors to work towards correcting the errors that tragically affect families, such as mine, and prevent them from bearing the grief of the destruction of an animal that means something special to them, as Babe meant to my children, Scbtt, age 10, and Patrick, age 5, and myself. Yours truly, t Patricia McHenry • ANIMAL CO';T %OL CENTER PHONE . 790 SART .FI. ALO AVE. 235-7666 PINOLF•,' CALIFORNIA 9450 L , ; ' IMPOVAD' NOTICE _Mr. Date _ 12/16/71 331-2 lHi l drrad Kennel No. 18 Lafayette, C-�%1if. 94549 You are hereby notified that your dog(s) was impounded at the Animal Control Center on �12/16/7= There is an impounding fee of $4.00 and a board fee of $1.50 5 per day for each day of confinement. Please • arrange to claim this dog(s) iimnediately. Tf your dog has previously been CHARLIE C. CRILL impounded, there will be a penalty Animal Control Director :. feo in addition to the other fees. Revised L. Cowart li 7l 3M By_ • W C A �.` .'�a r—f (Z'•C'i ti N �'C� rd Su c _ or U 'dob Obo 4 W C- W } ]r F = M - J Z ZF � • O V V > V J C a tt0 _. OOOZrtZ ••,• F E t V0. i W J .f C V d Z W t March 21, 1972 , County Government Operations Committee (Supervisors A. M. Dias and J. E. Moriarty) Clerk of the Board Dog Problems in Farmland Areae The Board today approved the recommendation of Supervisor Linscheid that the Dog Problems in Farmland t Areas be referred to your committee for continuing review and report to the Board. cc: County Administrator abj IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA March 21, 1972 In the Matter of Dog ) Problems in Farmland ) Areas ) Supervisor E. A. Lincheid having submitted to the Board a written report on the matter of dog problems in farmland areas (a copy of which report is on file with the Clerk of the Board); and In said report Supervisor Linscheid having referred to dogs running loose and reported losses of cattle and sheep; and In said report Supervisor Linscheid having recom- mended that the County Agricultural Commissioner be authorized to employ additional Animal Control Officers on a temporary basis, and also be directed to redeploy his Animal Control forces on the most practicable basis possible until the dog problem in farmland areas is solved; and Supervisor Linscheid having further recommended that the County Agricultural Commissioner and the County Adminis- trator study the overall Animal Control situation with respect to possible strengthening of the Animal Control Division in connection with the approval of the 1972-1973 county budget; and Supervisor Linscheid having stated further that the problem was one which was countywide in nature, that positive action had been taken by the Animal Control Division, but the problem was still a serious one; and Supervisor J. E. Moriarty having stated that he did not object to the recommendations of Supervisor Lincheid but that in his opinion a better job could be done in problem areas through redeployment of present personnel; and Supervisor Moriarty having also stated that in addition to the recommendations of Supervisor Linscheid he would like to see the matter referred to the County Government Operations Committee (Supervisor A. M. Dias and Supervisor Moriarty) for continuing review and analyses of the problem; and Supervisor Linscheid having suggested further that the committee study the possibility of developing an education program in the schools and for the general public through the ���'--••,,� ...•ter..• � •` .. issuance of pamphlets and brochures so that all dog owners would be thoroughly familiar with the existing laws and regulations; and Supervisor Dias having pointed out that he, like Supervisor Moriarty, would not object to the recommendations of Supervisor Linscheid but inasmuch as the problem was countywide in scope he felt that the County Government Operations Committee should work closely with the County Agricultural Commissioner to reach an appropriate solution to the problem, that perhaps some specialization among the Animal Control forces might be needed, and that it was desirable for the committee to continue to review the situation in terms of the use of temporary personnel; and NOW, THEREFORE, on motion of Supervisor Moriarty, seconded by Supervisor Dias, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid recommendations of Supervisor Linscheid are approved and the above cited problems and suggestions are referred to the County Government Operations Committee for continuing review and report to the Board. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias , J. E. Moriarty, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Supervisors affixed this 21st day of March, 1972 W. T. PAASCH, CLERK By _ oa-'bt --- Au ene B. J ep Deputy Cl rk cc : Committee Members County Agricultural Commissioner Personnel Director County Administrator Supervise 1���L�i,n�,cheid THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JAMES P. KENNY, RICHMOND EDMUND A. LINSCHEID IST DISTRICT CHAIRMAN ALFRED M. DIAS, SAN PABLO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ALFRED M. DIAS 2ND DISTRICT VICE CHAIRMAN JAMES E. MORIARTY, LAFAYETTE ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGROOM 103 W. T. PAASCH, COUNTY CLERK 3RD ,DISTRICT AND EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD WARREN N. BOGGESS, CONCORD P. O. BOX 911 MRS.GERALDINE RUSSELL ATH DISTRICT CHIEF CLERK EDMUND A. LINSCHEID, PITTSBURG MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553 PHONE 228.3000 5TH DISTRICT EXTENSION 2371 March 20, 1972 v ivED - W. T. P 4, AS'CH CLCRK DOARD OF SUPERVISORS To: Board of Supervisors ccO-N R A CO, j14G�7 11sIL Deputy From: Supervisor E. A. LZscheid Subject: Dog Problems in Farmland Areas In recent weeks problems have developed with respect to dogs running loose in farmland areas and it has been reported that there have been cattle and sheep losses. The Animal Control Division of the County Department of Agriculture now has an authorized complement of 25 Animal Control Officers. Two of these 25 authorized positions are vacant. Action is now being taken through the Civil Service Office to fill one of them. The second position is one occupied by an employee who is off duty and who is a Workmens Compensation case. In order to alleviate this dog problem I suggest that the Board authorize the County Agricultural Commissioner to fill in behind the employee now on Workmens Compensation with an Animal Control Officer employed on a temporary basis and that the Board authorize one additional Animal Control Officer to be employed on a temporary basis. I also recommend that the County Agricultural Commissioner be directed to redeploy his Animal Control Officers on the most practicable basis possible for a temporary period until the dog problem in the farmland areas is solved. The staff of the Animal Control Division has not been expanded for some considerable length of time. I therefore suggest that the County Agricultural Commissioner and the County Administrator study the situation with respect to possible strengthening of the division in connection with the development of the 1972-1973 County Budget. EAL:bgg CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Inter- Office Memo Date: April 24, 1972 To: County Government Operations Committee (Supervisors A. M. Dias and J. E. Moriarty) From: Chief Clerk of the Board Subject: The Board today referred to you and the Agricultural Commissioner a letter from Ms. Morrill, Alamo, with respect to dogs running loose and a suggestion for fines related thereto. lk r In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California April 24 19 � In the Matter of Letter from Alamo resident with respect to animal control problem. Ms. Judith Morrill, 1201 Livorna Road, Alamo, by letter dated April 12, 1972 having urged further action with respect to dogs running loose and having suggested that high fines be assessed against the owners of such dogs with the proceeds to be used for intensified patrols by County Animal Control Officers; On motion of Supervisor J. E. Moriarty, seconded by Supervisor J. P. Kenny, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that said matter be REFERRED to its County Government Operations Committee (Supervisor A. M. Dias and Supervisor Moriarty) and to the County Agricultural Commissioner. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, J. E. Moriarty, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc: Ms. Morrill Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Board Committee Supervisors Agricultural Commissioner affixed this 2 th day of April , 19 72 Administrator W.,T. PAASCH, Clerk f '_ By /�� Deputy Clerk Laurette Kincaid W24 11/71 10M ',TE W. T. ', 3 C H CLE 804 . OF ,LiPERVISOIis A COSTA f r G _7j 1 cQc Z r CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Inter- Office Memo Date: May 2, 1972 To: County Government Operations Committee (Supervisors A. M. Dias and J. E. Moriarty) From: Chief Clerk of the Board Subject The Board today referred to you a letter from 14s. Davis, Martinez, with respect to certain procedures practiced by the County Animal Control Division. Attached for your information is a copy of response to a letter from Ms . Davis on the same matter *which was received by the County Agricultural Department . lk attachment In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California May 2 19 72 In the Matter of Letter from Martinez resident with respect to certain procedures of County Animal Control Division . This Board having received a letter dated April 25, 1972 from Ms . B. J. Davis , 616 Green Street, Martinez transmitting a copy of a petition directed to the County Agricultural Commissioner signed by approximately fifty citizens and tax- payers with respect to certain procedures practiced by the County Animal Control Division; On motion of Supervisor J. P. Kenny, seconded by Supervisor W. N. Boggess , IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that aforesaid letter is REFERRED to its County Government Operations Committee (Supervisors A. M. Dias and J. E. Moriarty) , which committee is presently reviewing similar referrals on the same subject matter . The foregoing order was passed by the following vote : AYES : Supervisors J. P. Kenny, J. E. Moriarty, W. N. Boggess , E. A. Linscheid. NOES : None . ABSENT: Supervisor A. M. Dias . I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc : Board committee Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Animal Control Supervisors Administrator affixed this 2nd day of May 1972 County Counsel W. L PAASCH, Clerk By deputy Clerk Lourette -Kincaid H24 4/72 10M Contra Costa Board of Supervisors County Building '. • Martinez Calif. April 25, '1972 Dear Sirs: Enclosed is a copy of a letter to the County Agricultural`;Commission_requestion a formal and public investigation of the County Ani=3 Control Dept. We would appreciate your support in this matter by direction the Agricultural Commission to hold such an investigation. In additions we request to be placed on the agenda of the Board of Supervisors Meeting at the earliest possible date to bring this matter to the fullest public attention possible. Please inform us of the date and time when we may be heard by our elected representati- ves. Sincerely yours Bobby Jean Davis 616 Green Street Martinez, Calif. W. T. PAASCH LBy LERK BO D OF SUPERVISORS Cl RAC CO. Den, to i GdU a S?' 41 t- F t - r . County Agricultural ComrAssion 161 John Glenn Drive Concord Calif. April 25, 1972 Dear Agricultural Commission: This is to request a formal and public investigation of violations of County Ordinance Section 51.2.473 and the California State Agriculture Code Section 31108 by the Contra Costa County Animal Control Dept. On londay, April 17th a young animal (dog) was brought to the%Animal Control Shelter for placement. The following day, Tuesday April 16th the party bringing in the animal returned to the shelter to determine if a home-bad-been found. They were informed that the snimal in question had been 3.1quidated. Since the animal in question was not injured, infected with a dangerous or communicable disease, incurrably crippled or infirmed because of advanced age, its itmaediate destruction seems in direct violation of the County and State ordinances cited. We, the undersigned, citizens and taxpayers, do hearby formally request that the Agricultural Comaaission, by reason of its vested authority, conduct a formal and public investigation into this matter to determine if violations of law are occuring and if so, to correct them at once and punish any; and all guilty parties. Signed, cc y C Contra Costa Board of Supervisors California State Dept. of Agriculture Mertinez City Council State Senator John NeJedly ' n State Assemblyamm James Dent Contra Costa Grand Jury / A Lce w� �L iCt �C k i (Fowl , �0 ��C� h y cZ� r Ai V_ J - Ml } �,- fd o0 _ l..J V 4CONTRA COSTA COUNV A. L. SEELEY BwANCH orricts DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER 100.37TH ST.. RICHMOND 848011 StALt1Y•WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 101 JOHN GLENN DRIVE 233.7000. ERT. 22115 K. E. DANIELSON BUCHANAN AIRPORT 1410 HIGHWAY 4.BRENTWOOD 94213 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 94520 824,311111 .ASSISTANT SEALER GG2-7550 May 2, 1972 RECEIVED Ms. Betty J. Davis 616 Green Street / Martinez, CA 94553 W. T. PAASC4 CLERK BO RD OF SUPAL&,VISORS R71 COSTA-Cu.. By Deputy Dear Ms. Davis: We have reviewed your letter and the circumstances Sur— rounding the young dog that you surrendered to the Animal Control Center on April 17, 1972. I wish to point out the following: 1. Your signature on our Animal Control History ' form IF5281 shows you to be the owner of the animal surrendered. The statement that you signed reads: "I, the undersigned, owner or having control of the above described animal, assuming all responsibility and releasing the Animal Control Center from all risks and damages which may arise from whatever cause, do hereby surrender the above described animal to the Animal Control Center to make such disposition of as the Center deems advisable. Unless noted on this form, I certify the above described animal has not bitten any person during the past 14. days (10 days for dogs or cats)." 2. The Animal Control Officer remembers the dog involved and states that he would have placed the dog in the adoption area if he felt that -it would have had a good chance of being adopted, and such. was not the case. Please note that on this date, at the Martinez Center, 4.4 dogs were "put to sleep" and two were pure— bred poodles. 3 . Section 31108 of the State Agricultural Code and Chapter 5 of the Code deal with animals at large and strays, both licensed and unlicensed. The code does not deal with owned animals that are signed over to a public agency. r • • . Ms. Betty J . Dav' -2- May 2, 1972 4. Section 51-2.473 deals with animals that are impounded under :article 7 of the County Ordinance Code , w i ch again refers to strays, both licensed and unlicensed. The Section does not deal with owned animals signed over- to the county. 5 . Clearly the ordinance and the State law appear con- structed to protect stray animals from immediate disposal, whether this be placing the animals for adoption or having them humanely destroyed. 6. While it would seem nice to hold all stray and unwanted animals to provide a better chance for adoption, one must recognize that: a. Some animals are not readily adoptable . b. At certain times the facilities will permit the staff to hold only the very best animals. c . In 1971, 54,389 live dogs and cats (25 ,617 were dogs) came into the Animal Control Centers. Holding all or a large percentage for 72 hours or longer is impossible with our existing facilities. Sincerely yours, Arthur L. Seeley, e Agricultural Commissioner Sealer Weights & Measures ALS/ed cc: Board of Supervisors County Administrator California Department of Agriculture Martinez City Council State Senator John Nejedly State Assemblyman James Dent Contra Costa County Grand Jury COHtRACt35'iA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TURF ANIMA ANIMAL CONTROL OIVISIO Q 5 2 81 AR£A ' 4 IMPOUNDED IMPOUNDING AM. DATE IND f' — L-`TIME PM. KENNEL NO. DATE OUT; P.L STRAY ❑ l—YEAR UM91 SURRENDER �{�..•8tiE0UARANitNE ❑ A A E"' OwB YES NO IMPOUNDING FOR � CHP ❑ SHERIFF OTH£R AGENCY: OTNER AGENCY OFFICER REOUESiiNG ' BITER ❑ ❑ YES NO �t,E v ? VIM'S NAMF/' r f ADDRE55 �L PRESENT OWNER jJ('`� `1- C� f lz J "• `j NAME ADDRESS •CITY ~��— PHONE NEW OWNER _�rF}AME ADDRESS CITY PHONE LSI�i+• MED LG COLOR OF COLLAR DETAILED DESCRIPTION . "House Good with DUL NAMEr �4 SEX—a—AGE 12 Broken SPAYED Children Shots I, the undersigned, owner at having central of the above described animal,assuming all snbility and releasing the Animal Control Center from oil risks and damages which IMPOUNDING FEE S IDATE rIA:.P-.y rise Isom whatever cause, do hereby surrender the above described animal to the PRESENT OWNER Animal Control Center to make such disposition of as the Center deems advisable.Unless BOARD S ;(REtURNEDI ❑ meed an this forms,1 certify the above described animal has not bitten any person during NEW OWNER thepast 4 daysil.01dayl 191 dogs or cab' J PENALTY OR TAX S ' 454tE) GENERAL RECEIPT NO. REASON FOR SIGNATURE TOTAL CHARGES S Q GIVING UP ANIMAL AT LARGE AS THE NEW OWNER OF THIS ANIMAL 1 HEItERY Q AGREE TO THE CONDITIONS ON THE REVERSE NO LICENSE SRTE OF THIS FORM. OTHER Q BY SIGNATURE 19-22 REV. 5.71 30M1 IN OUT f V In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California February 20 lq 73 In the Matter of Letter from Senator John A. Nejedly related to Animal Population Control Measures . This Board on February 14, 1973 having received a latter from Senator John A. Nejedly- expressing concern about animal population control measures, and suggesting a legislatively spon- sored program of control such as a survey and licensing program and the reduction or elimination of license fees for animals spayed or neutered; and On motion of Supervisor E. A. Linscheid, seconded by Supervisor J. P. KeiZny, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that said letter is R { PARED to the Special Review Committee, authorized by the Board on February 13, 1973, to investigate the dog predation problem in the county and in conjunction therewith to make a complete analysis of the entire ani-mal control program. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote of the Board: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Keung, J. E. Moriarty, ?.,l. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, A. Yui. Dias . NOES: None. ABSENT: None. I hereby certify than the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes or said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc • Senator Joh-n A. Ne jedly Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of CciTn ttee Supervisors Agricultural Coirmis s-i oner affixed this 20th day of February, j 9 ?3 County AdministratoM W. T. PAASCH, Clerk Deputy Clerk i-ie 'a Of;t H24 7/7z-Isrv, PLEASE RESPO\D TO: • CON NITTEES DIST:tICT OFFICE NATURAL RESOURCES AND 1293 CIVIC DRIVE WILDLIFE.CHAIRMAN WALr.UT CREEK•CALIFORNIA 94595 AGRICULTURE AND WATER (415) 934'4'50 JOHN A. N EJ E D LY RCsounces ELECTIONS AND 13 Sk RANENTO ADDRESS SEVENTH SENATORIAL D15TRICT STATE CAPITOL REAPPORTIONMENT SACRA11FNTO.CALIFORNIA 95et4 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LOCAL GOVCRNMENT (91G) 445.6093 SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PENAL INSTITUTIONS.CHAIRMAN .,. ., CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE IRECEIVED February 8, 1973 •-r-n 1 A 1973 �' W. T. PAASCH CLERIC BOARD OF SUPERVISOF0 ,---CO TRA COSJii C By Dtputy Mr. Alfred M. Dias, Chairman Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 1 Administration Building _ Martinez, California 94553 Dear Al: (data} May I respectfully refer to the communication of Dr. Gills relating to animal population control measures. I earnestly request your consideration of this problem as one serious to the community and deserving of your attention. The emphasis, I suggest, can no longer properly be left to allowing the animal population problem to be responded to by apprehension and destruction of animals. Some legislatively sponsored program of control is essential. In this connection and in addition to the comments of Dr. Gills, the Board•may wish to consider an in- tensive survey and licensing program and the reduc- tion or elimination of license fees for animals spayed or neutered. Very truly yours , G�,�li���'�1• ��.�`�� r ohn/A. Nejedly Seat tor, 7th District I• JAN:cjr �i � y CONTRA COSTA COUNTY .? CLERK'S OFFICE , Inter- Office Memo Date: February 13, 1973 To: County Government Operations Committee Supervisors E. A. Linscheid and J. P. Kenny ) From: Chief Clerk of the Board by H. M. Subject: The Board referred to you today for study and recommenda-: tion for appointment by the Board the composition of the- special review committee with regard to animal control problems pertaining to dikDredation of livestock. Enc. cc: County Administrator f IN '= BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COST^. COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Animal Control ) Problems Pertaining to Depreda- tion of Livestock. ) February 13, 1973 i. r. A. L. Seeley, County Agricultural Commissioner, having appeared before the Board at the request of its Chairman, Supervisor A. Ii. Dias, to report on the problem of dog pacscs in the county and also to submit recommendations for the- control of dog predation of livestock in the E1 Sobrante area; and Seeley having reported that the problem is a recurring one, that it will become more serious as development in the county con- tinues, that there is no permanent solution and that what is really under discussion is reducing the depredation to a point where the county and its citizens can live with it; and Pair. Seeley having pointed out that livestock owners have a certain amount of responsibility for the protection of their animals and that the Animal Control Division is understaffed although he has requested additional positions for the past several years; and i'r. Seeley having suggested that perhaps consideration should be given to increasing impound fees and penalties to deter pet owners from allowing nets to run at large at r_i-ht and having indicated that a more forceful approach on the Dart of the courts dight also be in order; and ?Ir. Seeley having further suggested that the Board appoint a special review committee to be chaired by a staff member from the Office of the County Administrator, to investigate the dog predation problem and in conjunction therewith to make a complete analysis of the entire animal control program; and The Board members having discussed the matter, and Supervisor F. A. Linscheid having recommended_ that the aforesaid suggestions of r. -Seeley be approved and having also recom_ner_ded that the County Government Operations Committee ( Supervisor Linscheid and Supervisor i. P. Kenny) :study and recommend for appointment by the Board the composition of the special review com_raittee; On motion of Supervisor Linscheid, seconded by Supervisor Kenny, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid recommendations are APPROVED. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote; AYES: Supervisors J. P . Kenny, J. E. Moriarty, tai. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, A. TH. Dias . NOES: None . ABSENT: None. CERTIFIED COPY I certify that this is a full, true & correct copy of the orioinai docume t u:Lc.: i oa f:te 3: t:y olYl.o, ..C-. Committee t :end that it was p:i;s�j a!„ .t=.1 �igricultur3l Commi ssioner S1peri;�i.s �y [ Loard of Vf Coatr,S Costa C.,iLa;' ' County Administrator t::e Cate ,;,017,1- r -� ca:t:ur.:iu, .�i 1-.�T: �1. :.�:�L-CFi, county. cter:c S ex-cfticio cler"of said Coar 3 0l:;up,,rvigorra, by deputy clerk. ZD TAI, 41�3 R23 cJ 17 DMAR ;i 1373 OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 0910AFITManT of AcAmijktumt Administration Building Board of Supervisors Martinez, California j/County Government To: Operations Committee Date: March 8, 1973 (Supervisors E. A. Linscheid and J. P. Kenny)' From: J. P. McBrien, Subject: Animal Control County Administrator Reference is made to my February 26, 1973 memorandum, subject as above, copy attached, in which I suggest composition of the special review committee to make an overall study of the animal control program. The County Health Officer should be added to the list of eight officials previously identified in line with AJs respon- sibility for supervision of the county rabies contrcl program. JEH/aenol. RECEIVED ECEI ED encl. / j� �/ 1J cc. A. L. Seeley MAR /j_1973 W. TPAC PAASCH CLERKF$UPERVI ORS OSTACO:By _ L C- eputy 1 -� V Limchaid �:,.� .�. '..f+�s � a:. v:�.�.i.CL'. Y!:'O'L`Licil�• ��� ai7 3. : 1:rG .:� I..::.:3 :ti.- u-je �'cbruary 13,- ;i?3 rjr' G1'' ::�: :;; L subjtacl, L1SiL•ter; a cuirl :CjL, 4c1i.1%r G��.,L3 � ProvsdLilau ycuz 2 31 A VCsGA..� Gil L:il4 G3 3�+s.r a.�r i.:1ri .G.. z-,- t'' i,co r�:.0 Iii c�4ra3.i s:. "j ofc tue rrrs,.,: c4 jrMili �,fLv�:.i.:iy.• ,rw �. You J2i.1lJt. ld note, iel ae. 'ku alrc:a t.r hav;::R 4 Z. • ',••• C:{:ii13 L' Lvl•:...i4�C:��. 1rVLiZ/L.f.J�.i Gr Lite eStity si u�•• J� /; v"L:IFG i:.;:�:+�. of ;`l:r�. 2u"iL' .: 1,�M .on ta F�:u G:.4L:'a'j iu- LI.xi �fj=iV., gicpl {ialz--Cd i.;J L 'ab,,b-%r0:' <a:::�, i•;.ti2 a:i(.':ii r.U:.F:f:G�i cx:► ':� :i���'1 .1:..•+�1: "_Sitia.�iiA'�tiC.. w.Vs♦ '.�11� AaGil:. LE wiL•.LE.►•'t LO.....Lt:....iJ l.. �VJ,iJ./V �L �G!.�:L:J i..�.i.i�C. CZY•ir�:�,,G��N.L► �y{,j =✓L: L1J•�3L�;S.L t.:t1 .�� iw�h3 �iil�LL��• uy A. .:.� a�..GzG+,:,c ...,. w • �.;,,-.%.Gt•.S.L4u...1.:. (,.r.�.:�:�;�:t�:l:.mss -or L«It7 C , n �+/; ,[� yS� ... W. «..�-' ♦ mow!} r.,!•. t.......4�. ft.L..-V4/:::aJ..',u�•4.•..y .i+a- 4viat ati.r.j N.1 i.I.�.�_� d _Z_ i ,,a...�U Specq��..1` � if.'Va0"t7 Ct�:t...7.��:t.L�' 1'C'wC:::'Lii %v f Cruz: ccpaxi.i,.Ucc LJC2 ��..i1'�a i..�Qd Q�. .Lh17 .�CS Ai oto be dc;3isaatad bj the Ec.:.r� . �Iu: LvLaty ,�;i�iru3�ural Ca a2s3iaae� . Z. J. .►�.:,•� 1'I.:iJa.:�_r ::JYi.; 3 �T��C` �C,T�r" � ;� Gr",.'jI�G: Lf7I1' 440 _Z7 r'1::.L:.t�. iau :i1.t-h IC i .moi• :: L°�:I.1L�,' �i. ��t"iiCG02'SIar tai CCill'1L'C�1Q:114 t.1th LI c collection of fees). rw.�.a.i• Mtaw<✓ .�rN► ,W�+•.r \r[4J{i.. VLA =abaal. WuM,i.t1��• l .: ,., Cctmi yc Co=-Isc:l {tor 1caai advidc) ?..ls,6 acc 3L U.IA Ca.,,.• .o,. the rzuvc ,..,,.,....ti, Ci.fiC.[....lLL ata .Liia, d to him. Ji�4� .M�=.r., C.J.L..s-✓'r.. iJ ..�..1► �►�S+v� �..V..1�rF tJ...� u-i• Lr:d ..• .ir (�.i. iOx..,f:•_�.. °lv'r�...Gl�?a2 G.. VLrwC»"�..,r L© ti[13.r3«.►:a�. claza I. IJa. So {.c4;;cd b IL of p pos 1L:S C,a 41c -d'a ,cu r . coLko after a ror � d rc� .. i- •-. d lj'aCID/= • t Board of Supervisors County Government Operations Coumittee $; ll: '3 (S pu ervisors E. A. Linscheid d J. P. J. P. McBrien, MMimal Contra: County Administrator Reference is made to my February 2E,, 197: orand=,, subject as above, copy attached, in which I suggest col.: '.cu otk special review committee to makis an overall. sr.1ay aka- amid control program. The County Health Officer should be added to the " is- of eight officials previously identified in line with his respon- sibility for supervision of the county rabies control program. JEH/aa enol. cc. A. L. Seeley ._ . Zoard of ` o Iz o Coun�:.y Go�rei :ti €: pe0mm3.ts.ee Flab=Aazy 26} 1.73 pors MCA. Jo po A�l CoatY Y 4 �?• i�fi�'tiri.�la �' i3Z,i'si�: A&Wail.3i.st3%s'3r - 73 a: .. :. :`'diddr OZ.. B-6 -d of kvi c4jpy of, that:in attachod.f:- G �►C3' j':....:... :`._. 'Ahe ordar. provides tx alt yc=.cwamiittac prO It�t =Ocor: :c�4. t�. ".o tae a rd 01. :�uDaL -1 cra C33 L� c , r si r cis a. up* t -Viet. Witted to Maltarl overa 1. Study 6f. :.mi 21 r.O=zc l' --.1 rF. RA.. .,+► en •z j aMuY'lr i 2. MMVa t��r%- Lt: wV0 .r ionm- 4 -%42 N » i�✓.tsM .'di d�L...:.. ., to A.r3:r.++0 .�•v�y vvtr to COM L =U,is i�aS' C�.�.1 ' f {•.a':-be. . pq ad by two =«::�y}. . : .. .�a . 2Q►` 5�,} •.G�G:�..;.C�.L32.�1 f: .i�f:s.c v! s3L� �#�Z'.�.2£=� :���. . rtlia!:.ed try ciey s ,�iCt3 �L C ,:433�I-MA f -o C �t�: ?'� .`.:i .L'i.'."` t3i;v" .'f3:a;:y a'a�C .. -� +t�. .I�t►a.C.cas 's wa'"s :uCi GI11:'u:�: z Iss.0 i ala ale I OU& that;tete sNcial reg iev ;r%�- :�' s �:, referred to.- ycrs+ :co... .�:tce� btu comprised .t63:ir {to Iia dr�ig tad. 17tea.:166 : . . of Srr�#Sera}. 2. Tri COWL.y AVICU :al C=J afc. .. `1: • , _ _ o. ...:L w 'i. .:.•:i. i 4, x. u:- x,, N :•s w. .v,"e,P �.t,: L.....'M ,. .. I. .1 v..t. ....:�r�, .. _ .. .. .. 4a ..`l ... K. - ... ... , _... ..... 1. ... .. >.. e. ... ...:... .... .. s`:•7...,. - .. : .i.. .. .... .. -.c w .: .. .. S . .. .. ,,... .., .. .,..... - ... .. . .... ... v....... , _ .. .,e ... ., _ ,. .:....._. :...... .... -. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. e.- .'4,-,?� a.. s .. .......... .... .. .....,,..... _ .. .. ... ........ .. F I:..... .. ..,,.p,..,.:: ... .. -r, .,,., .,..... ::�,.. % . .. ..... . .......... .. .:..'...... .- �.i . .-�,..,,� a ..:�'.����. .._ ....- .,.:.: ...-:.:... .. .. .: .. .'..:.'.::-. y: . _ .. . ., .. % .. .. ��:�. ..:. ..:.. .. .. ... - . :: ::.. '.......... .. ... : .: ..: '. ... .. . ... , .. : . ... .. .. ... ..-.. :. ....'.: .. .. .. - - :::..;'• ., ... .. .....: :':._'::' :: .. . .:, .... .,...-.. 3. ;:' �.:.i bl .c "O' 'd lrec 'd�: {;-. c et-A m dthFs'.�35'k, ,.�. CQ:Z+��t110 .. Q %=rADMl46o Z L �r C2 :��2C'3� . . . ..... . . . ,... ., . .' ..'...' . ,:::... ...:... ..... . r-xt o �.' . .1h,:. ? . ..-1 . :.. . ,::.<. . ?... <. . .. . a ..,.. Cl2 . so3" . .:: .. . L.. .. , " . .. : :!::;..� ...: 5, e:Ce. C �r�= dcomo; i� con�c�io� . sJ f.th'::rho L. .:_ ;.ca �ec :on of� f e es :r l m 3- .� .i �..' .i.Gi.. w� rC 2 ::�: { .'�X;. :.. .: ..C.. G. it*w I. M :,: `V�r.rw-.s.:•..vow? ,•.. .. ,_ .. �►��y M'::.::::.. .. _ ._ .: ...:..........:.. 1. . i'-Y _ { ,.i.,. . ca° — : : - �. 1. •:: Z .; ?f "� 3� te l- a113w�d :tbG :: , S 8 :: " d . .. ��y: :o .: - . 4 f . � . �• � y �* 'iQ cy.. . . ' .. • .. . !: -. r ' - . . ... : . .. . ... . - : . . s. � �: _ � .. , y C� i M fW ': o •forf .. a. ,: :.. b. . � i _.. .u � erord : 33� _' .,= , o,_ 3 . .. . . :. - i. : x$60 . . ...r'` .aQ. r _ .� . . .::.....:.... f f ... :....::.:........: . � : - S . . . Y;. - .... .....- . :: .. .. , , , . : ,. ... . .... . - .- .1 - .. . � .........,., - - a .; . ... --,.�p : : �.��:�w ..: . - - ..�-----, - " , � .... . . . . - .;;::::: .. ... ., - I. . . . . . .... _: ._ . . .. . . .., v' j f ,tri. �GLf REC"'V s ED W. T. PAA SCH �J/ �• r• CLERK @PARC! OF SUPERVISORS 9y ol --- . ..�-L.G.'-e-+',�<.z.-�.� C. ' f / v p GES � .. 1913 � !� Y0soss IF SOPIGO' / 00 ftp. p 8y L L • lye) fed 6L 14 . �:. e' tcu Ao �j I,� ✓v l:x' r i W { RECEIVLFD- t MAP 7-1973 W. T. PAA 9CH CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON R C i BY � . Deputy LVI 7 h �.�.���: ��� .�� � � � - � .�� � .� . .� _ - �� .� � � ��J �l //�`�.''7`� � ` ��J ,• ��� �r�� � � z- �'� i� r/ 2'LifO.gunios rwotnzn 1 CYS CALIFOANIA FEDERATION Or WOMEN-9 CLUBS - - �LUZLOY�'(fJILC dY1hLf2 - , P.O. Box 866 El Cerrito, California 94530 December 28, 1974 ` Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: - On behalf o the El Cerrito- Junior Women's Club, an af- filiate of the California Federation of`Women's ;Clubs, Junior Membership, we urge you to act favorably ;in regards to a low cost SPAY clinic as proposed last fall by SPAY supporters. We have been active for the last few years in aiding this worthy cause and are continuing to do so. Our members are aware of the huge number of animals that are disposed of each year. rhe time is certainly overdue to help reduce this figure. A mobile unit seems to be the best solution as it would more easily service residents of the county and would cost much less than originally estimated. Thank you for your attention. We are eagerly ,awaiting your action. Best wishes for a happy and healthy new year! Sincerely, f2 'L, Mrs . Roni Py man, President 3015 Keith Drive Richmond, Calif. 94803 ---------------- RECEIVED 0- e-; 1776 1 a, i 9A- Gam,, : 13X 1 J. R. a.S`.OX CLERK SOARD Q SUI�RVISORS CQt COST CO. ev. _ . , i In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California November 6 -119 74 In the Matter of Memorandum from Agricultural Commissioner with respect to Costs for Spaying and Neutering at Animal Hospitals. The Board on October 8, 1974 having referred to the Agricultural Commissioner the notes of Lester M. Schwab, D.V.M. , on the costs for spaying and neutering of dogs and cats, for review and determination as to whether other veterinary hospitals could follow the same price pattern; and The Board having this day received a memorandum from the Agricultural Commissioner transmitting a Price Pattern Survey of services available at some veterinary hospitals; On motion of Supervisor J. P. Kenny, seconded by Super- visor W. N. Boggess, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that receipt of said memorandum is ACKNOWLEDGED. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, W. N. Boggess, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: Supervisors A. M. Dias, E. A. Linscheid. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc: Supervisor J. E. Moriarty Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Agricultural Commissioner Supervisors County Administrator affixed this 6th day of_November. 19 74 J. R. OLSSON, Clerk By /"t C i�l� Deputy Clerk Helen C. Marshall 4 5/74 - 12,500 f &EPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Date :October 24, 1974 To: Board of Supervisors JJII� Attention: Arthur G. Will, County Administrator From:J Arthur L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner-Sealer of as Weights and Measures Subject: Notes of Lester M. Schwab, D.V.M. - Overpopulation of Animals (Your Board Order of October 8, 1974) Your Board referred Dr. Schwab's notes on fees for the cost of spaying and castration of dogs and cats to me "for review and determination as to whether other veterinary hospitals could follow the same price pattern." We have made a limited survey, using those veterinary hospitals who have been performin lower cost spaying o erations in cooperation with the S.P.A.Y. Stop Pet Annual Yield organi- zation as a primary source of information. As you can see by the attachment, there is no similar price pattern with that of Dr. Lester Schwab. ALS/nw att chment Clerk of the Board R�c-E 41:i974 ON J. R• p0L sunr'VISORS RD S`ACO. a ut CLE B�,� COv ..D S .......... 7.'73 (500) z t-40 to tdCJ3 0 on ::F--,� 0 O O N-(D (D a. (D ::r O N N a F-3 < F-' 'i A- 'Y A) is N N t'4 -Q n (D (D � F,- x-& 04.4 �l t-4 �- -• (D 1-1 •• E (D CO (D ct O c+ Fr � C -Is w w F✓ O N p 1.10 ct E-G (D '-i ct O N (D �:S (D 0 FZ ct 0 0 0 N CD (D CD C m �-3 K ct �3' c, x (D ?C O A' (D (D O n `C U] ct pi x (n N b `� O 0 Sv O 'zs ct F.,- a p EQ Ami O (D ct 1F-' " sr w O ~• o b D 1 � ~ d �' o FJ Nb o ctCf) ct (DF', y N co `C Q. ct 3 FJ n a' FFJ ct b (D w a C-- 10 10 OCD 69 bd A CD �WNNWNN n F z F'• * ON—j vt 0 v s N (D 69 , ff3 *64 Ef} ffl CA ct cte s • • • N• -p-W F Q�N W Vt W N W `d O c- 0V1�lt000\n �- QQ , QV7 O mmm LTi N O O 0000000 (D `< Ft C P. a ctj CMD (D EH O 6% £fl FJ(n a H N- Fi :5 N W rQ Oct ti ca Fes-+ N (D a CD x 0 FA O = = O = = C i Ca �7 C N C O F1 ca. C F-•' O ::"" .4 . b & O�l O is .4 "%n is (D m 0) (D (D 1-1 a F-. (D F-' a ct FJ d 2 b 1-1 b 'i Fi ct W N (D FJ (D 'i d FJ N(D CD d o I'- (M 'i _r = 0 d ''i d1-1 Q•cr 1-1 'i • 03 ct (D (D -.1 = =�1 OR U) In W U1 co N- :1 (-- A) A) co OR = =�1 (D N N O ct • • -p- 'J ct C ::U 3 !v O = = 0 ct ct FJ ct tf Fi tz] W ::I U) U1 = = 0 Q3 O F-' O FJ of W O. O FJ +.J-� K F-' p-ct a Cl) b d a' (n O d W \-n 0 O A) W ( k O 0 0 . F-' O� 111611 I:' n ' F -� 1--ii Fl a. _ ¢. = s � v N O a Co 0 N UU) CD i nO O CP U]• 6% (A � ?� tb U) (D = = P. N . F1 • O U) Cr1 (D 'S (D = _ N .4 U) ''S ! 1�.2 1CDD O !I T ) v In VIQVtVt0Vt (� O �Tt A d 3 p• cnmm {nsn03to p- UJ • a • s . s o • Q. P. ct S 0) • FJ x o `t a 1-i ff3 69 6A, ff3 ffl Cn O N N N FJ N b �, vt O 0 n 93 O ff3 613 ffl fA EA 6% ctp) viF-A FA i N -m � 0 0 O\J1 ct • In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California October 8 19 74 In the Matter of Notes of Lester M. Schwab , D .V.rl. , with respect to Overpopulation of Animals. Supervisor J. E. Moriarty having received from Mrs. Anne Benton and presented to the Board notes prepared by Lester M. Schwab, D.V.M. , Valley Veterinary Hospital, 1780 Ygnacio Valley Road, Walnut Creek, on the overpopulation of animals , including costs for services for spaying and neutering of dogs and cats ; and Supervisor Moriarty having commented that said costs appeared to be reasonable, and having recommended that the comments be referred to the Agricultural Commissioner for review and deter- mination as to whether other veterinary hospitals could follow the same price pattern; On motion of Supervisor A. M. Dias , seconded by Supervisor J. P. Kenny , IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendation of Supervisor Moriarty is APPROVED. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias , W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES : None. ABSENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc: Agricultural Commissioner Witness my hand and the Seat of the Board of Mrs. Anne Benton Supervisors Wo Supervisor affixed this 8th day of October , 1974 Moriarty' s Office) J. R. OLSSON, Clerk County Administrator By `�� i. �� ,L4 Deputy Clerk Mildred 0. Ballard H 24 5/74 - 12,500 • i , Z' 1-rs. Anne Benton Re: Overpopulation. dotes Valley Veterinary Hospital E rIVE 1974 J' R. OLSSON CLERK �BOARD OF 5(JPEP,VISO� Bear i.:rs. Benton: O I .CT5 COST RS ...Deau `pne material follo;ri n;; is a re-hash of :y notes over Several years concernlnL; various perhaps a bit of philosophy thrown in. Sincerely, Lester Id. Schwab, D.Lr.1•1. 1780 YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD • WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94598 • TELEPHONE (415J 932-2420 LESTER M. SCHWAB, D.V.M. ROBERT G. CONNESS, M.S., D.V.M. BERNARD F. FELDMAN, D.V.M. WILLIAM J. GOO GER, D V.M. mA ROGER K. JOHNSON, D.V.M. OVERPO PULIT 107' TTOTES During the year 1970 our asscociation(Contra Costa Veterinary Medical :Association) and veterinarians as a professional group ,rare ;vetting a lot of bad press re-arding, the high co--t of neuterin- procedures, etc. I told our members at that time that we must =ake an immediate positive stand on this issue. Nothins was done. I wrote. to Senator iTejediy explain-Ln the cots of such surgical procedures, that doctors of veterinary ,medicine :sere not responsible for the overpopulation of animals, but rather the general public by not keeping their pets or their own preipsrty, and by a lac:;: of touh fines and leash laws. it was v feeling at this time that ;;overnzaent should not be into veterinary medicine for a r_u.TMber of reasons not the least being that only one half of the families in the United States o•an _nets and one mould be ask- inL;� the other half to also foot the bill. Besides, there must be some clay for governiaent and private professional individuals to work together. Senator ?dejedly put ne in touch with Nr. Seeley and ;sir. Danielson. 71e three were of the opinion that government should not be into veterinary medicine and that in some xray doctors of veterinary medicine would event- ually rise to the public clamor and find a solution. I suggested that there be an increase in license fees for in tact males and females and that cats be licensed and that strinSent fines be adopted and that door to door reS-istration be adapted. This information I passed to my association and -eras told that I had ro business sticking my nose into thinS's. Various committees were scat up in our association that did nothing but antagonize every group they met with. in 1971 as the public was demanding that somethinir be done about over- population and the high cost of neutering procedures our association passed a resolution that they back tubal ligations and vaszectomies for S15.00. I objected sayinr that this ,ras not ;n the best interest of the patient and that ovrners mould have a false sense of security allowing bitches in heat out and that they mould be raped. Also that breast cancer and endometritis :could be more prevalent. Anon-st the jeers and snici:erin�- I was told to sit down. I then asked the group as a whole and the president and the man that made the proposal rrhy they were dein, it. The answer was a lau,- ing because no will be interested bit. In otehr words, we were willing to sacrifice the health of our patient for the purpose of cominm out with something that nobodey would ;rant. It did not stake ;;ood sense. I told the association that when the public realized what they had done they would be made a laughing stock. And indeed this ,.,as so. Page taro This was the attitude of our association on a problem of national importance. I called the president of the CCVI-M the next day and told him:: that a grave error had been made and only vie as veterinarians :could event- ually suffe_ as a result of this error. I offered :ly surE;ery suite to the CCWU at odd hours,an Sunday and Saturday and offered to train a syr;;ical staff so that low cost procedured could be done in the name of CCIRI and under control of the COMM!:. ":iat "ood press they could have instead of bad mouthin;;. I told the president that if the association would not accept this they_ I would sbmit a proposal of my ovrn. I was told that this was not acceptable and that my suaSestion vrould be tabled and they would stand on the liu-ation bit. I then proceeded to make my own proposal.On I-larch 5,1973 my office proposed in letter fora to the committee set up by the Board of Supervisors to study alternatives to a County operated clinic the material that follovrs. i was not present at this rmeetin; , but merely sent in our proposal in letter form. At this meetin ; Dr. Joseph Riever representin;; the CCV1-I and Dr. Don Blomberg representinc- the CVI•:1 took it upon: themselves to make derogitory remarks about me and my staff. So enraged and confused were the members of this cotmmittee when this occured that no action was taken and I was asked to be aresent at the nett meetin; . Our proposal follows: Pae three • To SPICY GROUP 3 5 73 As director of Valloy Veterinary Hospital and upon the request of Mrs. Poppins, and after consultation with my staff I submit the following: 'though we believe that the overpopulation_ of animals is not the fault of the doctor of veterinary medicine, we do =eel that we must take and assume. some resposibility and render what assistance rte can to this problem. It Mould appear that as doctors of veterinary medicine we could not ignore this problem *f we just reflect back on the veterinarians' oath which reads- " Be^a; admitted to the profession_ of veterinary medicine, I solemnly zxmz dedicate myself and the tmowledge I possess to the benitit of society, to the conservation of our livestock resoyrces and to the relief of suffering animals. I will practice my profession conscously and with dignity. The health of my patients, the best interests of their owners, and the Yrelfare of ray fellow man, will be my primary considerations. I will at all times, be humane and tewper pain wit anesthesia when. indicated. I will not use my ►norrledge contrary to the lams of humanity, nor in contra- vention to the ethical code of my profession. I will uphold and strive to advance the honor and noble traditions of the veterinary profession.. 'these pleduas I make freely and in the eyes of God and upon ray honor". With this oath in mind my staff feels honor bound to render what assistance we may. Not being smart enough to specifically write a brief on exactly ho-v to control overpopulation Of anima;s, but fully realizinu that State and County Zovernments prefer not to invade veterinary medicine, it is our thoughts, that if all possible, we should attempt to Give the public what they are asi-.in;; for. As a public service and in an attempt to become more involved in our community toe propose the following: 1. That this facility provide a lower cost neutering procedure in both docs and cats. The ability to loner professional fees while maintain- in;; standards of professional excellence and safety is due to str- ictly thae fact that larCe numbers are being performed thus incr- easin,- efficiency. A. knimals nest be under 5 years of a.-e. B. Patients must be a Sood surgical risk. C. ,Inina.ls bust be cirrent on vaccinations. 2. This facility researves the right to refuse such patients in whicU to perform t._is surgery mould not be in the best interest of the patient. 3. This facility will need volunteer help. A. 7le will not accent telephone calls concerning such procedures. Such calls must be channelled to another office and a list given to us from ;which we will eke the appoi::tmen+ts. B. Payment must be made in advance to sane or:CP—:nation ta.;'n;, calls. :?e will beill that or ;ani zation trt;ce a month. C. 0-:raers will be �ven specific discha:;;e time. Pale four 4. The procedure: Do s-female-rill receive complete physical and then have a complete ovariohyeberectony. Surgery will be performed under a combination_ oyyCen,halothane,and nitrous oxide mixture via an endotrachael tube and anesthetic machine. An esonnaaael stethoscope will be ued on all patients to moniter hear rate and respirations. B. Dogs-male-vasectomy-vas deferens on both sides to be tied off Same anesthetic rrocedures followed. C. Cats-female-complete ovariohysterectomy performed(no tubal ligations will be done at this facility) Same anesthetic as above. D. Cats-male-castration Both testicles will be removed B. Dors -Wale-castration-the removal of both testicles-same anes- thetic procedures. 1e do not recommend caning castration as a routine procedure. 5. In attendance on all procedure :gill be two surgical nurses,one sur-eon, and one anesthetist. o. Surgical fees as follows: OVII Cat 0.00 OVI: dog 30.00 Castrate cat 12.50 Castrate do.- ;tot recommended Vasectomy do.- 16.00 :de stress that this service is offered by this facility as apublic service and as a raeans of beco:aing involved in our community. The public should be a:tare that we and nany other doctors of veterinary medicine do care. Pave five ollowinG our proposal apparently our association :.as worried for they sent a fact shhet to all members ash-ino if they would do loner cost procedures, bort many, etc. Some weeks later S was asked -'Co attend the very same type of meeting in ::hick my name ..as bandied about and 1 came prepared. Since ,re had been abused i first submitted our credentials and then a proposal as follows: Valley Veterinary Hospital is a can lete, prorressive and self-sustained veterinar;; medicel facility with departments of medicine, sur.ery, clinical patholoMrs patholoVsradioloMrg and intensive care. Trice Winner of "The Hospital of the Year Awards this facility is nationally and internationally known for its sophistication and proCressive professional ideas and techn- iques, as well as its physical plant, equipment, and staff. This facility plays host to visitin- doctors from all over the country and this year from zaland, France, New Zealand, Japan, and Australia, .7e recognize the needs of the profession by: 1. TWo of our staff having; professional appointments at U.C. Davis. 2. Teaching courses to other veterinarians locally and statewide in surgery,anesthesioloay,and intensive care and cadiac care. 3. Tiro of our doctors Cave tech+icel papers at the American Animal Hosp- ital Assn meetin.- in San :'Antonio. $. One of our doctors will - ve a paper to the Clinical Patholo;y Society this year. 9. Wo of our doctors have already Civen technical papers last year at the AMU and AMU, &. One of our doctors was recently flotn to Cleveland ,Ohio to judge this rears 11 iospita; of the Year". 7. One of our doctors is an outatandinG authority on insulinomas(tumors of the pancreas) and continues research in that field and papers and will be writein- a chapter in a medical text on this subject. $. One of our doctors just finished havinC published his 12th professional artihle in a leading journal. ?. Our su_r!cical staff has partcintaed in the training of two human heart teams in surC;ical procedures of cardiac by pass surgery. 10. Our sur;;e:y staff on a yearly basis participates in the training of 1CU nurses in human medicine frou all over the bay area in cardiac ener;;enc;; procedures. 11.:7e have developed new equipment now beim•.; used in veterinary universities in the ad:oinistratior_ of oxygen to seriously debilitated patients. These are a fea of the many professional activitieR we are enanyed in. :!e reco nize ts'ie needs of our coumunity by: L, This facikity is an active consultant to our cities museum. 2. Parteiptation in local and national 4-11 promrams. 3. Participation in local career day pro rams. 4. 3ctive17 encaaed in preparin-; anir:al care courses for the Mal- nut Creek School system. :e also reco,..,n.ize the need for care of animals other thanpet aminal.. :e are actively in:Tolved in developin,,; L?ethods of savin:' indugent mar-mals and birds. ;1e are involved in the ecoloCy movement, the Bay area Wildlife ?ehabilitation Corzzittee, and o}.1 spills. Our individual doctors are members of every -major association and society that exists in veterinary medicine. Our doctors are presently candidates for Board Certification in the following fields: Surgery Clinical Patholo�-,y Pathology Tnternal medicine nesthesiolo-y CardioloG The above credentials ure prepared by Lester M. Schrrab, Director, Valley Veterinary 11ospital. Lester M. Schwab, r7VI•i iiarch 27,1973 I e same proposal was submitted I hid requested that the;.veru same proposal and terms that I subm tted, be open for;any. other doctor of nar vetery .medicine to follow. `: The following motion was;unalmousZy" passed: That the county offer'.to .provide the necessary clefiical „A stagy_ to handle b6bkeepIpg services for "veterinarians; ^P cooperating,in a :reduced .cost..spay .and neuteringrcPRd° " (the fee to be .established inagreemeni,wxth cooperating. veterinarians). ' his pragram. to,begin as soon as possible, and to continue as a.'supplement to th-e.propose-d 'county operated spay clini.c'. Though all partieis voted unanimously "for .this:motion includauzg I)r. Rieger and Dr, Jern (thea CC rIA .representatives) .these; tWo men failed to report the impact' to their as At";;this .meeting �ri 45�,`m es everyone rias 'in'smil'es and thought at, last"we .can �rork-.toget er.These men in one •sentence that" was <muffled gave>a report to.;our association 'that, eras: not even .heard. In. the meantire tihe=SPAR,group and the County folt>that";they,:had .been knifed: in the .Back "because. our association did,nothing and.they then put ,"on' a nasivo car�pai.gn for funds. The :iaedia; nicked it up. Apparently 000 'G4 was .ear marked for a spay.clnic,to..oe` decided .the last week in August. That "is, unless the veterinary`;association,.came "up with-something. Officers of ourassociation; icithout calling an. emerancy meQting; took' Zt upon_ahemselves:to submit ;a proposal to block the 50,OQ0 allocation. I was on vacation "at?this time`;and received a" call,saying .that the: commissioner of agriculture would like "to "see me; :Apparently: the-"newest propos"al -ny. our;"association ryas".:unacceptable. and the $50,000 eras to be 'allocated.; <: _ _, unless 3 couldsuggest an.-alternative: I�teither 2ir.. Seeley nor; the .Supervisors desired,"ac clinic, I•met Frith 2Sr, ":Seely "and".attempted to see if va.,could save face for everyone. I suggested that ye�:use the"negative approach""and iincrease .,the;fees a bit :and get 'riospita].s;'in the-county to ;partzcioate. The- following fees Nsre suggested: Feline. ;OV2i. 20.00 . Feline castration 10,00. Feli h e.tubal `Iigation 15,00 Canine up;°.to."�0 lbs 30.00 40 to '80 lbs 35.00;. over '80"lbs 40.00 Pregnancy4obesity add .5 to 15.00 Castration, 20.00 Vasectomy , 25.00 . Mat be. vaccinated prior`'to surgery,Doctor may refuse'a sur pry. '; The"intent here, tires to keep." thi ugs.simple. yet -have the;doctor."holdi:ng.,the -, h y g L cards'. the fee eras loner than normal. et higher than I i nitia].ly suggested a fee'that :anyone shoo,d.:be<:able to 'live sri_th. for awhile. "I "then "returned to..my;Iami:ly on..;vacation: Upon my return a week later I found that I.1r. Seely had set up an emergency meeting with the committee and aGain ray proposal was submitted and again approved. However, becasue of half truths, second thouzhhts, and lack of apparent interest by veterinarians the SPAY Group called an emergency ^_eetinb. At this aeetiny it was stated that veterinarians could not be trusted and though this was a Brood proposal the SPAY groiup was *oing to establish their own entity, hat if veterinarians 'shad shown good faith something could have worked out. Mr. Seel;; was opposed to thin and sent a proposal to the commissioners that my proposal be accepted, that cats be licensed,a differential license fee, door to door licensing, and clerical help :o: ham• proposal. In the last minute fund allocation in August apparently some felt that this was actually in effect and the ;50,000 was not allocated. It is still my belief that eventually we can pressure sufficient doctors throughout the county to do as we suggest thus having representative ?hospitals scattered throughout the county and alleviating the necessity of a county clinic. There was one more meeting; I attended though I have no notes on this meeting. A very fine Gentleman named I•h'. Ilick Calicura chaired the meetinG. 1 suSGested at this meeting that no more neetinas be held and that the veterinarians be forced to submit a decent '-roposal or I and I sugGested the committee should suGyest a cc unty clinic. 4� there was no resopns from our association due to the manner in which those present at the smeetin; subraitted their notes to the association. Philosophy if the public honestly believes they :Peed lower cost procedures let us give .t to theta, but whrough exi sti_n facilities. :lith 35 Hospitals in the county doing only one Der wee=:day or 5 per :;eek and fx;urinu 4.5 weeks per month there would be 790 ovariohysterectomies por month or 9430 per year. Castrations can be dpne at 10.00 in any hospital and as many per day as comes in with no real staxi.n. "his coupled frith Valley Veterinary Hospitals approximate 5000 per year mould render 11F,000 plus not counting; cat castrations. This is the only way to go and I believe that with more pressure one by one hospitals in the county will see the ULht. Fallicies: To perform the correct surCical techniques and safe.-ards that the public desires the figures of }20.00 Baer dog; OVH that I bare heard are impossible and I can prove it. I would be deliChted to show anyone interested our surUery suite and our books. The old timers in our profession are not in tune with the times and unfortunately* the young men associated with them assume their philosophy, but slowly but surely they bei to see the IiE;iit. It is my bekief that if you remain patient but firm a lot can still be accomplished without usinL the tax payers dolloar. •v apology for the typing which I did myself at 5:00 Sunday morning. I would be deli,rhted to appear or render whatever assistance I ay at any ` time providing ? have at least one weeks notice to appear. We have a noble profession that Just happens to be a little behind times as re.-ands vublic relations . Please bear in mind that governenent can wort; with private enterprize to get the job done properly. A;so remenber that the answer is not in DVTIas doing their thing but this plus strict leash lams, licensinG,fines, and one hall of a lot of P^_ showing each individual what their responsibilities are. U hout this there ;could be no reason to go any further. It takes coop- eration. If one is unwilling to have the differential license fee, the reGistration of cats, the door to door cheks, the strinGent fines, then hots in the hell can you ask the DVIS to do his Bart. .e must all vroek together and perhaps in such a situatift we may accomplish something worth while. 9 Lester ::. .3c11hwab, D.V.M. OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR • CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 2ND FLOOR. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553 ARTHUR G. WILL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR PHONE 228.3000 J. E. TY. CHAIRMAN DISTRICTTRICT 3 3 W. N. BOGGESS, VICE CHAIRMAN DISTRICT 4 J. P. KENNY. DISTRICT I A. M. PIAS, DISTRICT 2 E.A. LINSCHEID. DISTRICTS For further information: October 15, 1974 Mary H. Dunten, Public Information Officer PRESS RELEASE (415) 228-30001 Ext. 2221 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TO RECEIVE LOW-COST ANIMAL SPAY CLINIC Contra Costa County will move ahead with plans for a low- cost animal spay and neuter clinic, the Board of Supervisors agreed today. Upon the recommendation of its administration and finance committee, the board directed the county's public works director to provide a cost and feasibility report on the clinic so that "early action may be taken. " Establishment of a county-maintained low-cost spay and neuter clinic had been urged by interested citizens and organi- zations at public hearings by the board on July 23 and September 30. The administration and finance committee, chaired by Supervisor Alfred M. Dias, was granted another two weeks to review 35 of the 45 recommendations which had been developed by the board's "special animal control review committee. " RECEIVED -more- 0Ci 151974 �. 2. osori CLE K ARD OF SUPEERVISORS T QTR CO' 6 "' •-De ury y • Low-Cost SpaloClinic - 2 Ten of those recommendations, Dias noted, have already been implemented by the county. They are: 1. Remodeling of the euthanasia chambers. 2. Response to livestock protection only "when practical" or when an animal control officer observes a dog harrassing cattle. 3. Continued notification of owners when an animal is identified by license or tag, but no establishment of a lost and found card file which would use telephoned visual identification. 4. Acceptance by animal control of calls regarding wild animals, including response in emergencies. S. Continued response by the animal control division to calls regarding animal packs, on a "high priority basis." 6. Rewording of the "cat trap" information form, to make citizens borrowing these traps more aware of their responsibility for any wildlife accidentally trapped. 7. Training of a vertebrate pest controlman in the skills of predator control, to take target animals such as coyote that are endangering livestock. 8. Continuation of present kennel supervision to prevent dog fights. 9. Establishment of a one-year probationary period for animal control officers and more comprehensive training in the use of their firearms. 10. Endorsement of existing state law prohibiting guide dogs in training from entering public places such as restaurants. -30- IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Report of the ) Administration and Finance Committee ) on Referrals Dealt with by the Final ) September 3, 1974 Budget Recommendations. ) This Board on August 26, 1974 having; adopted the Final Budget for fiscal year 1974-1975, as recommended by its Administration and Finance Committee (Supervisors A. M. Dias and E. A. Linscheid) ; and The Administration. and Finance Committee having submitted a report this day with respect to a considerable number of items which were referred to it for review in connection with the proposed budget deliberations , and which were dealt with by Final Budget recommendations , to wit : REFERRAL DATE ITEM 2-5-74 Matter of proposed revenue sharing allocations for animal ^'�"'"``- '� spay clinic and Mt . Diablo State Park; =3-19-74 Request by County Auditor-Controller for appropriation adjustment in the amount of .x,226,000 to adjust Superior and Municipal Courtappropriat3ons for outside attorneys fees to cover projected expenditures for balance of 1973-74 fiscal year; 4-9-74 Request from People Pledged for Community Progress that County Revenue Sharing Funds be added to local funding which would be sufficient to continue services of counseling low-income families to improve their housing conditions; *6-5-74 Report of Solid j:'aste Management Policy Committee on formation of a comprehensive plan, and request for allocation of $55,000 in budget for fiscal year 1974-75; 6-5-74 Consideration of appropriation adjustment request from Acting County Sheriff-Coroner for the purchase of off- road motorcycle equipment ; 6-11-74 Letter and related material from Pre-school Coordinating Council , Inc. , Pittsburg, requesting financial assistance from the county for continuance of its child development services program for fiscal year 1974-75; and memo from Family and Children's Services Advisory Committee supporting said .request ; 6-18-74 Letter from Attorney Brian D. Thiessen as related to the Office of Public Defender; 46-24-74 Request from Traffic Commission, City of Lafayette, for appropriation of $500,000 of 1974-1975 City-County Thoroughfare Funds for extension of Glorietta Boulevard; REFERRAL DATE ITEM 6-2h-7u Request fl-nm Cnntra Costa County Heart Association, Walnut Creek, for funding a special "Cardio-Alert" Program from federal revenue sharing funds ($33 ,605) ; "' 7-2-74 Request from the Contra Costa Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals that monies appropriated in fiscal year 1973-1974 for purpose of bringing County Animal Control facilities in compliance with requirements of state law be reappropriated for fiscal year 1974-1975; 7-9-74 Change in cost estimate for establishment of a County Animal Spay Clinic; * 7-2-74 County funding of Richmond Youth Services Program for review and consideration as to financing and program alternatives ; 7-9-74 Proposed Human Resources System for Contra Costa County; 7-23-74 Letter from Contra Costa County Coordinating Council advising that several organizations in the council have indicated an interest in applying this year for General Revenue Sharing funds , and requesting that each organization be allowed to present its proposal; * 7-23-74 Letter from Contra Costa County Mayors ' Conference urging inclusion in the county budget of $500, 000 in City-County Thoroughfare Funds; x7-23-74 Request from County Superintendent of Schools for levy of taxes for special education programs ; 7-2q-74 Letter from the President, ?National Inconvenienced Sportsmen ' s Association., seeking financial assistance ; 8-6-74 Letter from Richard Holmes , Mayor, City of Concord, commenting on the need of a public relations person and additional personnel in the Animal Control Division; 8-13-74 Request of Moraga school District that legal services continue to be provided by County Counsel with no restrictions ; ( :Funds included in Final Budget) Supervisor Dias, Chairman of the committee, having suggested that the report be deferred for one week in order to allow the individual Board members to review same ; and Members of the Board having discussed the matter, and it having been determined that inasmuch as the budet has already been adopted, tD removal of the above-listed items as committee referrals was simply routine ; NOW, THEREFORE, on motion of Supervisor Dias, seconded by Supervisor Linscheid, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that each of the above-stated items is REMOVED as a referral to the Administration and Finance Committee as recommended . The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES : Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias , E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES : None. ABSENT: Supervisor W. N. Boggess. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Supervisors affixed this 3rd day of September, 1974 . J. R. OLSSON, CLERK BY lz�p kl� L. Kincaid, Deputy cc : Board Members Agricultural Commissioner Contra Costa County Recreation . and Natural Resources Commission County Administrator County Auditor-Controller People Pledged for Community Progress Director, Human Resources Agency Solid Waste Management Policy Committee c/o Supervisor Dias Public Works Director (Environmental Control) Director of Planning Acting County health Officer County Sheriff-Coroner District Attorney Pre-School Coordinating Council , Inc. Family and Children' s Services Advisory Committee County Counsel Attorney B. D. Thiessen Public Defender City of Lafayette Contra Costa County Heart Association Contra Costa Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Probation Officer Contra Costa County Coordinating Council Economic Opportunity Program Director Contra Costa County Mayors ' Conference County Superintendent of Schools National Inconvenienced Sportsmen's Association Mayor, City of Concord Moraga School District Lam+ f � • IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Report of the ) Administration and Finance Committee ) on Referrals Dealt with by the Final ) September 3 , 1974 Budget Recommendations. ) This Board on August 26, 1974 having adopted the Final Budget for fiscal year 1974-1975, as recommended by its Administration and Finance Committee (Supervisors A. M. Dias and E. A. Linscheid) ; and The Administration and Finance Committee having submitted a report this day with respect to a considerable number of items which were referred to it for review in connection with the proposed budget deliberations , and which here dealt with by Final Budget recommendations , to crit : REFERRAL DATE ITEM 2-5-74 Matter of proposed revenue sharing allocations for animal spay clinic and tit . Diablo State Park; 3-19-74 Request by County Auditor-Controller for appropriation adjustment in the amount of $226,000 to adjust -Superior and Municipal Court appropriations for outside attorneys fees to cover projected expenditures for balance of 1973-74 fiscal* year; 4-9-74 Request from People Pledged for Community Progress that County Revenue Sharing Funds be added to local funding which would be sufficient to continue services of counseling low-income families to improve their housing conditions; .:6-5-74 Report of Solid Waste Management Policy Committee on formation of a comprehensive plan, and request for allocation of $55,000 in budget for fiscal year 1974-75; 6-5-74 Consideration of appropriation adjustment request from Acting County Sheriff-Coroner for the purchase of off- road motorcycle equipment ; 6-11-74 Letter and related material from Pre-school Coordinating "Council , Inc. , Pittsburg, requesting financial assistance from the county for continuance of its child devei.:nment services program for fiscal year 1974-75; and memo from Family and Children' s Services Advisory Committee supporting said. request ; 6-18-74 Letter from Attorney Brian D. Thiessen as related to the Office of Public Defender; :,6-211-74 Reauest from Traffic Commission, City of Lafayette , for appropriation of $500 ,000 of 1974-1975 City-County Thoroughfare Funds for extension of Glorietta Boulevard; REFERRAL DATE ITEM 6-24-74 Request from Contra Costa County Heart Association, Walnut Creek, for funding a special "Cardio-Alert" Program from federal revenue sharing funds ($33 ,605) ; 7-2-74 Request from the Contra Costa Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals that monies appropriated in fiscal year 1973-1974 for purpose of bringing County Animal Control facilities in compliance with requirements of state law be reappropriated for fiscal year 1974-1975; 7-9-74 �hange in cost estimate for establishment of a County Animal Spay Clinic ; :: 7-2-74 County funding of Richmond Youth Services Program for review and consideration as to financing and program alternatives; 7-9-74 Proposed Human Resources System for Contra Costa County; 7-23-74 Letter from Contra Costa County Coordinating Council advising that several organizations in the council have indicated an interest in applying this year for General Revenue Sharing funds , and requesting that each organization be allowed to present its proposal; 7-23-74 Letter from Contra Costa County Mayors ' Conference urging inclusion in the county budget of $500, 000 in City-County Thoroughfare Funds; ', 7-23-74 Request from County Superintendent of Schools for levy of taxes for special education programs ; 7-29-74 Letter from the President, National Inconvenienced Sportsmen 's Association, seeking financial -assistance; 8-6-74 Letter from Richard Holmes, ?Mayor, City of Concord, commenting on the need of R public rel=ations person and additional personnel in the Animal Control Division; 8-13-74 Request of Moraga School District that legal services continue to be provided by County Counsel with no restrictions ; _Funds included in Final Budget) Supervisor .Dias , Chairman of the committee, having suggested that the report be deferred for one week in order to allow the individual Board members to revie.a same; and Members of the Board having discussed the matter, and it having been determined that inasmuch as the budget has already been adopted, removal of the _above-listed items as committee referrals was simply routine ; NO,-I, THEREFORE, on motion of Supervisor Dias, seconded by Supervisor Linscheid, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that each of the above-stated items is RE1-10`JED as a, referral to the Administration and Fingnee Committee as recommended . The foregoing order was passed by the following vote : AYES : Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES : None. ABSENT: Supervisor W. N. Boggess . I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid . Witness my hand and the Seal of the 'Board of Supervisors affixed this 3rd day of September, 1974 . J . R. OLSSON, CLERK B � . Y L. Kincaid, Deputy cc : Board Members Agricultural Commissioner Contra Costa County Recreation . and Natural Resources Commission County Administrator County Auditor-Controller People Pledged for Community Progress Director, human Resources Agency Solid Waste management Policy Committee c/o Supervisor Dias Public Works Director (Environmental Control) Director of Planning Acting County health Officer County Sheriff-Coroner District Attorney Pre-School Coordinating Council , Inc. Family and Children' s Services Advisory Committee County Counsel Attorney B. D. Thiessen Public Defender City of Lafayette Contra Costa County Heart Association Contra Costa Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Probation Officer Contra Costa County Coordinating Council Economic Opportunity* Program Director Contra Costa County Mayors ' Conference County Superintendent of Schools National Inconvenienced Sportsmen' s Association Mayor, City of Concord Moraga School District CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Inter - Office Memo Dale: July 9, 1974 TO: Administration and Finance Cosmaittee (Supervisors A. M. Dias and E. A. Linscheidj From: Clerk of the Board Subject: Change in Cost Estimate for Establishment of a County Animal Spay Clinic The Board today referred to you and the Public Corks Director the request of the Animal Spay Clinic Study Committee with respect to estimated cost for establishing a county spay clinic. cc : County Administrator dah In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California Ju ly 9 1974 In the Matter of Change in Cost Estimate for Establishment of a County Animal Spay Clinic. The Board on August 27 , 1971 having committed itself to the establishment of a low cost county animal spay and neuter clinic following receipt from interested citizens of $81,000 which is the estimated amount necessary to provide suitable facilities required for the operation of same; and The Board on August 27 , 1971 having also established a committee to prepare (following acquisition of the $81,000) spay clinic plans for Board consideration; and Supervisor J. E. Moriarty this day having called attention to a memorandum from the County Administrator transmitting a June 24 , 1974 memorandum from Mr. A. L. Seeley, Secretary of the committee, stating that the original estimate of $81,000 was based on the construction of a non-movable building; that plans have since been developed for a mobile unit which would reduce the clinic cost to $49 ,500; and that the committee at its June 20 , 1974 meeting voted to request that the Board reduce the $81,000 require- ment to $49 ,500 ; On motion of Supervisor W. N. Boggess , seconded by Super- visor J. P. Denny, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the matter is referred to its Administration and Finance Committee (Supervisors A. M. Dias and E. A. Linscheid) and the Public Works Director for review. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES : Supervisors J. P. Kenny, W. N. Boggess , E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES : None. ABSENT: Supervisor A. M. Dias. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc: Board Committee Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Public Works Supervisors Mr. Seelev affixed this 9th day of July 19 74 County Administrator J. R. OLSSON, Clerk By Deputy Clerk D. Harkness H 24 5/74 - 12,500 OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY D f 1 Administration Building U Supervisor J. E. Moriarty 'Martinez, California Supervisor J. P. Kenny To: Supervisor A. M. Dias Date: July 1, 1974UPERVISOR MORIARTY Supervisor W. N. Boggess Supervisor E. A. Linscheid From: J. P. McBrien, Subject: Change in Cost Estimate for County Administ for Establishing a County Spay Clinic There is transmitted herewith a copy of a June 24, 1974 memorandum (with attachments) of Mr. A. L. Seeley, Secretary, Animal Spay Clinic Study Committee, subject as above. I suggest that a copy of the memorandum of Mr. Seeley and a copy of each of the attachments thereto be referred to the Public Works Director for review in terms of feasibility and costs. ' �ECEFVVEIQ , JUL q 1974 JPMcB/aa encls. ift' LoN UE ;80SUPERV CC. V. W. Sauer (R. M. Rygh) • I. .1r *DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Date: June 24, 1974 To: Board of Supervisors ttention: J. P. McBrien, County Administrator From: A. L. Seeley, Secretary - Animal Spay Clinic Study Committee Sufic— t: Change in cost estimate for establishing Y spay a count s a clinic. The Board appointed Animal Spay Clinic Study Committee has for some time been refining the cost for establishing a county operated clinic. The original estimates by the Agricultural Commissioner were based upon the construction of a non-movable building and the estimated cost presented to the Board was $$1,000. The committee has since developed plans and determined the cost of utilizing a "mobile" unit that could be located six months at the Martinez Center and the next six months at the Pinole Center, and this new concept will reduce the cost from $$1,000 to $49,500. This cost includes medical equipment and site preparation at the Martinez Center. The committee at its June 20, 1974 meeting by unanimous action requested the Board of Supervisors to amend their August 27, 1971 Board Order (copy attached) which provides in part, "that the record should clearly indicate that the Board by this Order is committed to establishment of the clinic upon receipt of the aforesaid funds, etc." The aforesaid funds referred to is the $$1,000, which the committee wishes. reduced to $49,500. ALS/ac Attachment c=n KA CCG-,A 033:%"1` cc: All committee members R t C E i �! Clerk of the Board tttRI n ' 07fte C Cojilty Addriulis'-Mtl 7.x73 (500) N 4?-PcrT °f C.O£Pr�KM • i August 27, 1971 In the Matter of Approving ) Committee Recommendations ) with Respect to County ) Animal Spay Clinic . ) This being the time fixed for continued hearing on the 1971-1972 Proposed County Budget, Proposed Special District (other than Fire District) Budgets, and Proposed County Service Area Budgets; and The Board having heard all persons wishing to comment on the proposed budgets; and Supervisor -A. M. Dias having submitted the report of the County Government Operations Committee (Supervisor Dias and Supervisor. W. N. Boggess, with Supervisor J. P. Kenny substituting for Supervisor Boggess ) containing recommendations on the proposal for establishment of a low-cost county animal spay and neuter clinic; and The committee having recommended that the Board encourage interested citizens to proceed with the accumulation of $81,000, which is the estimated amount necessary to provide suitable facili- ties and medical equipment required for the operation of the proposed clinic; and It having been further recommended that a committee be appointed by the Board, said committee to be comprised of Mr. A. L. Seeley, County Agricultural Commissioner; acommittee of the Board of supervisors; one member each of the Contra os a County Veterinary edica Association, Contra Costa County Kennel Club, Animal Protection Institute, and Contra Costa County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; and one citizen member from each supervisorial district, to work out a proposal for the mechanics and procedures for the operation of a clinic following acquisition of the $81,000, said proposal to be submitted to the Board of Super- visors for approval; and Supervisor Dias having moved that the committee recommenda- tions be approved; and Supervisor J. E. Moriarty having stated that the record should clearly indicate that the Board by this order is committed to establishment of the clinic upon receipt of the aforesaid funds; and Supervisor Dias having stated that the Board commitment is in accord with the intent of the committee; and Supervisor Moriarty having recommended that the committee of the Board of Supervisors referred to in the committee proposed to be established for development of plans for implementation of the clinic , be specifically designated as the County Government Operations Committee; and Supervisor Dias having amended his motion accordingly, Supervisor Moriarty thereupon seconded the motion as amended; and The Chairman called for the vote on the motinn_ whir.h „Acc-A f AYES: Supervisors A. M. Dias, J. E. Moriarty, E. A. Linscheid, J. P . Kenny. NOES: None. ABSENT: Supervisor W. N. Boggess. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Supervisors affixed this 27th day of August, 1971 W. T. PAASCH, CLERK i � By Miriam A. Scott Deputy Clerk cc: hoard Members VCounty Agricultural Commissioner Mr. A. L. Seeley Co. Co. County Veterinary Medical Association C o. Co . County Kennel Club Animal Protection Institute Co. Co. County Society for the Prevention of C rue lty to Animals County Administrator . CONTRA COSTA COUNTY . . - ANIMAOPAY CLINIC STUDY COMMIT99 MINUTES June 20, 1974 Department of Agriculture Concord, California Members Present Members Absent Barbara Poppin, Chairman James Kenny Cecily Bradford Warren Boggess Mary Lumsden Harris Stone Alice Jeffrey Nick Calicura Nancy Cole Joel Jern, D.V.M. K. E. Danielson* Veterinarians' Association *Alternate Representative Others Present Doris Noble Al Lumsden , The meeting was called to order at 1:25 p.m. by Chairman Barbara Poppin. Nick Calicura had notified the Chairman that he would not be able to attend. Despite a specific request in the mailed agenda to notify the Chairman or Secretary if unable to attend, Mr. Stone, Dr. Jern, and the Veterinarians' Association again did not provide notice of intended absence. Minutes of May 23, 1974 - Approved as mailed. Re ort on new cost fi es for mobile home - Dover Mobile Home Sales submitted a cost estimate oT $21,950, p us sales tax of $1,317 and license, title, etc. , if applicable, of $150; a total of $23,417 (See attachment #1). MOTION - By Mary Lumsden that the motion of May 23, 1974 accepting the plans and cost figure of $29,950 from Burgess Mobile Home Sales be rescinded. ACTION - Motion was seconded and passed unanimously. MOTION - By Alice Jeffrey that the plans and cost figure from Dover Mobile Homes Sales submitted to this committee be accepted. Estimated cost is $23,417 (see Item #1) . ACTION - Motion was seconded and passed unanimously. Funds needed to establish clinic - There was considerable discussion re- gar ing cost of the mobile unit, medical equipment, site preparation and Revenue Sharing Funds requested. r 1n111 U V...y , MOTION - B Alice fre that this committe ecommend to the Board Supervisors that cost Wes of $45,569 for the mobile home unit, including medical equipment, plus $3,$21 for site preparation i (total $49,390), be considered the cost to establish and equip the spay clinic at one location. ACTION - Motion was seconded and passed unanimously. MOTION - By Nancy Cole that the committee recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the original cost figures be revised from $$1,000 to $49,500 for the setting up of the building and equipment costs for the clinic. ACTION - Motion was seconded and passed unanimously. MOTION - By Nancy Cole that the committee recommend that the salary paid to -the veterinarians) be competitive but above average to attract competent veterinarians and also that the persons be hired under contract, or as exempt positions. ' ACTION - Motion was seconded and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, K. E. Danielson, Acting Secretary RED/ac attachment G�1pfr GI%Uia� Dover Mobile Home Sales 1595 Holiday Lane Fairfield, Calif. 94533 (707) 429-1440 Dear Barbara: Enclosing the work sheet on the clinic as you requested. The manufacturer suggests that we install two 40 gallon water heaters as this would be less expensive than going to a 50 gallon on one side and a 30 gallon on the other. I have left the 4 ton air conditioner quote on the work sheet as Frank feels you will definitely need this size. The width of the walls throughout will be 4". Please call if you need any farther information. Sincerely, Maureen Bell rl Developed by The Hofmann Company 1 It L.IIJUI9 1..4 . IJI .JJ _U 1 DOVER MOBILE HOME *ES Fairfield (AC 707) 429-1440 •, T WORK SHEET NAME S.P.A.Y. DATE 6/13/74 ADDRESS B[]X 5961 . WRl mit Creels Cal i f .HONE MAKE MODEL LENGTH WIDTH YEAR Mt.Valley 0 USED STOCK NO. COLOR DELIVERY POINT BEDROOMS MFG.tSER1ALN0. J IN MAKE YEAR PAYOFF T07 TRADE TITLE WHERE? ACCT.NO. FOR LENGTH WIDTH COLOR BEDROOMS_ OTHER , TRADE-IN OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT PRICE OF UNIT S 20,500-00 PTIONAL EQUIPMENT OPTIONAL ACCESSORIES 1$450-00 COST OF SET UP TRANSPORTATION SUB TOTAL 21,950.00 6 SALES TAX SF ANY. 00 (Approx) LICENSE.TITLE.ETC 150.00 DELIVERED PRICE TOTAL S 23,417-00 TOTAL DOWN $ PAYMENT UNPAID BALANCE......_.....„....S i { MONTHLY PAYMENT 92 YEARS.........,. $ MONTHLY PAYMENT-SD YEARS...-.,----5 i CARRIED TO OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT S + _ ..�� $ 4 ton air conditioner installed 1,200.00 2 steps Frith handrails installed 250-00 BANK OR FINANCE CO: ❑ KVE ❑ UCB APPROVED: FIRST PAYMENT DUE t11 "ONTHS�S CARRIED TO OPTIONAL ACCESSORIES S 1,450-00 �i ✓ RECEIVED AUG 1974 J. R. OLSSON August 20, 1974 CLERK 90ARD Or SUPERVISORS oNTRA osr co 1985 Geary Road B _...De u Walnut Creek, Ca. 94596 Supervisor J. E. Moriarty 3338 Mt. Diablo Blvd. Lafayette, Ca. 94549 Dear Sir: Contra Costa County needs a SPAY CLINIC. We must not continue to kill puppies and kittens because nobody wants them. It is much more humane to keep them from being born in the first place. I have met people who are otherwise well educated who do not know that their puppies and kittens which they donate to the Animal Control are killed upon arrival . They very innocently tell their little children, who have "shared in the birth" that the little animal will now find a good home. On the contrary, it is reduced to an ash. I think photographs of this heinous, continuous practice in operation should be posted in every public place in Contra Costa County until the general public is aware. Having to practice the vile act of destroying one animal after another, must make beasts out of the Animal Control personnel . Much better use could be made of these people at the new SPAY CLINIC. Sincerely, (Mrs.) Jeraldine C. Breault JCB;mee CC: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors PO Box 911 Martinez, Ca. 94553 IN r /��-�G�'LtCr /�/(.�/!���G�-L'�-d/ � •/'�%��..�'"�,- COPY r£?Ol i F MRS ... .. .. _ ....:ti 7[lA ^, Cahfforn;a July 12, 1974 R E C L I V L D Q }ii ,lit • L�►-'u JUL 15 1974, I R. OLSSON Mr. David Horton CLERK,DOARD OF SUPERVISORS Citizens Action Group _�.. 1134 Leisure Lane '` Walnut Creek, California 94595 Dear Mr. Horton: Your recent letter to the Board of Supervisors on the "SPAY" organization has been referred to me for reply. The "SPAY" group is orgganized as a non- profit organization; the Office of the Secretary of State has aduised that "SPAY" is properly recorded. The Board of Supervisors has no juris- diction over SPAY. If the organization were to violate the law, the Office of the County Sheriff (or a particular city police depart- ment), the Office of the District Attorney, and the courts would become involved. Very truly yours, J. P. McBRIEN County Administrator JPMcB/aa cc. G. Russell,-`` 1c , • DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURIP CONTRA COSTA COUNTY f4 0� June 7 19 Date •. � 74 To : Board of Supervisors Attention: J. P. McBrien, County Administrator From: A. L. Seeley, Secretary, Board Appointed Animal Spay Clinic Study Committee Subject: Rescinded Motion The above mentioned committee met on May 23, 1974 and rescinded a motion made on August 22, 1973 . The motion rescinded was No. 1 on Page 1 of my memo to the Administration and Finance Committee on the same date (copy attached) . In rescinding the above action they made the following clarifying motion: "That the county contact individual veterinarians to formulate a referral program for reduced cost spay-neuter services with surgical fees to be established with the cooperating veterinarians. This to be a supplement to the low-cost county operated spay-neuter clinic." ALS/ac attachment cc: All committee members Clerk of the Board 4 J I�d r RECEIVED JUN 111974 J. R. OLSSON CLE KB ARD OF SUPERVISORS TRA COSTA CO. B _ Dc ut VU 7!73 (500) DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUIP, CONTRA COSTA (ovmrY I)$ec: August 22, 1973 To: Supervisors Warren Ilog ;ess and Edmund Linschcid Administration and Finance Committee Attention: J. P. McBrien, County Administrator From: , A. L. Seeley, Committee Secretary J' subject: Recommendations from the Board appointed Animal Spay Clinic Study Committee On August ?7, 1971, the Board appointed an "Animal Spay Clinic Study Committee" comprised of representatives of various organiza- tions and county representatives. (A list of the individual- serving on the coriimittee is attached. ) The committee's assignment was to "work out a proposal for the mechanics and procedures for the operation of a clinic; following the acquisition of$81,000, said proposal to be submitted to the Board of Supervisors for approval". It should be noted that while the committee was completing its assignment to develop the mechanics and procedures for the operation of a county spay and neutering clinic, proposals from the lo— Contra Costa Veterinary Medical Association and an individual veterinarian came before the Board of Supervisors and subsequently to this committee. While many parts of the proposal by the Contra Costa Veterinary Medical Association were acceptable to the committee, it was the proposal suggested by Dr. Schwab and agreed upon by five other veterinarians, that came the closest to that desired by the committee as a supplement to a county operated spay and neutering clinic. The committee, therefore, respectfully makes the following recommendations: 1. That the county provide the necessary clerical -staff to handle certain bookkeeping services for veterinarians cooperating in a reduced cost spaying and neutering program with the surgical fees to be established in agreement with the cooperating veterinarians. This program to begin as soon as possible, and to continue as a supplement to the proposed county operated spay clinic, and that an evaluation be made of the success of the accepted program (Dr. Schwab' s proposaI* )aftcr a period of nine months from the date of initiation. (January 1, 1974 was the suggested starting date. ) _ *The proposal as worked out vrith Dr. Schwab is attachment #2 titled "Proposed Cooperating Veterinarian Low-Cost Sterilization Program". '73 (500) r DAft• AIENT O AGRICULTURE.. CONTRA Cf1.S"t'A ('01INTY Da eRtr=VED xA.". &,- . To: Supervisors Warren I;ogge ns :end Edmund Linscheid J(jN 13 1974 Administration and Finance Committee Attention: J. P. McBrien, County Administrator IR. OLMN From: , A. L. Seeley, Committee Secretary CLE RD OF SUPERVISORS TRA COSTA Q0. j, e . Deputy Subject: Recorunendations from the Board appointed Animal Spay Clinic Study Committee On August 27, 1971, the Board appointed an "Animal Spay Clinic Study Committee" comprised of representatives of various org-5niza- tions and county representatives. (A list of the individualz serving on the cor�unittee is attached. ) The committee's bosignment was to "work out a proposal for the mechanics and procedures for the operation of a clinic; following the acquisition of $81,0001, said proposal to be submitted to the Board of Supervisors for approval". it should be noted that while the committee was com=letinw its assignment to develop the mechanics and procedures for the o;.;:ration of a county spay and neutering clinic, proposals from the to Contra Costa Veterinary Medical Association and an indi.viduaL veterinarian came before the Board of Supervisors and subsequently to this committee. While many parts of the proposal by the Contra Costa Veterinary Medical Association were acceptable to the committee, it was the proposal suggested by Dr. Schwab and agreed upon by five other veterinarians, that came the closest to that desired by the committee as a supplement to a county operated spay and neutering clinic. The committee, therefore, respectfully makes the following recommendations: 1. That the county provide the necessary clerical staff to handle certain bookkeeping services for veterinarians cooperating in a reduced cost spaying and neutering program with the surgical fees to be established in agreement with the cooperating veterinarians. This program to begin as soon as possible, and to continue as a supplement to the proposed county operated spay clinic, and that an evaluation be made of the success of the accepted program (Br. Schwab's proposal*)af'er a period of nine months from the date of initiation. (January 1, 1974 was the suggested starting date.) _ *T:'le proposal as worked out with Dr. Schwab is attachment #2 titled "Proposed Cooperating Veterinarian Low-Cost Sterilization Program". Suporvi:ors Bo,­,f7,Cqs and Linsciicid • " Attention: J. P. Arien -2- 8/22/73 2. That license fees be doubled for unaltered animals. 3. That the county earmark $50,000 of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds for the proposed county spay clinic. 4. That a door-to-door licensing and cat registra- tion pro`ran, be established. a. Registration fee for each cat over the age of four months would be $2.00. b. Wearing of tags to be optional. c. No late registration fee at this time. d. Establish in the County Ordinance, a provision allowing owners of five cats or more to obtain a cattery, cat fancier registration permit, paralleling the Ordinance regulating the kennel operators and dog fanciers. e. Establish in the Ordinance the definition of cattery and cat fancier to read as follows: 1. Cattery - An individual who owns or possesses five or more unaltered cats for the purpose of breeding, showing, or boarding, not to exceed twenty cats. The suggested registration fee: 5 to and including 10 cats $10.00 10 to and including 20 cats $20.00 2. Cat Fancier - An individual who owns or possesses five or more altered cats as a hobby or as pets, not to exceed twenty cats. The suggested registration fee: 5 to and including 10 cats $ 5.00 10 to and including 20 cats $10.00 f. Establish in the Ordinance that individuals ovrning or possessing more than 20 cats or dogs are to be considered a commercial establishment. Definitions of commercial shall be the same as the definition now shown in the County Ordinance. • Supervisors Bogge� and • . Linscheid Attention: J. P. McBrien -3- 8/22/73 g. Establish in the Ordinance a permit fee of $x50.00 or approximate coSt for commercial establishment for cats and/or dog's. h. Establish in the Ordinance that the regula- tory .authority shall be responsible for specifying cat fancier, cattery and commercial permit regulations. i. Establish in the Ordinance that violation of any of the regulations relating to the required conditions as specified in the cattery, cat fancier and commercial permits as outlined by the regulating authority, shall result in the cancellation of the permit by the regulating authority. (Also provide for appeal procedures.) ALS/ac attachment NTIMAL A CLTNTC Cn�7 "' ' ` 1?I: /lF�. BE �- ' : • A - s � r��rrr r r� s R..'�IPr�IrrtrD BY THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS District 1 Vice Chairman Nary Lumsden District 2 Harris Stone District 3 Phyllis Merrill District 4 Alice Jeffrey District 5 Joel Jern, D.V.M. Agricultural Commissioner, Secretary Arthur L. Seeley Contra Costa Veterinary Medical Association Don Blomberg, D.V.M. Contra Costa Kennel Club Nick Calicura `J Animal Protection Institute, Chairman Barbara Poppin (NOTE: Named changed to: SPAY - Stop Pets Annual Yield) Contra Costa S.P.C.A. Cecily Bradford Board of Supervisors-County Government James Kenny Operations Committee Edmund Linscheid 1 •. ,. • ATTA&EIIT #2 1 IROPOS D COOPERATING VETERINARIAN LOST--COST STERILIZATION PROGR94 1. The initial charges by cooperating veterinarians would be: . CATS DOGS OVH $20.00 OVH (up to 40 lbs. ) $30.00 Castrate $10.00 (over 40 lbs. ) $35.00 (over 80 lbs. ) $40.00 Tubal Ligation $15.00 Castrate $20.00 Vasectomy $25.00 Tubal Ligation $15.00 NOTE.: Pregnancy or obesity - additional $5.00 On dogs and cats: Proof of distemper vaccination prior to surgery - fee not to exceed $4.00 2. Doctors would have the right to refuse surgery on any patient when such surgery would be hazardous to the patient. No refund if lost in surgery. 3. Cooperating veterinarians would sign an agreement with the t county that all citizens referred to these veterinarians would be charged the agreed upon amount. 4. The surmical fees would beeriodicall reviewed to see if the agreements should be changed to reflect any need for changing i the rates. i 5. Citizens would only be eligible for these lower public service rates after they had deposited the surgical costs with the county. i i 6. The veterinarians would be paid by the county for the cost of t::e operations in the same manner that the county now handles j the deposits required prior to the sale of cats. j f • In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California June 11 19 74 In the Matter of Inquiry with Respect to Organization known as SPAY The Board having received a May 30 , 1974 letter from Pair. David Horton, Citizens Action Group, 1134 Leisure Lane, Walnut Creek, California inquiring if the organization known as SPAY (which collects money for a proposed low-cost spay clinic) is subject to review by the members of the Board; On motion of Supervisor A. M. Dias , seconded by Super- visor W. N. Boggess , IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the afore- said inquiry is REFERRED to the County Administrator. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES : Supervisors A. M. Dias , W. N. Boggess , E. A. Linscheid , J. E. Moriarty. NOES : None. ABSENT: Supervisor J. P. Kenny. 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc• Mr. David Horton Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Agricultural Commissioner Supervisors County Administrator affixed this 11th day of June , 19 74 '/n� J. R. OLSSON, Clerk By %d�c�a �ax�Cc; 7,, Deputy Clerk Doris Baldwin H 24 5/74 - 12,500 30 May 1974 RECEIVED J Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Martinez, California. J. P. o=\J CLE� aO RD OF SUPERVISORS T C C JA 1A .. ........ .... .......... De Gentlemen; A group of citizens would like to ask the following question of you. Is the organization called SPAY which collects money for the proposed low cost spay clinic subject to review by your board? Yours truly, Citizens Action Group Walnut Creek C- IN THS: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS C,T CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, TSTA E OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of R6ports ) on Referrals to the Board ) March 12, 197th. Administration and Finance ) Committee. ) The Board heretofore having made certain referrals to its Administration and Finance Committee (Supervisors A. M. Dias and E. A. Linscheid ); and Said committee having reported and recommended as follows with respect to aforesaid referrals : Referral Date Item Recommendation 12-26-73 Memorandum of County Approve in principle reauest Administrator for imple- for - three positicns to imple- mentation of California r.±nnt California Occur_ational Occupational Safety and Safety and Health Act, and Health Act. authorize County Administrator to initiate action for estab- lishment and classification of the positions . 1 - 2-74 Proposals for changes Authorize preparation and intro- 1 -28-7h. in structure of the duction of a bill in the 1974 Office of Marshals of Session of the California S'-ate the Municipal Courts . Legislature providing for one Marshal to serve the Delta and Mt. Diablo Municipal Courts. Also fix April 16, 1974 at 11 a.m. for a public hearing before the full Board on other organizational proposals affecting the Offices of Marshals of the Municipal Court Districts with the matter to be retained as a committee referral for consideration of guidelines to apply to the hearing and for further consideration after the hearing. 1 -2-74 Request that Board of Reschedule for March 19, 1974 Supervisors transfer its as requested by County Super- responsibility for the . intendent of Schools . County Department of Education to the County Board of Education. 1 -15-74. Funding of remodeling Approve schematic drawings and of Veterans Memorial authorize architect to proceed Building in Richmond. with development of working drawings and specifications in a manner such that if possible bid may be taken on such portion of work as can be accomplished within existing appropriation and the remainder in a follow- additional. county money if structure can be utilized by all veteran organizations in west county as an alternative to further expenditure on other veterans memorial buildings . w� L � Referral --Date Item Recommendation 1 -15-74 Impact of Prepaid Health Refer matter to County Plan on ambulance Administrator and Human service. Resources Director for review and consultation with repre- sentatives of the Ambulance Association: 1 -22-74 Request for increase in Refer to County Administrator the fees allowed funeral for review and consultation directors for arranging with representatives of the burials which are county funeral directors, and for responsibility. consideration in the 1974- 1975 fiscal year budget. 1 -28-74 Request for waiver of Deny request in line with penalty portion of advice of County Counsel . Sheraton Inn transient occupancy tax bill . 8--30-73 Establishment of central Establishment of a county lab- 11 -20-73 laboratory for sobriety oratory to perform sobriety (2-13-74 testing services. testing was denied on the basis Carry- that the contractor would adopt over measures to effect economics . item) The commercial laboratory per-- forming, these services in the central area of the county has cooperated with public agenci- es by implementing a new system for performing tests and for collection and delivery of samples by agencies to the lab- oratory, thereby reducing costs. The revised procedures should be utilized for a sufficient period to observe results. Agencies in the western portion of the county are satisfied with the present arrangement. Remove as a committee referral. 11 -7-73 Request of Mrs. Elinor Obtain report from County (2-13-74 Aljets and Mr. Joe Shera Counsel on legality of the Carry- (employees on deferred claim by Mrs . Aljets and over retirement ) for coverage Mr. Shera for inclusion in the item) under County Group County Group Health Plan, and Health Plan. refer to the Employee Relations Officer and the County Nego- tiating Agent the matter of extending policy to alto-T health plan coverage to ueferred retirees, and if so under what criteria and conditions . 12-13-73 Proposed amendments to Approve in principle the 2; (2-13-74 bylaws of Economic member maximum and request Carry- Opportunity Council and further recommendation from EOC over reduction in its member- on composition of the 21 mem- item) -ship to a maximum of 21 . bars in line with requirements of the Regional Office of Economic Opportunity. Consider approval of proposed amendments to bylaws at time of reconsti- tution of :D00. Referral Date Item Recommendation 12-11 -73 Claim for back pay and Claim involves the question of (2-13-74 benefits of Richard J. whether the county has a Carry- Flores, Public Works responsibility to provide over Department Laborer . salary and benefits during the item) period Mr . Flores was off the payroll because the Public .Works Department found him disabled for thle performance of his duties and p2•ocessed a disability retirement which was subsequently not sustained by the County Retirement Board. County departments have recom- mended against payment of the claim and the committee concurs with denial of the request. �2-25-74 Request - of SPAY of Committee met with Ms . Barbara Contra Costa County to Poppin who expressed the vier: discuss with the Board that monies required to place the matter of allocating the issue on the ballot could federal revenue sharing be -better spent on provision of funds . spay clinic facilities and also that said program would be self-supporting. Remove this item as a committee referral with the understanding that the question of use of revenue sharing funds and of a bond election remain with the committee pursuant to prior referral on February S, 1974; and The Board having considered said committee report and determined the recommendations to be appropriate; NOW, THEREFORE, on motion of Supervisor Dias, seconded by Supervisor J. P. Kenr.-, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that aforesaid recommendations of its Administration and Finance Committee are APPROVED. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote : AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: None . I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Supervisors affixed this 12th day of. March, 1974- J. R. OLSSONy CLERK By Vera Nelson Deputy Clerk cc : Mr. Michael Mi ckelberry Bryant & Lough Funeral Directors Stewart 's Rose Manor Funeral Service Wilson & Kratzer Mortuaries Oak Park Hills Chapel Mrs. Elinor Aljets Mr. Joseph Shera Mr. M. W. Roman, Attorney Mr. Sasha Maloff Chief of Police, Walnut Creek Chief of Police, Pleasant Hill Chief of Police, Q'oncord SPAY of Co. Co. Co. County Superintendent of Schools County Board of Education Mt. Diablo Municipal Court Delta Municipal Court Walnut Creek-Danville Municipal Court Richmond 'Municipal Court West Municipal Court Economic Opportunity Program Director Agricultural Commissioner Personnel Director Public Works Director Director, Human Resources Agency County Sheriff-Coroner County Auditor--Controller County Assessor County Tax Collector County Counsel County Administrator CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Inter - Office Memo Date: February 25 , 1974 To: Administration and Finance Committee (Supervisors A. M. Dias and E. A. Linscheid) From: Clerk of the Board Subject The Board this day referred to you the request from SPAY of Contra -Costa for an opportunity to discuss the matter of allocation of Federal Revenue Sharing funds for a Spay Clinic Facility. mb cc: County Administrator In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California February 25 19 74 In the Matter of Request from SPAY of Contra Costa County, Walnut Creek, for Allocation of Revenue Sharing Funds . Supervisor J. E. Moriarty having brought to the attention of the Board a letter received from Hs. Nancy Cole, President, SPAY of Contra Costa County, advising that SPAY is definitely opposed to having the issue of the Spay Clinic Facility placed on the bal- lot as a bond issue; alleging that Federal Revenue Sharing Funds are available which could be allocated; and requesting an oppor- tunity to discuss the matter with the Board; On motion of Supervisor J. P. Kenny, seconded by Supervisor A. M. Dias, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid request is REFERRED to the Administration and Finance Committee (Super- visors A. M. Dias and E. A. Linscheid) . The foregoing order was passed by the following vote : AYES : Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias , W. N. Boggess , E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None . ABSENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc • SPAY of C.C. C. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Committee members Supervisors Agricultural Commissioner affixed this 25th day of February, 1974 County Adm inistratorJAMES R. OLSSON, County Cie By rt J � i� &A„/»6 L4LJ. , Deputy Clerk Mildred 0 . Ballard H 24 5/73-15M CEIVED0SPAY of Contra Costa County fit, P. 0. Bos 5261 G 74 Walnut Creek, California 94596 ,.. 6823873 SLON CjjpC eono AI � CO. February 16, 1974 Mr. James E. Moriarty, Supervisor District 3 3338 Mt. Diablo Boulevard Lafayette, California 94549 My dear Supervisor Moriarty: This letter is in regard to the Contra Costa Board of 'Supervisors Order of February 5, 1974, in the matter of Proposed Revenue Sharing Allocations for Animal Spay Clinic and Mt. Diablo State Park. The above mentioned order states that the matter of the Spay Clinic be considered on a bond issue basis by the Board Adminis- tration and the Finance Committee for consultation with proponents to determine if bond issue ballot arrangements might be formulated so as to provide for vote by the people in either June, 1974, or November, 1974. SPAY is definitely opposed to having the issue of the Spay Clinic Facility placed on the ballot as a bond issue! We are aware that Federal Revenue Sharing Funds are available which could be allocated to the Spay Clinic project. The amount of $81,000.00 is not a large expenditure for a budget the size of that of Contra Costa County. We have been advised by a public official that $81,000.00 is not a large expenditure by percentage for even a budget the size of the City of Walnut Creek. We are proposing a self-supporting facility. It is designed to meet its own operating costs and, eventually, indirectly reduce the amount of taxpayer monies reQuired_ to handle surplus animals at the Animal Control Department. To ask the taxpayer to stand additional expense for sueh a clinic, as the result of a bond issue. is unjust to the taxpayer. We feel it also defeats our efforts to establish the Spay Clinic because it discourages the voter from approving our individual project. We now have over $14,000.00 collected from the residents of Contra Costa County to go toward the establishment of a low cost, county operated Spay Clinic. A group such as the Walnut Creek Junior Women's Club recently offered to donate the surgical table and refrigerator needed in the operation of the Clinic. Another group, the Mt. Diablo Junior Women's Club, is giving a silent auction and wine-tasting event in March to benefit the Spay Clinic. We were recently informed that a direct-mail campaign in our area, explain- ing our project to the public, also drew in a very fine financial return. We are, at the moment, preparing to enlarge on this first test mail campaign, and anticipate excellent returns. What will become of the funds we have generated? • • -2- We are enclosing, for your file, a copy of the endorsement of our project by the Lafayette Republican Women's Club. Frankly, we have been most fortunate in our approach to a number of organizations such as the above-mentioned. They agree that working in this manner toward the reduction of animal population is a worthwhile and necessary undertaking. Will it now be necessary to ask the public and our supporting organizations to object with us to having the Spay Clinic issue presented on the ballot as a bond issue? We are most anxious to discuss this matter with you. May we anticipate an early reply or a telephone call from you. Our telephone number is 933-6825• Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Nancy CLe, President S.P.A.Y. nc :emr Enc.-1 Nancy Cole 2868 San Benito Drive Walnut Creek, Ca. 94598 february 6 1974 <<rs. Nancy Colo. Iles intent SkAY of Contra Costa County t . C. box 5261 :.alnut Creeks California 94596 Near '-,.rs. Cole 3 Thi is to advise ou that at our meeting of � . the Governing Board. of the La?.5Vette fkepMican women's Club went on record as endorsing the program of SPAY of Contra Costa County to establish a low-cost, self-supporting Spay clinic. We urge that : 509000.00 of Revenue-sharing funds be allocated toward the establishment of such a spay clinic, to help prevent needless destruction of anivial life, regulate the pet populations and reduce tax dollars spent on the present pet over-population problem. Very truly yours. LAFAYETTE sRWUBL1CAIN K UXEN'S CLUB � s I 0 • IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the natter of Proposed Revenue } Sharing Allocations for Animal ) February 5, ' 1974 Spay Clinic and Mt. Diablo State ) Park. } Supervisor E. A. Linscheid having brought to the attention of the Board that the matter of allocations of revenue sharing monies had been discussed in detail at public hearings held prior to the approval of the 1973-1974 County Budget and at said hearings funds for an animal spay clinic and for the expansion of Mt. Diablo State Park had been requested; and Supervisor Linscheid having noted that aforesaid requests had not been approved and that it was his opinion that the matters of animal spay clinic and the expansion of Mt. Diablo State Park should be considered on a bond issue basis so that the voters of the county might make their wishes known on both items; and _ Slt7)ery sor Liinnnhai ld 'C;gvin_O rFll:l7i me—t—ded `b-.t 3r 3 .. Vt4!�•I ��4rV be referred to the Board Administration and Finance Gommittse ( Supervisor A. M. Dias and Supervisor Linscheid) for consultation with proponents of both proposals to determine if bond issue ballot arrangements might be formulated so as to provide for vote by the people in either June 1974 or November 1974; and Supervisor W. N. Boggess having advised that the matter of as animal cpay clinic was being considered by the Sps^ial Animal Control Review Committee and a subcommittee thereof and that the suggestions of Supervisor Linscheid might conflict with the recom- jsndationsforthcoming from the committee and subcommittee; and Supervisor J. P. Kenny having stated that he had no objection to the ballot proposals of Supervisor Linscheid but that he felt it was too late to develop ballot items for June 19�4 and that it would be more appropriate to arrange for ballot items for November 1974; and Supervisor Dias having stated that he was in partial agraemant with the ballot proposals but he felt that in fairness to all panties concerned the November 1974 rather than Jane 197h ballot arrangement was preferable; and Supervisor J. E. Moriarty having stated that in his opinion the matter should be referred to the Administration and -Finance Corti ttee without excluding the possibility of a vote in June 1974 beLauss both proposals had been given widespread attention over an extended period of time; t NOW, THEREFORE on motion of Supervisor Linscheid, seconded by Supervisor Boggess, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendation of Supervisor Linscheid is hereby APPROVED. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. penny, A. M. Dias, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT : None. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on .the .5th day of February, 1974- cc : Administration and Finance Witness my hand and the Seal Committee of the Board of Supervisors affixed Agricultural Commissioner this 5th day of February, 1974. Counts zlecreation and Natural Resources J. R. OLSSON, CLERK _ Commission County Administrator • Charleen K. Travers , Deputy Clerk - • In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California January 22 19 'jam In the Matter of Inquiry of Orinda Resident with respect to Money for a County-run Spay Clinic. Supervisor J. E. Moriarty having advised the Board that he had received a letter from Mrs. Keith Thompson, 262 La Espiral, Orinda, California 94563, inquiring as to whether the County has deposited any money in an account set up to receive donations for a low cost spay clinic; and Supervisor Moriarty having recommended that the aforesaid inquiry be referred to the County Administrator for reply; On motion of Supervisor A. M. Dias, seconded by Super- visor J. P. Kenny, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the above recommendation of Supervisor Moriarty is APPROVED. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc: Mrs. Keith Thompson Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of County Agricultural Supervisors Commissioner affixed this 22nd day of January , 19 7d County Administrator JAMES R. OLSS , Co ty Cie By Deputy Clerk Sandra Barrios H 24 7/72-15M MRS. KEITH THOMPSON 262 La Espiral, Orinda, California 94563 14 January 1974 I �V1 Mr. James E. Moriarty, District 3 Supervisor, 3338 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, vU1 iii iUv:i ir� i�„t�'t Lafayette, California. Dear Mr. Moriarty, Would you please tell me if the County of Contra Costa ever deposited any money in the American Savings and Loan, Acct.# 01-40095 towards the $81,000. needed for a low-cost country run SpayVClinic. I do appreciate hearing from you. With kindest regards, Sincerely, RTqEIVEP JAN 2 2 1974 1. Q o61”. aERK BOARD OF SLff2VLS0Z Rj Y FOR YOW INFORM TIN �. i =retltionfor Spa- T �.lics in Contra GoSta Couht tj i; ..".'-�":"'x, 't""`f 'R "^w-i�c�'�'wwi+�a', ik }3'Ahs.O �*.^ =Y"''xx�� � _ V i'r'e the un e,ersigned feel a great need for the; establishm ;z sof Z love cost or free "spaying clinics in ;;ontra: Costs. County beca; � °°f the %orrendous nube�~s of unwanted and stray animals in our c y t yot only are ,these either killer; on tine road or taker t� tie c�unc? az:d :aurc e ec1 but tYiey also interrupt the natural preda.c r cycles by being forced to look towards rodents for their food . B ecause of tai s eagles, haviks , and other animals are dyingoff.,from a lack of a i. alternate, food 'sourc.'. other then their natural prey. il)1%tiLiJ -DA E 'log Walc►crk'C� 3. r4e 42�L j . 6. 8• Gia z9ZZ � c� we 9. 1612 2 �6 1j> 3 13. '7<tsti+�- r?1 aSy � r;� Gf ^ 15 . 16. - Almr 22. 1 �f 1 :c' 1 . . , � _ s � ILI, r l D __nG Of Agriculture DluLsIa3a;3 F wadi � Concorde GaLfornia P. SE,1T , D_ Ed Git=s p Orinda ' Ed. t in.scheid,.-Board or. Supervisors Dr,, George. Eberharta Rneam john Hendrickson. Count Administrators Dr. Bi'Ll' . vanSr`} Ann—, oh Office Dr. r:.a.yy-viard C?.L_rk. L.afa r+a Lte A. L. Seeley, Agricultural.Commissioner Dr. John B1aCl=a?7'd� Ei Sdbrante lien Danielson, Asst. Agric Commissioner C. C. 'rill, Director xniaal, Control ABSEIL arra Boggess, Der-Tistio War-�� Bo� .,L;�, S•�z: � z, Dr. Jack Spencer, P-i t,.: sbur'g The meet?so =gas called to order by, iYir. Seeley at.1:40 I'„m RI'r seb;?may intxro:jD�ceL x.37 a 'L?nsc eid of Ahe Board Of .S.e:pe -r sors.v Admin3S_ >sS'w'�i��:3 x?Lv"� F�' �� r n a e Y regi bh-i-', Ivtr. B eSa t.�i .ctt'e anC �2SS..� �.@cr5 .+ c gg. Sal, Ch_i.' -:1 of he GCmmi tee; Tl s unable to attend. si:r i.- rzahei d opener tj:e r-IL cession by explaining, the 13o_l.-Itica1 i � = f'_3_ 'ig a" Co:+ vy a� t'�a u,L`�d S a'� ��trz C o H_ stat ed that -` • , exlesL ed `v.»�?.zet awi r- VU SUCAa 'QS, ��i.7?'Z'l :�o_~ Ccs nci; ..C; Cotzncil.s of ��inol.e,' Lafayette, Ilalnia t Creek, _Useasant Ni 11,, , M rte rez 3 Rossmoor Board of Directors,. was being felt an...], that in his opinion she Board 11,s ready to budget X50;.000- for'-the Spa- ''i? Nim. tes. continued* _?_ • 3_8-73 Dr Eberhart stated that the :association has offered a i15 fee for sterilization and asked trhy it :isn't acceptab?e. Letvers from the _' U :er sity of California Davis School of Veterinary Medicine, indicating ovario—hysterectomy to ba .a better procedure because of possible side -ffec:tst ip�peare discussed because they the objections. Dr. Gills read a statement of the position of the Contra Costa Veterinary TyIedical Association is ttacYLnent 3) regar-ding a suggested program and s•.2ggested fees for procedures. h-a fee Schedule included— normal charge, suggested county charge and veterinarian charged This :r:c=wld rew_re that the county administer the pr ogram, screen the ap i? .cants and collect the reduced fees, then in turn pay the veterinarians The county siubt:ention to the vaterinaria_ns :.ould baapproximately $100,000 t}.e first 3 sar in order to make up the difference of fees charged the citisan and the county paymew', to tha veterinarian. Dr.. Gills and Dr. Dlackard estimate 610;000 to 520,000 the initial year. lira Liascheid again emp1hasi?ed the press:;re on the Boa:.:-d to support the Spay Clinic and that time was of the essence as there' is a deadline the last day of August far the 'hudge. Uo be Completed. It -,vas decided to call an _.mergancy m::aving of t m:mhe (animal Spay Clinic Study Coi ttee and present:, the s.auer�.nary Associajion`s proposal of suggested fees to the Commit::;ee. his meeting is set for i�: r;esda August Up 1973 at 1:30 p.I'-1. I ieeti ng adjourned a t 3 :02 P.I.I. Respectfull su'omitted, zdith Davison ed cc: Those indicated in attendance or absent County Administrator Spay Clinic Committee i1lenbers i Attachment B CONTRA COSTA VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PROCEDURE NORMAL CHARGE COUNTY CHARGE VETERPHARIAT-1 CHARGE Cat Ovario- $35.00 $20.00 $30-00 hysterectomy Cat Castration $15-00 $10.00 $15-00 Dog Castration $30-00 $15-00 . . .$25-00 Dog Ovaria-hyst rectomy 1 - 20 lbs. $40-00 ^25-00 !-535-00 .Lj 21— 40 lbs. $45.0b "30-00 $40.00 14, 41— 60 lbs. $50-00 0535,.0 $45-00 61— 80 lbs. $55.00 $40-00 $50-00 81-100 lbs. $60.00 $45-00 $55-00 100+ lbs. $75.00 $55.00— $75-00 These are fees suggested by the Association* ` d � 4L ' o Contra Costa Count P. ©. Box 5262 a:-clWalnut Creek, California 94596 -'J ��L �. .;.�,.�4t'00''s. .�..ti�•��}.�-Yip/, r,�Ct;'e:t?.'.� ?;� �C1?� I ­ward 2 , M) itt Y i imir, 4J •'�.cy R Dear Pr. 0-411s i nd ::i-embers of The Contra C65,1 Veterinary A ss,%cilit=OTIC , .�4 a Z�:_N�a Cv??^2 t'et? raetii�, o: the Cos�nty°S Spay Clinic Study Co^...'"'.,i--c bei&, I le ~dt t a spaying? p i 4 Clara, � � � aq, Vast;-:I:; �?f2 LQ �:fli�r, ;:r: :.. at �. .:av_n o ra:c in Sant Gia �,r_ c.z ssoci; L s for camsi-:leration. director f•`` ArIval Control in :wad`s, Clara is Mr. Nai-& 2i<kE lair-- • from tyf:o-'i � I oo..azi.eci the tr? l w_n;, it, c=..c i o:z. - 'Zn c county rcontract with a-group of fzya c.cr tea ( il of rr> me-M icrz; iif good st=r;lzr.; of association). 'Siese fiv:cc tcocters have r+S�o�IlS,rs.i�is a 9: �spi- t hich t:.ey da surges etc. Ioutilic c':cck--i1Vs WOtS. atc .F-xa dona. t u3cii voter in:::,.•':ms, autz cl.-Inic. 'fsje contract 4: is for rm ir=`ivi:lun -t �iiusas _ s= c.artif:icate ftot� the county, aft— :r -.ihi.cli he maker. Cil at Vile !iospi':ta! for s' a,,-in� -or ii�4'�:t;r":..s:�j f` the end Vt x-, j. the it s• t-i r -r-m x -s County l � .'�' �.1 C_rs cc2 L- f.' ti7:i a.�'3� a,.+�. t7.a.T;,,i.r_-� .a�_.�ru 'ta2� ,.JLta.ty the b.:6.11 for tl'e 'Ruere is m, subsidy Cron the coan-Ty. other than the expense for a P,rt-t-Imm clerk to han%lle boa'.:-z-ork. ' 7h da fee .zs sat at: :2'}i to spay a frYi:::;e ding or cat of ar I* sire. .f Of course. .y3:e anim--1 mzsz be 3' gcnd t 4 t• _Y-J },� a/� .•Y� �,j have T ►'.�} .f i .:- ns� ;moo (-�c;.._Lh., C:.a".1 4 cicx. o �'mulr i 1[ave the cvt-* n o reftirzL cone e- felt i'i?S vot �.1J '0 0tj . ;Iac 1i: ► I Y:; le oi'; rurs 515, and *.iala cam" SY). lr- se prices incledde shtat_sr' V way use service. M:era Is ro .crCair; process imviolvcdJAnc with IzaitremT `nvs . 1 as`4cc!6 tont—,' cj'uesti'.a$, S-ach ns ;Z'a was t'. i5 fi-, re of s-- F ''r.: .t7 fee� a� ced i' t- •'.- . Ii sr-ay •1 r:7 -� o at x � creep S - �i. 2z?,. C�:31T�� i a:l Sti.i C'!j 3 • Ci.i.T!:.C� it .: ...X2'St'c.:i us. 4:zesr' irL L,s �S !I ae�:. sspper ti•i Y, xe0 T_':e doctors then ar_ee3 to use this f3Ure {t-;ory sr-vs c7 a _ t:Ynt �yi-in;-te per %,c,-'_ -y /� 0,C-0 Tnis Was my :g ess •e t {, A •a the .3 ` its ..I ► � s J•Y 1�. �/1../a 4J 1l•.� .� f. .�.�S.VL-.t •:+ f.t4 c-:lJ..• () fi-l'a�r:.C�•L.-T';; a i=_'95 (finarcizA) d:-,a to Cha .^',p wring of I=:.c;e 29i's at y20 .? A, lac _ i Count; h:;Z. e:�Tcrienccd no cc-.mz 1. from. the veteris:s_rians regard in .11 a spaying :. ;,, ;r�- .:• r. . ....: .--.t: d.. . .:.:.. . z ;.a .. ..,.... . .. ... .. ... '•r' ..... ...-. a...,�.> .. xa .. .. ... .. .. .. .. ; ,.. �. :., ... wi. :.. .'::: . - _ ` H e: v :l :� e e 'c 0" ro :otler�`c.o: r . . rIt' . . .. ._,.._... ... . ... s S ctb sr.,'. ...... �_. . . :.... ..,. . .. . in ofr erirar;t hey r:.sem.ces. : �,.ey seems:to:prefer::t iis: saor::n:t :rF: :" ;;;'I:'.`; ;:;; .;� 1. :. ' . ........... w t . . . T --C1.lIZLC .. .T ,.T. -tt S7c • y o ..r t ..i... s j O .. .. .. .. .. .. _ . . . . .. ... . . ... e C..y;,:�, t:r yo.�r:';assac ztio:� :wild' IiI.a E. -dAd iF!to:;aiscusp:;zur�►:plans;:yogis. .' . : . . . .. _ . :. :-., : , I%a- ens x.._r ir,.g`'.bf .:a!I .,.. ,tern..tat ra.rar , i}is i I�-s.. ;�,, . . c. -� P . .v P fi;=*-T,�»ise..r,:as Vin.:snr . . :... . . .. .,►;• .� ct:.Ii -O'•2X•:'.Ot ici'i?ial:SQi3' 1 TIGi f?I3 ,, � :::'t,�. ��,.. . . .V .-.'_rs.r.a.i t. . s ,:. .• ..'.,..-...:....,..:_:. s:: t t.at..I.1,,;'.. belt::? rut:c.;....field ,e e;I'.'fl -ar&;.� . ,:'i' ,„ .. ... ...:.... _ ::..,. .... ..:......,:.,.::..:. nr^e cient:::arr:tlic 6 Lr : I� lus. -o I•• •n -Ksrt I iI-,-.a ..1. -s � r� bled, c; Ee,.�:`::ti. t x:ust .f,, iso . IT;of `. `: . . . .. ..•:T .-n—:., r-L st1 1��1a.'..c 'v' � ^ a n*= +. .r: ::. "s; `t:: _,a:.....xl::: . .:.•.:l C-.,,, _ .cam... f::.c_ zI y..-r. . n.,r3ec T- Qan: Ue.�:t_ace�f:'ti;.:.VI . 1v r,=y��r�..:.7:.:. . . . . . . ..:: . s- .. C C 2I .. ... . . . . . CE . . :. .. . ... :& ..cZa.e.•-. _-a. ...T::.S,.�.^.fe.x ._aes ti ei 3v II �* ; ^r t. i s , r. es C Cu, a 'd' edfl.cifi ...`4�Lie' �Q:.:si .--...':.'.'-,.::•; �: ... .. . .. . , . . .. r.: �': . :c%rt.'ii-.t a.....,-:It .oi. ....•..-(. 6.'.. ,. Pf' Cnurse.:Nn) .p;or,r..aw: ..,b '.be,xt':f�c. �: sE �clxitiC;:or:: ......:- .',;,;- . . . . . . . . . ...- . .:. . . .. .. ... ... . . . . . .. . % ,.. rao• --:r-mi-ir:� .z s.' ,nrocracrw:w&uld lu,m to co 't'- u ., ;i:'. . .: . % .::: I.: p Y.. ..j::I.:. _... . .. .... .. n. e. ,cit, o2! ,,�Q,ra! ...,=i ed-at := . .- . . ...... . ... .. . •T- �y. .. .- i .. n. ..s..q ., .. .,-Y. a, ret oI. ..rsj�z�. ta.aare pc ;� c t,_. ;il�z�% r::on:Eettin ' ..1�.,•7:c..►5....,.. ..LC= .a0 'SC1.L`c3..•C. '1: P . .: iwldr.._ 'as .. .1� . : _ . - - _ . - , I: x.:. S-r.. .ti %.:�•::r: e;.i tJ s*i:7L• 5 .1, . .. i .f;.ti7•rzs ,. s ... s !8' .s..S':.:a'GC t:. to`: 2 Tt ti..4a .. .. . . .. . . m. _ -th :, ` ' �. ,� a. . . rrl: xv�rs .•.ra2r~,at I.xcC v:al�. t .7. .i. ..C.. - . .. .. % ... _ . - - .. .... .. :.. _ ... :. .. ,.. .. .. .:, _ I. .. - 11 .. r • e_ s. . .:;. . 1. - '';- . .: .. : .. . .. .. ..: ... .. .. . ..... . :- .. .. . . . .. .. . .. .. . .: . .. . .. .. . .� . .. .: .. . ... '� '�" .. .. .. .. ... .. . .. ...::. .. , .. . . .. . F3..rb�r a~►tf�t� TYl�sx�zrtt . . . '^ 57AI' . F� 'i tc. e�.s r.I.,:. .x . Zf . . .. . .. . . . . :: .. .. :-:. .. .. .. . ..:. .. .. :.. .. .. .. ...:.-'.. :': ...t .. .. .. _ .. - .... ... .. .:. .. r. i -.r d::;: .i .. tlai-._L•Zti. . . . . :. :': y : 1Y -t z . f� - rl.. 3 .. _ � or. a '_ b:.zin�.0 .- . . .. ro . Sat.:.. ,. --ne -s . .. . L' 3.« .tet.. . . ....., .. . .-` a .... :�f _ . . . ... t- '..9 52. . . r. L i7E•3 Fine.. Ilirec.tor .. .. . . .. . I . .. . .'... .. - af' ..z: . .:. . - 405: ?.47•-i . ..C'iF+�Oiirta'FF:4 D ,.: .•- .. t ) t .. ». e tb`. .gyp. -�::J :� . f. .. . . . .. .. . .. ' .. . . .. ... .. . . . . .. . . . . . . _ : .. .. .. :.t . ... .. .. - .. .. .-. .. - .. :. - . J . . . . ... . ; . .. . .':`. fa. 'r: ... . :...:::..... . .. .. . ... ... ...: .' _. .. % 'i t':. I ., .... Oan&z Memina=y Cliftic 23-M ORINDA WAY ORINDA. CALIF. 94563 PHI 254-0211 December 15, 1972 :;. 3arb�:ra Poppin Alameda ,;;:::::os•:i, C.-lifornia 94519 :jjxar Iirs. Poppin, The 'Uontra Costa County Veterinary Isiedical Association has been aware of uhe various developments involving 11spaylt clinics throughout the state-for a number of years. We have been aware of the Santa Clara situation and all that was in- volved from the .onset. The facts and figures presented con- cerning this clinic seem to vary widely depending on who is contacted. Thank you for your letter. We certainly agree that "an educational proj3ram aimed at the responsibility of pet owners" is needed. Sincerely, E. W. Gills, D.V..I,1. President, Contra Costa County Veterinary Medical Association E;::G.lh • R J . • ... 'Ire:ets . � ::. ';- &3 it les: �rrr""t; � .. .:. ACTION HELD UP 12 .11t11THSVO �,ow Cost' p T inic ostsUp S:-,r*.; Ciara Cmir:tv's f!�"low. "Suf by op^mc' on erate{i clinics.: TIMINEnse Mould stop:' be cost' $Pay Clinic isn't sm )n%V man ve An;n; e? Said. cost anymore after Cotmty`keep 10M. animaIc from"n.j Pa!n Alto ch.-trr nnh•' ttrs.:'t:iams-retorted supe;virnrs approved a rate being pa: to steep." saiu Su-ci:.aa for sparing dxts 2mj is a ttp:cal tactic of relei•e- increased, -per isor Dan McCorquodale. :cron-e ded Cruincl' J1JSpila!`nari9n associations all ace' 11 n x e v e r. the board de-" Dr. Jacobsen warned su-' 'fit:cities a big profit cn cats. ,he state." She alleged such'.. clared ne:+� rates cannot be:pervisors it would crit VoR-iaff etting any lass or,dog,&" jassociations "intimidate` Increased again during tht::0u'J for a cotiniv vetrrinarian S.;percisor SiG S a n c h e z their own members who par- next t2 months. and nrdered eerter, p;us another �i�A.a,1: 3d Jacobsen the board e•asit'cipate in low-cost clinics. j a ctudt• of the ��ihilit+ ;to $ OU. per year for staff-'..well aware" of Khat might Supervisors approved the' countv take rp 1 r.i 'ing. 't;�� i,vol+ed if the soiinty de- new rate after Dr. Charles; pops ation control ac iw•i wee- ' Mrs. Betty Adams of 1.05' • , _ Rasmussen, co-owner of the! cine. to overate its an` Utas Huts. rep:esenting liu-i- Crocker animbl hospital,said The county contr ct Stith �' asp•c-neuter clinic.I'Ie said a: A 13 mane Legislative Advocates:*• �- _- his facility could not continue. the Cracker 'Memorial Ani- ! reviewr during—term'_ of_th@I mal it n s p i t a 1, in effect ;cited much lower costs for'new contract �sth Cracker'to serve pet owners,at.the --- lower rice. since July. 1042. calls for �' I%U.AAU inc.tiw.e stud;_ccggt p However. the new rate' nein spkving rates of $25 Dr. J a c o It s e n MMIn does riot affect the rates o;' for doss Heiahin� up to 54 : cialiued spayclinics had MO for spaying female cats.' panndc. S" for dogs from • no effect an animal pnpula- Sts for neutering male dais 5t to l88 palmd and SAS tion control. -if yon7d en- and sln for neutering male: for dogs aei;hine more force leach laus. all this cats. than 1811 pound-4. Thr for- - mer rate Kae a fiat e28 for all female degs. Chairman Ra1nn Mchrkens - cungected the county consid- er '•!Erin,our •%%T. vets . . ... Dr. Carl Jacobsen. repre- sentint the veierinarians as- snciation of the county, con- tended ­spay clinics are not a solution.not even a help at animal population control." He said that last year M.- 000 animals were put to seep in the county.By contrast.lip said. the animal h o s p i t a l spayed and neutured only 3 9 animals. r M.. RIN1CT�TTY HU.XIATNE SOCIETY INCORPORATED HUMANE EDUCATION CENTER 171 BEL ',%IARIN KEYS BOULEVARD NOVATO, CALIFORNIA 94947 TELEPHONE: (415) 883-4621 OFFICERS ' JORDAN L. MARTINELLI. JR. PRESIDENT WALTER CASTRO. JR. VICE PRESIDENT HAROLD S. ELBERG TREASURER October 30, 1973 JOHN N. GILL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-SECRETARY DIRECTORS GEORGE W. BLACKWELL Mrs. Barbara Poppin, Chairman GARY SO:RO, D.D.S. Spay Clinic Study Committee R03ERT M. BRAHMAN.D.V.M. WILHELM F. BRAUiSCHWEIG, D.V.M. P.O. BOX 5261 MRS. WILLIAM J. CARTER Walnut Creek, California 94596 LAURENCE DERVIN LEIF W. EVENSEN BEN FARLATTI DAVID FR°iTAS O.L. "JACK" GREENS JAMES GROSSi PP Dear Mrs. PO In HORACE HILL ui MRS. RICHARD KEATING MRS. ARNE (EVELYN) KIONIG This is in response t0 your letter of October 27, 1973, EDWARD MORPHY MRS. CARL RIZNIK in which you have requested information concerning CARTER B. SMITH certain functions Of Our LOW Cost Spay and Neuter HONORARY VICE-PRESIDENTS Medical Center. I shall attempt to answer your I. M. BORDA questions as presented and in the order presented: MRS. STEWART BOSTWICK FREDERIC D. KERR MRS. H.E. LE BAS 1. Has your spay clinic been accepted by the public? CHARLES T. LUND MRS. EVELYN B. LEVY Are you always booked? MINTHORNE M.TOMPKIN$ Yes,es spay WILLIAM E. WASTE ANStJER , Olir p y clinic has received tremendous public support and approval, and we are always booked. HONORARY SECRETARY Currently, appointments are booked u until Januar of IN MEMORIAM y� PF P y MISS E.N. TOMPKINS 1974, and we could continue to book further into the future. The general public really appreciates this services, and the tax payer recognizes the need for expenditures for the same. The overpopulation problem is a social problem, and it must be attacked by public and private interest in a cooperative effort. _ 2. Will you be breaking -even by the end of the year in-your opinion? ANSWER: It is anticipated that we will be breaking even financiallly within six months after opening, and a small profit can then be expected thereafter. This minimum profit can then be applied towards debt service, and the purchase of new equipment. 3. Are people willing to travel a distance to get to the clinic? How far? ANSWER: Most definitely.- People- travel froth Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Sonoma County and San Francisco to have eq the animals a ymalsdsgI��df in our medical center. Gifts and bequests to is ocicl arc nc u T e or )Iconic an cs ate tax purpose. Membership Dues. Annual $10; Patron $20; Business Spon-ter $25; Life $100;Perpetual$250. - October 30, 1973 Mrs. Barbara Poppin Page two We do not require that pet owners be residents of Barin County in order to use our service, but we do give Marin County residents priority now, and this has effectively eliminated animals from out of County. Those public officials who are smart enough to see the need for such a service have defended low cost spay and neuter clinics in their respective areas, and these officials have received tremendous public support. The self serving nearsighte,4 veterinarian will lose in the end, and the humane minded, communit} oriented public. official will be elevated to new esteem in his community. 4. How do you advertise the availability of your clinic? ANSWER: No need to advertise. Why advertise when you have more business than you can handle. We do provide an information brouchure, but this is primarily for the pet owner. Please feel free to call or write any time if you need additional information. It is a real pleasure to meet dedicated. people such as yourself. Sincerely yours, John N. Gill P.S. Please excuse the typing. No secretary today.. . City of J, 10 Ito CALIFORNIA 94301 Animal Services Division 14 November 1973 Ms. Barbara Popp:n, Chairman SPAY of Contra Costa County P.O. Box 5261 Walnut Creek, Ca. 94596 Dear Ms. Poppin: Pursuant to yours of 1 November, I have outlined below our response to your questions as presented. 1. For the most part, surgery candidates are from the local (Peninsula) area; however, candidates have been accepted from San Francisco, San - • Rafael, San Leandro, Fremont and Newark. 2. Through utilization of the present fee schedule and based upon ten (10) . surgeries daily, the figure of $18.25 was determined as the average fee received per surgery (indicating an operating deficit of approximately $8.07 per surgical procedure). Inasmuch as the first year of opera- tion included the initiation of procedures and the purchase of equip- ment, resulting in a considerable time loss. It is believed that the current deficit will be overcome during the present fiscal year. 3. Currently the pre-surgical exam and surgery schedules are booked approximately one month in advance. Females which are pregnant or in heat are not accepted nor are those animals which may be considered poor surgical risks; the veterinarian may reject any animal which fits the afore-mentioned conditions. Applicants are not screened by resi- dence or ability to pay; candidates are accepted on a first-come, first-served basis. • page-2 4. A considerable amount of publicity was received while the clinic was in the planning stages. Additionally, a small informational brochure was made available and distributed to city facilities and humane or- ganizations. While no formal advertising media was approached, we are currently in the process of initiating a campaign for the area. If we can be of any further assistance in this matter please do.not hesi- tate to 'contact my office. .Sincerely, L1 J. $ Superintendent WJB:jsac r , peninsula humane ` November 21, 1973 society 1225 coyote , point drive son mateo California 94401 (415) 344-7643 directors Ms. Barbara Poppin cart william anderson Spay of Contra Costa County Louis r. goldsmith P O BOX 5261 ralph harris, {r. ooper Walnut Creek, California 94596 mrs. j.-a. bob I. hopper david h. keystan Dear Ms. Poppin: will-am h. knowles arthur a, loibly Please reference your letter of November 1 robert d. larobie to Mr. John Regan, Director of the Peninsula miss notolie m, lipmon g rodney f. neubert, d.v.m. Humane Society. Mr. Regan has asked me to john b. reid reply to your letter and I am enclosing our recent report to the San Mateo County Board manager and asst. secretary of Supervisors and our nine months' Operation a. russell turver Report of our Spay and Neuter Clinic. Also, enclosed is a copy of my letter of November 19 which may be of interest. With regard to the four questions posed in your letter, we are located in the center of the County and people travel from all areas of the County to reach us. in answer to your second question, our Spay and Neuter Clinic will be selfsupporting by the first of the year. The $2,962 deficit as of September .30 was not determined on an accrual method of accounting and if all current supplies had been accrued, we could have pre— sented a statement without a deficit. With regard to question three, it has been very well accepted and used by the general public. We currently have a one week waiting. - list for spaying and neutering. Obviously, the more highly motivated people have been our initial customers. We are publicizing our Clinic by sending information about it to everyone who purchases a license. You may have noticed our publicity on Channel 5 TV News programs at .6 O'clock and 11 o'clock on Monday evening, Nov— ember 19. a non-profit organization - member of the state humane association of colifornia and omericon humane association r • - 2 J Please call me or write if you have additional questions and please consider this an invitation to visit us at your earliest convenience so that we can show you our Clinic in operation and you can meet Dr. Shannon and her staff. very truly yours, Wynn Dahlgren Administrative Manager - WD:pt cc: J. Regan I znc-Losure 6 Have-11X'r 13, 3.973 Honorable Board of Supervisors K. D. Tamhes, CosntSr :ager SpaY-i;elit--r =I-dc Status Report and Review of- :nLma1 Cantiol Program This renarL is 3.n respcnse to year recent request on. this subject_ Mi he spay--neuter c2 4nie op-maned last Jaimary and has been in operation for 30 months. A 12-op :ttb budget a $94,990 uss appropriated to an estimated 3,220 say and neuter operations durLn, -calendar y�47. 1973. Cost and ti:orkload =-maries a - presented below: - 32 2.cnth 1973 Actual and EstLmated D?f 19.erence xre.»ditux-e$ $94..990 $3.10,240 $(15.,250) ?,myon le $44,990 $107,273 $ 12,283 2re bt over-eaenditure $ (2,962) V*orkl^.ad Spays 2,670 3,591 921 Wauters 550 2,13* 584 Total U;erations 3,220 42725 11505 The esti meted cver-a=enditure of $1.5,250 and est mated excess revenue of $=23280 is mainly dGe to a higher vol sae of spay-neuter operat-icns. A' small part of the ore--expenditsre is dce to oversrwnding f o: suppijes, a situation that has been brocght t;nder control. Included in tate estir:ated revenue figura of $107,278 is the one-tL)e county pay^ant all. $40,000 which covered iznitial startup costs. Me E=ana Society and this office expects the clinic to be, completely seZz-si aDortirxr by the end of 1973, and no additional county funds i)ill _ needed. P:rg4rding your questions about the effectiveness of the aniz-al control program, a spec--,al staff-level task force with representativefroo V.y orf ice, three cites, and the Peni-isul,a I:umane Society has been established . to review the prcgravi on a count,—wide basis. The task force has set Honorable Board of Supervisors --2— ?I&leriber 13, 1973 two objectives; 1) evaluate the existing animal control enforcement po3lcies and practices; and, 2) develop, xecofr endations to improve tete effectiveness of animal control in the county. The recommendations will first be reviewed by the San Isateo Counnty City Managers= Association. Tate results vrI1J. then be presented to your Board. I expect a report to be available in tva to four months. Respectfully submitted, M. D. MI MS ' attacbt cc: V4= Regan, Executive Director,,Peninsula Humane Society -. a o. � � .,-= . . .. � �i O a.�qJ ti G r Gam,. �•> ! - �i'1 .> % i u i "O''•— ...c�'1 '.G""+'CS tt�.~w+ v " POO :may c,C, Cof cs �.`n. w� d ga r3 Cc, to w ,/g1�/yW Q O c�,ate C2 V i- i est '-p v a` �•U a X34 (•��• kora t�A"� � " r r �O v e EP O • >fiV O_Ncc C3 C4 V!w C.•;,3 j M Nf C3 G C O r-+ V ` •> a3�o C >'cr3 .0+ 7 a p ti > C." f It:�'.•-O La C� c c c m ru' es� c: p �• uAz u w y,'�•3 cam+ s c o= Vol. u cc._ o '��. �.�-'� a w a ? csF•- � EE Wf .i y S: c3 V t0 �;['•:u O -O to s:. O t- i-..G .w.+r'�O CO p � �e►T O.'��-- N C p c3 `G ai F..`i•F C.+y C00 > F O{•" u G?aO+ . • D • .^�^ t.L =G C' U Y: rOy ,p p OG a •'°'�► 'coq u cs' c vup cs w G.1 w..f R• v • C 7 a �- d 1 1 Ag /MI • f/ ��. icJir.!ice' / r. %ijo rIIII ON IF mum,.+a. �/I// �/ y..� ,L�I_rl �� � .. � L ��L!►mss® i' 04, �� l4 yam/ •�L"�7•Y�1�7. �• /• '!.E, MIR UNDERCIGNIED CTTT/.FNS (IF CONTRA COST'. COUNTY SI!PPORT I'M CONCEPT OF A COUNTY OPERATRIT) IOW COST SPAY CI.IYTr. '.+E IIB^E OUR C(1I1NTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TC ALLOCATF: S50,00n (IF R-MEM11 R11ARM. PiOMM9 Tl) MULD ANn lit?11IP SITCH A CUM, NAME :' IRPSS DATE: �y \q7, l I - -1 nnLA 0-h l ` ` 3 s OD� Gar, i� b 17- J 6)i„ kux e kd r aclet xX T'OtW 6clt��e� 3��6��u� s,o,�„y er•, ,�� !tet= e� '�4s�4 ��1�{, •a e1 el - � ' �� ►�.- -� .�� ,�� �. �.� ����� 1, �' 7.3 v �?;-� L �cx run�o _crr.cr�+fE 14111 Nw ),, -73 iai PA �t. 6 44-'19 i/fes /z 7 RECEIVED DEC 5 1973 THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY olssom 1801 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. N.W. CLERK BOARD OF SUFEly WASHINGTON. D.C:. 20006 A Co. Rsr 17 OF cowlZA Y,4 !E CMWIMPT OF A COU-M-Y* tl ivi, THE r, -r )IDS* CaSTA COUn TPURVISORS TO ALLOCKL? OpERATED0, L A crt spAy cLINTICe WS UPGE 0138 CCUNrY BOARD 09 SL $50,000 OF REY,33-NUE "MATING MOVIES TO --- —0 ,06 FAME ADDRESS DATB 64 c/A ......... a�,omz S ci ?-r-t-t P,iz 0 iu jA.,LE Cr rt4,d ZU" W. T. PAASCH CLr-t,K BOARDOF SUPERVISORS CDr,4TRA COSTA CO. ILY Deputy L/ AR. 0. ASBOT SIC-NATURES COLLSICTED ay.: 22 SHER[ CT- 0 c- OANVILLE, CAL. 44526 9 �-hj Aow Cc - 4 1rXb��1- y U 4L'.. . •"'"�r � "� • Gtr' Z,�,c.•..�:� �. d574 zt. YhEvTHE UNDERSIGMED RESIDENTS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SUPPORT THE CONCEPT OF A COUNTY•- OpE7,,ATEDO L0W COST SPAY CLINIC. UE URGE OUR COUNTY BOARD OF SUPLRVISORS TO ALLOCATE $50.,000 OF Wv NJE SHARING FUNDS TU BUILD AND EQUIP SUCH A CLINIC, NAMB ADDRESS DATE ee ?-S-- /A d r' .f ors" `. �t �f rPrr 6 _ Z 2e ,�—& 2�&�Sle IIA .�t C r � c 4 73 is A . =� ` (4/73 r� SIG'NAT'URES COL LE;•:TBD By,, <a. e. Cf� .�n� r o -473 diptct 04 Ctt; t 2 1J73 IN. T. PAASCti CC:N MA CO:i".'A CO. t:ycunuty ,tpaisr'i.•t d �U�E�.cc-e.. �a�2�ti-c"-�•t y G a wr .01, '011'' UNDfIRSIGNIM CTTTlr 'G (IF CONTIZA COST" COUNTY SLIM 11 !!G CONCEPT (1F A ItOUNTY OPERATM) 1O'r COST Y CI.INTC. .,E 11R E OUR COUNTY ORD OF SUPERVISORS TO ALLOCATE $50,000 OF RIVEN11'7 SIIARTNr� MONIES TO 111JTLD AND F.'[UIP SUCIi A CLTNTC. NAME A117jP,1:S S DAT r 41.1 oc4JaQtjl_e 73 int" ;•'�Li� ' .'• c— �,AIL .� - .. . ✓ice- i �. 7-3 17z2 "L4_211 V20 6j 15 1 LL, 0" N Pl� „��i C T'TIi UN I'D CTTIl.I' `S O CONTRA COST' COUNTY Si!PPC}R ' 'E CONCEPT OF A COUI'TY OPERATiiT) 1OW COST Y CLINTC. I:�E IJR^T OUR COUNIT RD OF SUPERVISORS TO ALLOCATF. S50,00e CIF R7!VEN'I'? S11.•'NRTN- A!ONTES TI1 IlTJTI.I) AND HQUIP Silml A rLTNIC, NAME ?!DT)i2T:SS J)ATH YC� ell Z, 3 AD bLX v 5 - _ - ' ,��� t -17� G�b��. �-�, �o�.�►-,,-�.( ter' �-/ Li 15A&�e&zz ig �fU/T 4d J 8; L/I dr 4 do. t:, Tim IINMRSIGNI'D CTTT? ' 'c Or- CONTRA COST^. COUNTY SI!PPO! T!.'C CONCFPT OF A 'CODUTY OPERATED I Oi COST 1' CLIVT� 't7E IJR-^•E OUR C0 JNTY�+RD OF SUPERVISORS TO ALL')CATP S50,OOn c-IF RFVENtIF SHARTNr: A!ONI1?S TO RIJTLD ANn i::�IJIP STIMI A CLTNIC. NAME AD-'1RI'S S DA'fJ: r 7 9_ - ,3 4-11q P171ezz&-v 6m - 73 --P 75 ( ,- 1 o 0c)nen rd n-7• -1 13 f , ,,�fa, ,- -d4d;74�I PA 4 42ah rj 1 r'y a T7- 1 ', WE,..THB UNDERSIt BU-CITZ*IC. OF CO,YYRA COSTA COUNTY SUPPwalB CaNCSPT OF A COUNTY- 44/ OUNTY- 44V OPERATED, LOW COST SPAY WE URGE OUR COUNTY BOARD OF SUpERVISORS 70 ALLOCAIB .$500000 OF REVENUE SHARING MONIES TO BUILD AND EQUIP SUCH A CLINIC Tom J. Yenawr 579 hlorning Home Rd. l:<�✓ Danville, Calif. 94526 ADDRBSS DArg `�LC tit use ✓�tL.;Lt� � �v, 15 7,3 Ile v-1 j " l��, Aq/,6 -73 q-v•- ( _ y 9/,C/--7 _ • V l • V .�. ` G i SIGHAT'URES COLLECTED By: / •� v-�±t����'✓✓ j�� "iG7-rwi.��o -/ .�� %u�ULil 7 � r WBv THE UNDERSIGN£sD`CITIZBNS 4F CONTRA COSTA COUM SUPPORT 7H8 CONCEPT OF A COUNTY OPERATED, LOIS COST SPAY CLINIC. WE URGE OUR COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO ALLOCATE $500000 OF REVENUE SHARING MONIES TO BUILD AND EQUIP SUCH A CLINIC. ADDRESS DATE p f �- . 73 v 'z -, r f f 1-16-411AZI1 If I .�. .3,Ro 17dl& nl ? r j / 7V 61 9 - r 9--7.3 ol cr le SYMATURES\f COLLECTED BY: n� , iA 1 ; A � ':i c/o M. Gills '-� ----- J Post Office Box 4959 Walnut Creek, California 19 September, 1973 Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County Post Office Box 911 Martinez, California 94553 Gentlemen: We want to commend SPAY for their concern for the pet population situation in Contra Costa County. We, too, share this concern. However, we feel that the following points should be presented for your consideration. Since SPAY feels that a spaying facility is necessary for the County, we would strongly urge them to utilize the $10, 000 in the Spay Fund to establish such a facility. SPAY maintains that such an operation would be self-supporting. If this is so, we fail to see why SPAY is appealing to the County Board of Supervisors for an additional $50, 000 to build a permanent facility. With the $10, 000 presently in the fund, it is well within their means to lease a building and establish a trial facility, without commiting county funds to building an operation which could easily become_ a_tax_ burden. We feel that the Board of Supervisors should take into strong consideration the facts that the spay clinic which was co- sponsored by the Southern California Veterinary Medical Associa- tion and Love Unlimited (which operated in the Los Angeles area) has discontinued operation due to lack of public response. Also, information_ gathered by a cost accountant for the San Diego County Spay Committee reveals higher costs than originally reported and presently used by many (including the local SPAY group) , to operate the Los Angeles City Spay Clinic. Continued. . . . . Lin r , Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County 19 September, 1973 Page Two We feel that if at some time in the future the Board of Super- visors should reconsider the possibility of a tax supported County "low cost" spay clinic, all available cost data on existing or discontinued spay clinics should be made available to Mr. McBrion, County Administrator, for the purpose of an impartial, reliable analysis. Yours truly, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONSIBLE PET OWNERS IP J � S. J. Johnson Secretary GRP:sj CC: Contra Costa Times Oakland Tribune Richmond Independent t 3688 Mosswood Dr. Lafayette, Ca, Sept. 27, 1973 County Board of Supervisors P.O. Box 911 Martinez, Ca. Sirs: I strongly urge you to allocate 1509000 of the revenue sharing funds to be used for the establishment of a low cost Spay Clinic. This allocation now will be well spent; saving the tax payer many a dollar in the long run. As it is now the pet owner must spend from twenty five to fifty dollars for the alteration of a pet; which in many cases would be prohibitive, due to this expence. Have you ever taken the time to visit your local Humane Society and view the actual killings of pets? Do so and I can tell you, it is not a sight easily forgotton. Sincerely Fir. & Yrs. Paul P. Payne -y r C. : ,:L 101.T. PaAS7v { n r PK`:`C.,=.0 Or SUPERV sC.�3 .OZTA CO. �+ w September 18, 1973 notes for the file. Supervisor Moriarty states that he was still getting letters requesting support for the spay clinic from revenue sharing funds . Supervisor Boggess advised him that the Administration and Finance Committee had submitted a split recommendation to the Board --- that he had recommended allocation of such funds for the spay clinic, that Supervisor Linscheid recommended against it and that the matter was voted down 3 to 1. Supervisor Linscheid stated that at that time it had also been recommended that the Spay Committee continue to pursue an alternate --- that is to interest private veterinarians to introduce low cost spaying services and that if that was not accomplished within a reasonable time, 3 or 4 months probably, after the first of the year the matter should be placed on the June ballot . NO ORDER 'IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Denying Allocation ) of Federal Revenue' Sharing Funds ) for Construction of Animal Spay ) Thursday , August . 30,, 1.973 Clinic. } This being the 'time. fired for continued hearing-on. theproposed' County Budget for Discal year -1973. 1974', the Administration and Finance Committee (Supervisors W. N. Boggess and" E. 'A. Linscheid) having submitted" its "written recommendations on* the:-_proposed budget on Tuesday, August 28, 1973; and Mrs . Barbara Poppins, representing SPAY Lof Contra Costa' County:,. having appeared,:and urged that - .$50,000 `of revenuersharing monies be allocated _for construction of a -county -Animal Spay Clinic-; and. Mrs . Miriam Wilkins, representing the Society for the= Pr.evention of. Cruelty to ` Animals-- f` Contra Costa _County, and" Mrs .., Nancy Cole, President of SPAY, `having appeared in support .of said request; and Mrs. Marjorie 'Gills (wife of a veterinarian) having;'appeared ` in, opposition to the,-_proposal; and ' Supervisor Linscheid having indicated that:_.the ,committee. members had been unable ,to `agree on' the proposal that $50,OA0 in federal ' revenue sharing funds be allocated for construction. of an..Animate Spay Clinic, and :having recommended that said allocation be- denied. at this time and .the question be put on he'ballot for determination:,' by the voters of this count Y; and Supervisor Boggess having stated that there is a need for County. Animal' Spay: Clinic; that the proposed:*allocation for this facility represents` `only 003 of the total amount: of: "federal revenue sharing funds. available 'to the county,, and that .it is his; recommendation 'thatthe allocation be approved; and Supervisor A. M. Dias having stated that in his 'opinion: the. Board of Supervisors should consider, ,as an _alternative;. ;placinc* <; this proposal on ".the ballot and having recommended that the proposed allocation be removed from the budget at this time and'the money, placed in the Federal Revenue Sharing Fund-Reserve for Contingencies.;. and . On motion of a3 pervisor J. P. Kenny, seconded,: by- Supervisor Linscheid, 'IT IS BY `THE ;BOARD ORDERED thatthe: recommendation' of Supervis= Dias is APPROVED. -The foregoing order 'was passed by the following vote AYES : . Supt�rvisors J . P. Kenny, E A. Linscheid, A. Y Dias. NOES:. Supervisor W. N. Boggess . ABSENT: Supervisor. J. E. Moriarty. CER�' = COPY I certify that.this is a full, time &-correct oy of cc : Ms Poppins the o axinai"document w.aici,'is on file in my office, Agricultural .Commissioner and that it was passed F: a::oated by the Board of Auditor-Controller Supercisotls'of Contra: Com County. California, on County Registrar. . ti:e date shovni. A7r EISi: �;t_ T. P_u =S L county yclerk S ex-officio c:e 11 a s id Eo:sd of Supervisors, County `Administrator by deputy clerk. 7xA 3v op 1 ? ' jw� [RECEIVED AUS 231973 " W. T. PAASCH j 4 �I vLCAKp ARDN TIRA F SUPERVISORS ✓ / 117 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT #'r 11500 SKYLINE BOULEVARD/OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94619/TELEPHONE (415) 531-9300 BOARD OF DIRECTORS: MARLIN W. HALEY. Resident: HOWARD L. COGSWELL. Vice Resident: FRED C. BLUMBERG. Sectetmy PAUL J. BADGER.Tiessmel: MARY LEE JEFFERDS, JOHN J. LEAVITT, CLYDE R. WOOLRIDGE 0 RICHARD C.TRUOEAU,Genual Manager August 22 1973 i �� "`'� V { i VV. T. P A A S C H t-�ARD OF SUPERVISCRS �pvTRA COSTA CO. Deputy Mrs. Jerry K. Grigg 3448 Dormer Avenue Concord, California 94519 Dear Mrs. Grigg, Per your recent telephone request, enclosed is a copy of the Resolution of our Board of Directors endorsing your program, SPAY. As you will note, our Board of Directors gave their unanimous endorsement for your program. If we can be of further assistance, please let us know. Very truly yours, Harold R. Luhtala HRL:JEC Encls. cc:. Contra Costa Bd.of SupervisorsV EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT RESOLUTION No. 4281 Apri 1 17, 1973 APPROVAL OF ENDORSING SPAY (STOP PETS ANNUAL YIELD) LEGISLATION WHEREAS, the East Bay Regional Park District has experienced continuing difficulties in managing its lands in respect to the problems resulting from the increasing numbers of feral dogs and domestic cats; and WHEREAS, such bands of dogs and cats have in the past harassed and killed cattle and wildlife in the regional parks and constitute a source for potential spread of rabies; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District does hereby endorse the proposed establishment of the Contra Costa County Spay Clinic (STOP PETS ANNUAL YIELD) as one positive means of assuring that fewer unwanted pets will then be available as a source of wild stock resulting from the abandonment of such unwanted pets within the lands owned or operated by the Park District; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Manager is directed to convey this rr?solution to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors urging them to support this program and any other practical efforts or legislation that will help minimize or hopefully eliminate the serious problems that exist within the county from the production of unwanted pets. ADOPTED this 17th day of April, 1973, by the following vote: FOR: Directors Paul J. Badger, Fred C. Blumberg, Howard L. Cogswell, Mary Lee Jefferds, John J. Leavitt and Clyde R. Woolridge. AGAINST: Directors none. ABSENT: Director Marlin W. Haley. CERTIFICATION I, Harold R. Lulitala, Secretary to the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is n Full, true and correct copy of Resolution No. 4281 adopted by the Board of Directors at a regular meeting held on April 17, 1973. 4 r r� FJUN973 27 1 W. T., P AIA$c CLCAK GOARa a� S'jpcoViiOM A C09TAGON R r 17eaJL S-iJl/� 1JQ[LLd tyou ¢ent Le ueJut caILPtfL(4 co"tde& a 4 pati clinic wh ich wo u.Ld be .Low-co4.t. 9.t 4 .the humane thAng .to do anal 4omR thAAg muu4t be done .to cut. doom. the an mU (awanted) populati-oa. Thank pu. Szw-elte4l RECEIVED If 73 J"w-0 . T. P ,1 A S C H CLERK .WARF SUPERVISORS OSTA C By _ - — - ePuty .co Q 1 In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California June 12 , 19 73 In the Matter of Request from Rossmoor K-9 Club for Allocation of funds for a Spay Clinic . This Board on May 29, 1973 having referred to its Admin- istration and Finance Committee (Supervisors W. N. Boggess and E. A. Linscheid) a request from Mr. H. S. Mays, Vice President, Rossmoor K-9 Club, that $50,000 be allocated for a spay clinic; an d Said committee having submitted a report to the Board dated June 6, 1973 in which it is noted that Supervisor Boggess has replied to Mr. nays informing him that a presentation was made at one of the Board revenue sharing hearings supporting the financing of the construction of a spay clinic with revenue sharing monies and that the matter will be reviewed by the Admin- istration and Finance Committee during the normal budget process along with other requests for revenue sharing support; NOW, THEREFORE, on motion of Supervisor Boggess, seconded by Supervisor J. E. Moriarty, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that aforesaid matter is removed from the list of referrals to the Administration and Finance Committee . The foregoing order was passed by the following vote of the Board: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, J. E. Moriarty, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, A. M. Dias. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc: Agricultural Commissioner Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of County Administrator Supervisors affixed this 12th day of June , 19 73 W. T. PAASCH, Clerk By Deputy Clerk Elsie Fig V, H 24 7/72-15M ,► � WARREN N. BOGGESS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SUPERVISOR FOURTH DISTRICT is 2700 CONCORD AVENUE, CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 44520 • 587-6400 r'4 UCEIVE TUNE 61 1973 %fir / 7,' . T. PAASCH F. O OF Sl1P VISORS REPORT EA COST , Y Deputy OF 1973 AI9INISTRATION & FINANCE COMMITTEE ON LETTER AND RELATED MATERIAL FROM ROSSMOOR g-9 CLUB REQUESTING ALLOCATION FOR A SPAY CLINIC. The letter received from H. S. Mays, Vice--President of the Rossmoor K-9 Club requesting the allocation of revenue sharing funds for the construc- tion of a spay clinic has been replied to, copy attached. This matter should now be removed from Committee. Warren N. Boggess, Supervisor Edmund A. Linscheid, Supervisor District Four District Five £,WARREN N.BOGGESS ' b CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SUPERVISOR FOURTH DISTRICT 2700 CONCORD AVENUE. CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 94520 • 687-6900 4;R June 6, 1973 H. S. Mays, Vice President Rossmoor K-9 Club 2409 Pine Knoll, ##2 , Walnut Creek, California 94595 Dear Mrs. Mays: The letter which you recently forwarded to the Board of Supervisors recommending revenue sharing funds for the construction of a spay clinic has been referred to the Administration and Finance Committee, of which I am chairman. The Board has had many other inquiries along these lines, and, in fact, a presentation was made at one of our revenue sharing hearings supporting the financing of the construction of a spay clinic with revenue sharing monies. This matter is now in our Committee and will be reviewed during the normal budget process along with the multitude of other requests for revenue sharing support. Thank you for your interest. Very truly yours, Warren N. Boggess, Supervisor Fourth District, Contra Costa County Chairman, Administration and Finance Conmittee WM:dcg Y' CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Inter- Office Memo Date: );7 29: 1973 To: Administration and Finance Committee From: (Supervisors W. N. Boggess and E. A. Linscheid) Chief Clerk of the Board Subject The Hoard today referred to you letter and related material from Rossmoor K.9 Club requesting allocation for a spay clinic . lk attachments I I In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California May 29 19 73 In the Matter of Letter from Rossmoor K-9 Club requesting allocation for a spay clinic . A letter and related material having been received from Mr . H. S. Mays, Vice President, Rossmoor K-9 Club, 2409 Pine Knoll #2, Walnut Creek, California requesting that $50,000 be allocated for a spay clinic; and On motion of Supervisor W. N. Boggess, seconded by Supervisor J. P. Kenny, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that said letter and related material are REFERRED to its Administration and Finance Committee (Supervisor Boggess and Supervisor E. A. Linscheid ) . The foregoing order was passed by the following vote : AYES : Supervisors J. P. Kenny, J. E. Moriarty, W. N. Boggess , E. A. Linscheid, A. M. Dias. NOES: None . ABSENT: None . I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. c c: Mr. Mays Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Board Committee Supervisors Agricultural Com. affixed this 29th day of Igny , 19 Z3-- Administrator �j W. T. PAASCH, Clerk Byj�u� -�-EL+° Deputy Clerk Lourette Kincaid H 24 7/72-15M ROSSMOOR K-9 40B, H. S. Mays, Vice President• Rossmoor Residents Association 2409 Pine Knoll A �cK boxBo Walnut Creek, California 94595 may 14, 1973 E L EI� To Every Supervisor MA73 Court Souse fi W. T. C H Martinez, California 95443 CLERK DOAERVISORS } CO TCO.Gentlemens °j' �' ' -- � We unanimously voted to ask that Fifty Thousand Dollars (1}0,000) be allotted for a spay clinic to protect our animals as much as we possibly can. Your help in this important .cork will be appreciated Sincerely ROSSMOOR K-9 CLUB H. S. Mays �. VICE PRESIDENT C01fiADVANCE Dedicated to serving Rossmoor Residents SOCIETY FOR ANIMAL PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION P. O. Box 3719 Georgetown Station RjCEj RDWashington. 0. C. 20007 MAY 1 `j 1973 W. T. PAASCH CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CON A COSTA CO. OY ......A Deputy The Society for Animal Protective Legislation was founded at the time of the introduction of the first federal bill to require humane slaughter of food animals. At this time humane organizations had had little success in obtaining needed federal legislation. Because so many organizations spent most of their efforts in caring for lost and strayed animals, they did not have time to work for needed legislation, and those which had enough personnel and funds to do so were concerned about losing their tax exempt status if they did too much work on legis- lation. United States law on this subject specifies that an organiza- tion may not retain such status if it spends a "substantial" amount of its funds on lobbying. The Society for Animal Protective Legislation is registered under the Federal Lobbying Act. All of its efforts are devoted to enactment of needed legislation to protect animals. After its founding in 1955 it worked intensively for enactment of the Federal Humane Slaughter Act enacted in 1958. It next worked for the Wild Horse Act passed in 1959. It then devoted its efforts to legislation for laboratory animal welfare and the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act passed in 1966. In 1968 it worked to obtain passage of the Endangered Species Bill, and this was enacted into law in 1969. In 1969 and 1970 it worked for enactment of a measure to prohibit soring of Tennessee Walking Horses for show purposes. This bill was passed by the United States Senate December 18, 19699 by the House of Representatives on November 16, 19700 and was signed into law on November 24, 1970. The Society devoted most of its efforts during 1970 to work to obtain enactment of legislation to extend the protection of the Labora- tory Animal Welfare Act to all species of warm-blooded animals throughout their stay in the laboratory and in the wholesale pet trade and exhibi- tion trade as well. The Animal Welfare Act was passed unanimously by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President, December 24, 1970. In 1971 the Society worked successfully for enactment of a law to provide a criminal penalty for shooting of animals and birds from air- craft. It supported a second law to protect wild horses. It devoted great effort to passage of Resolutions by the Senate and House of Repre- sentatives requesting the Secretary of State to call for a ten-year international moratorium on commercial whaling. As a result of the unanimous adoption of these Resolutions the United States delegation to the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment, June, 19721 proposed the ten-year moratorium, and it was adopted by a vote of 53-0, thus putting world opinion on the side of the whales. (OVER) Irr 1972 the Zociety worked for two laws, one Resolution and two amendments, as follows: 1) The Marine Mammal Protection Act, (enacted by Congress, signed by the President October 212 1972); 2) Prohibition of Poisoning of Predators on the Public Lands (passed by the House of Repre- sentatives .but not by the Senate; 3) an amendment broadening and strengthen- ing the:Endangered Species Act (did not pass) ; 4) an amendment giving the Department of the Interior power to enforce P.L. 92-159 providing a criminal penalty-=-for shooting at animals frau aircraft (passed, signed, regulations went into effect December 21, 1972); 5) Resolutions in House and Senate for international protection of polar bears. Each house adopted its own Resolution. Efforts to obtain enactment of strengthening amendments to existing Endangered Species legislation and against the poisoning of predators will be continued by the Society, and restriction of the cruel leg-hold trap will be sought in 1973. The organization prepares information for use by members of Congress and their staffs. It sends information to individuals interested in ani- mal protective legislation and maintains a mailing list to receive circu- lar letters informing them of ways in which they may help principally by writing letters to members of Congress or other government officials and to the editors of newspapers. Of the existing federal laws to protect animals, nine were passed since the founding of the Society for Animal Protective Legislation and, to a large extent, because of the organization's work to obtain their enactment. The two previously enacted laws are the "28-hour law" protect- ing livestock shipped by rail and a law authorizing the U.S. Customs to prosecute shippers of animals if they fail to maintain reasonable humane standards . These laws were passed in 1906 and 1948 respectively. These dates and the long period between them demonstrate a most serious lack of legislative work till the Society for Animal Protective Legislation was founded. I SOCIETY FOR ANIMAL PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION GeorgOet own S of on RECEIVED Washington, D. C. 20007 MAY 171973 April 18 1973 W T. PAASCH p , CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CON RA COST CO. By Dowy To Humanitarians: Thankou for writing in support of the Executive Order banning cruel p—o�song of coyotes and other creatures by the federal govern- ment. The ban has stood, despite arduous efforts by the woolgrowers to have it rescinded. But now these same men have turned their efforts to defeating, delaying, or crippling the pending bills which would give permanence in the years to come to the Executive Order. YOUR HELP IS NEEDED NOW TO URGE FAVORABLE COMMITTEE ACTION IN BOTH THE HOUSE OF s?EPRESEMATIVES-I ND THE-SENATE for a strong bill- against-the--agonizingly cruel methods the sheepmen still want to use to kill carnivorous animals. Hearings have recently been held in both the House and the Senate on the bills. In the House, nine different bills on predator damage . control are pending, and action by Congressmen Dingell's Subcommittee is expected soon, so. please write to as many members as you can, begin- ning with Congressman Dingell and Congressman Goodling, the ranking Republican member, asking them to report a bill permanently and absolute- ly banning the use of the fiendishly torturing poisons 1080, strychnine, and thallium. Tell them that if the federal or state government ever finds an extreme emergency situation in which, after thorough review, they decide poison has temporarily to be used, this must be limited to one that kills nearly instantly like cyanide, or to one which makes an animal drowsy like a sleeping pill. This is an important point because all of the pending bills make various types of provision for "emergency use" of poison, and humanitarians must make certain that the long-drawn- out agony of most of the currently existing poisons never returns, emergency or no emergency. None of the predator damage control bills makes any reference to the control of trapping, although methods have been developed to out down enormously on --the pain and--fear felt by trapped carnivores, ---Humanitarians should demand that traps used for predator damage control be equ ppe nth—Paged, offset jaws so the animal is not tortured by the painful grip of the unmodTH-U-steel jaws, and 2) with trap uilizer tabs so that when he bites at the trap to try to free him sel , he sx ows a potent sleep-inducing drug. These methods should be compulsory until developments, now under study, succeed in making both poisoning and trap- ping unnecessary in protecting sheep and other livestock from predators. All the pending bills would repeal the bad 1931 law which directs the federal government to "eradicate" predators. It is this law which was responsible for the development of the multimillion dollar mass government poisoning on our public lands which the Executive Order cut off last year. Repeal of the 1931 Act is essential. The sheep en do not want this law repealed. They do not want any of the pending predator damage bills to be passed. They have hired lobbyists to delay or defeat the legislation. YOUR LETTERS AND THOSE OF HUMANE FRIENDS, RELATIVES, AND NEIGHBORS CAN HELP BRING HOME TO EVERY CONGRESSMAN AND SENATOR HOW GOOD ! �F� w. 94 A •w S • ,� "� -. theme } k ., b� Robert µ � y photo a t Yo el mass 1itt�"a the c� ate• and � at ene a y to i�st pea1�vK eoie� h srof aap thes o prog� p CITIZENS FEEL ABOUT THIS CRUELTY. PLEASE WRITE TODAY TO YOUR OWN CON- GRESSMAN (If you do not know your Congressman s. nate, a call to your local library, newspaper, or political club will provide it) AND SENATORS (A list of Senators is available on request) AND TO THE FOLLOW- ING COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Conservation and the Environment of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee Democrats Republi cans Hon. John D. Dingell, Chairman (Mich. ) Hon. George A. Goodling (Pa. ) Hon. Paul G. Rogers (Fla. ) Hon. Paul N. McCloskey, Jr. (Ca. ) Hon. Robert L. Le ett (Ca. ) Hon. William S. Mailliard (Ca. ) Hon. Mario BiaggigN.Y. ) Hon. Philip E. Ruppe (Mich. ) Hon. Glenn M. Anderson (Ca. ) Hon. Edwin B. Forsythe (N.J. ) Hon. Eligio de la Garza (Tex. ) Hon. Robert H. Steele (Conn. ) Hon. Peter N. Kyros (Me. ) Hon. William 0. Mills (Md. ) Hon.. _Ralph_H. Metcalfe (Ill. )_.- Hon.--Pierre__S.- du--Pont--(Del.}----- Hon. John B. Breaux (La. ) Hon. William S. Cohen (Me. ) Hon. Fred B. Rooney (Pa. ) Hon. Joel Pritchard (Wash. ) Hon. Bob Eckhardt (Tex. ) Hon. Gerry E. Studds (Mass. ) Hon. David R. Bowen (Miss. ) .,ALL CONGRESSMEN MAY BE ADDRESSED: HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D:C. 20515) Subcommittee on the Environment of the Senate Commerce Committee Democrats Republicans Sen. Philip A. Hart, Chairman (Mich. ) Sen. Marlow W. Cook (Ky. ) Sen. Frank E. Moss (Utah) Sen. Howard H. Baker, Jr. (Tenn. ) Sen. John 0. Pastore (R.I. ) Sen. James B. Pearson (Kans. ) Sen. Russell B. Long (La ) Sen. John V. Tunny (Ca. ! Sen.. Adlai E. Stevenson, III (Ill. ) ALL SENATORS MAY BE ADDRESSED: SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510) -Senator 'Adlkr''Stevenson, III chaired the Senate hearings, asking-. many penetrating questions. Be sure to write a thoughtful letter to him, expressing appreciation for his concern. Tell him and the other Subcommittee members that of the pending Senate bills, you prefer S. 819 introduced by Senator Birch Bayh (D. , Ind. ), but be sure to include requests for the additional provisions on trapping as noted above. Senator Bayh is preparing a separate bill to prevent cruel trapping of all kinds of animals, and we will keep you informed about this, too. But the Predator Damage Control Bill should include the points mentioned earlier. Ir you Want more information, we have a limited number of copies of the testimony submitted at the hearings by the Society for Animal Pro- tective Legislation, and will be glad to send one on request as long as they last. Endangered S ecies. Great progress has been made, since we last wrote you, or animals threatened with extinction. A 92-nation pleni- potentiary conference was held February 12 to March 3 in the main con- ference hall of the State Department. It was a great encouragement to see representatives of so many nations devoting such arduous efforts to working out the 25-article treaty which lists 375 seriously endangered kinds of animals (noA be permitted in cos3nercle trading after the treaty is ratified) and 239 creatures whose status is not quite as desperate but require protection through careful regulation of any trade. In all cases, it is required that animals be handled so as to "minimize the risk of injury, damage to health or cruel treatment. " This is the first international agreement to include anti-cruelty provisions. We hope the United States may be the first nation to ratify the treaty which is now pending in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Additions need to be made to our Endangered Species laws in con- formance with the treaty. Further, as you will recall from the last Con- gressional sessions we hope to strengthen these laws, giving the Department of the Interior power to enforce them more fully. It should be a federal crime to kill an endangered species in our country. Species that are threatened with extinction in a significant part of their range ought not be excluded from the list because they are not endangered "worldwide" as the existing law provides, and they should be listed if they are likely within the foreseeable future to be threatened with extinction. These and other strengthening amendments should be passed. However, there is a very serious issue which has not been resolved: that of authority to list endangered species. IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR CONTINUE TO MAKE THE DECISIONS ON LISTING ENDANGERED SPECIES. THIS AUTHOR- ITY SHOULD NOT BE DIVIDED WITH THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE WITH RESPECT TO MARINE SPECIES. The proposal to divide authority is dangerous to the great whales, still being massively exploited by Japan and Russia who cruelly kill with explosive harpoons tens of thousands of whales every year. The United States kills no whales and imports no whale products since all the conwercially exploited whales were placed on the Endangered Species List by then Secretary of the Interior Walter Hickel. When you write to Congressman Dingell, Congressman doodling and other members of the Subcommittee given earlier in this letter, please urge them to report favorably on a strong Endangered Species Bill and ke_e� authorit for liendangered species with the Secretary of a Interior where it belongs. Again, thanks for writing to Washington. Your sincerely expressed letters asking protection for animals are invaluable in the fight to stop cruelty through legislation. Without many, many letters from con- cerned citizens it would be impossible ,for animal protective legislation to be passed. If you can possibly help the Society for Animal Protective Legislation pay duplicating, mailing, and clerical expenses at this time, we will be most deeply grateful. Our bank account is too low even to pay the bill for the mailing that you are reading at this moment. The animals in need of protection depend on you. Won't you please send what you can afford to help us keep these circular letters coming to humanitarians throughout the country? Sincerely, Madeleine Bemelmans, President Christine Stevens, Secretary P.S. Especially for those of you who have not been receiving our mailings for long, we are enclosing a sheet summarizing the work of the Society for Animal Protective Legislation since its founding, listing the bills we have worked on that have been passed. Please keep the help coming for the millions of animals in need of better protection by lawt �s ttORS fyS V 2 n f{ O y !j i MEMO v 4COjuao Mv`�y� 5/22/73 DATE The Honorable Board of Supervisors TO Mr. Arthur Seeley FROM George Cardinet SUBJECT The enclosed response to Dr. Faulkner's talk I thought would be of interest. FOR YOUR INFORMATION MAY 2 51373 � W. T. PAASCH C<.=RK QOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONT A COSTO A C . ar ._ Deputy - RECEIVED OPTICS OF THE DIRECTOR 9W TAW MAY 2 51973 - W. T. PAASCH - F CLERK 0OAR0.OF SUPERVISORS ONTRA COSTA CO. ... STATS OF CALIFORNIA Cy Deyatp of V61ir 2131 BERKELEY WAY BERKELEY.CALIFORNIA 44704 May 22, 1973 Mr. George H. Cardinet, Jr. FX. .Box. 5271ry Concord, California 9452 �... Dear Iir. Cardinet: Govereor Rea>zan has as me to re o your letter cone the so-called "Pet Population.Explosion" and the need for research on a chemical means of birth control for dogs and cats. I have reviewed Dr: Floyd C. Faulknerls paper "What Are We Doing About the Pet Population.. blew?" enclosed with your letter. Dr. Faulkner1s views on. - - -; , the vroblem, thelimitations of sur ne e g as a means of resolving the -pet-reproduction on a mass program basis, and the desirability of an _ injectable product-,-to limit conception,: coincide closely with-opinion held_ bs the veterinar-r"staff of this Department. We also feel that no one sim- plistic method or.:product, will resolve the problem for it appears clear to us that. resolution will only come through application of a combination of measures and methods. Dr. Faulkner's comment that we must '!...educate and -- develop a concerned and responsible society and....improve animal. control �n 3 programs" are facets which cannot be ignored.. Veterinary staff 6f. this Department is, convinced that a suitable product of the type being..developed by Dr.' Faulkner can play a key role in pet animal pop2ation control:, Suitable-injectable:product(s) capable of preventing conception for a one to two or more year period in dogs, for example, could p be applied in conjunction with public law cost rabies vaccination clinics as a requisite to licensing and in. combination with incentive license fees for animals receiving such antifertility"products. Veterinary staff of this Department is aware and have been keenly following - the progress of research work being done b1 Dr. Faulkher in the above area. rn Irregardless of hooptimistic the ultiamte"outcome of Dr. Faulkner l s and other research in the area appear, the commercial availability,of such prod- ucts is not eminent and can be expected to be several years away at best. It will be necessary to carry outfield trial use, for example, in several generations of animals before federal licensing can be expected. Mr. George H. Cardinet, Jr. - 2 - May 22, 1973 Veterinary staff of this Department have previously offered cooperation in conjunction with the California Veterinary Medical. Association to arrange for field trial application of any such product receiving a limited license from the Federal Food and Drug Administration for field trial use in a suitable area of the State. We feel that suitable field trial application in a local area or areas within California is feasible and could be developed in cooper- ation with local animal control (licensing) agencies and the veterinary profession. The fact that several aroas are in parocws of applying computer technology to their animal control programs possibly would facilitate field trial use of an antifertility product. The above discussions with the California Veterinary Medical Association have an�ssed inclusion of such a field tr;._al staff under the existing machinerr.of�the Alameda-Contra Costa Animal.. Neoplasm Registry (formerly within this Department)-which-is presently being opusted by the School of _ - Veterinary Medicine, Universit of Cal i-fornia, Davis- The avisThe latter type participation on the party of State agencies can be more easily facilitated than can direct sus ,-3 dization of actual research where necessary contracts binding upon both rho State and the researcher must be effected. . At air time, that Dr. F'anikii i is ready- to,enter into field trial studies in _ California-using`any.'of-the products ago-is working spar,, staff of this Depart-- meat stand ready_to cooperate and facilitate their iapl.emeatation to the beat of our abilit =Sincerely, Frederick B. Hodgen, M.D. Director of Public Health C i, L! In the Board of Supervisors r OT Contra Costa County, State of California May 8 .1973 - In 973in the Matter of Request for Endorsement of Assembly Bill 1056. This Board having received letters dated April 30, 1973 and May 1, 1973 from Mrs. Bettie Adams, Legislative Chairman, Peninsula Animal Welfare Society, Inc. , Palo Alto, California and from Ms. Bette J. Phipps, Legislative Analyst, Humane Legislation Advocates, Los Altos, California requesting endorsement of Assembly Bill 1056 which will provide funds to counties for the establishment of low-cost public spay/neuter clinics; and On motion of Supervisor E. A. Linscheid, seconded by Supervisor W. N. Boggess, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that said letters are REFERRED to the County Agricultural Commissioner. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote of the Board: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, J. E. - Moriarty, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, A. M. Dias. NOES: None, ABSENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc• Mrs. Bettie Adams " Witness my hand and the Sea( of the Board of Ms. Bette J. Phipps Supervisors County Agricultural affixed this 8th day of Atay , 79 Commissioner IN. T. PAASCH, Clerk County Counsel . County Administrator BY_ �-�--� �-�- Deputy Clerk =ia._cy I graham H 2c 7;72-1SP:5 I ate 60 "PAWS" BOX 275 PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA E ?,� j _`� T April 30, 1973 1 .-¢�'-'-�' , .,-- E t Honorable Members of the Board: � IF � 1:7` W. T. P A A S C 1-1 Re: AssemblyBill No. 1056 =;K -RD OF SUPEPVIS023 !►C,07 P.-N i,05 s A CU. 'Y Q- Deputy California is faced with a cat and dog overpopulatio° o Jc�- - tions. Last year over one million unwanted cats and dogs, kittens and puppies were destroyed in the pounds and shelters. Millions more were abandoned and died of starvation, etc. All because they were the unwanted excess. It cost the taxpayers of California a minimum of S50,O00,000 to handle, house and destroy these unfortunate animals. They never should have been born in the first place. The primary reason For this sad situation is high veterinary cost of spay and neuter operations and the public not knowing the true situation. Many times the veterinary costs are beyond the ability of the average family to pay. The only answer to this part of the problem is low-cost public govern- ment administered spay/neuter clinics throughout the state. The reason they must be governm3nt administered is because the veterinary associations have a vested interest to see that the clinics do not succeed. Three such clinics have already been established, all city and county con- trolled and administered - in Los Angeles, Palo Alto and Santa Clara County. All three are f7kghly suc_c_essful and are self-supporting, in fact Los Angeles has an excess of revenue over expenses. These clinics were established over vehement opposition From the veterinary associations. fortunately, officials realized the clinics are the only course open to end the run-away overpopu- lation of pets. There is no magic pill , injection implant or other means of animal birth control "right over the horizon" , as veterinary associations - have said for ten years now in efforts to- defeat the clinics. The leaders in the Field of research for pet birth control have repeatedly said we will be lucky if we have a chemical birth control in B-10 years, if ever. The need is too urgent to fight For statewide clinics, one by one. Assembly- man Dixon Arnett of San Mateo County , has humanely introduced a bill, AB 1056 to grant funds to establish spay/neuter clinics allover the state. ;any cities and. counties just do not have the necessary funds available to start the clinics without state aid. f1j�qy -As reseectfully _ask that your County endorse this much needed bill and thereby help it to be passed and become law. It is the only answer possible to put a stopoche uge overpopulation of pets at present. If your County employs a lobbyist in Sacramento, may we also ask that he be advised to lobby in favor of this measure. Please send your letter of endorsement to Assemblyman Dixon Arnett, with copy to your own county Assemblyman and Senator, State Capitol_, Sac_ranento., 95814. 'tank you very much and if we can give you any more information please let us know. Sincerely, (fors) , Bettie Adams, Legislative Chairman 12375 Melody Lane, Los Altos Hills, Ca. 94022 HUMANE kV. T. P A A S ... _C i GOARJ G= SU?ERV �:S�CQRs:S� LEGISLATION CONTRA CbSiA CO. A C CATS S P.O. BOX 417, LOS ALTO , WOn-PAIL-IF May 1, 1973 Honorable Board of Supervisors: California's pet population explosion has reached epidemic proportions. No doubt you know the problem quite well due to increasing citizen complaints about dogs and cats and resultant animal control problems. Animal control budgets throughout the State have been increasing by leaps and bounds the past several years in the monumental task of trying to collect and destroy the surplus animals for :.Mich no homes exist. This has been the traditional approach and has proven to be inadequate. The heart of the problem is, of course, their very high birth rate. One national humane organization states that 1 ,000 puppies and kittens are born every hour in California alone. In our county, Santa Clara, the animal shelter destroyed 86% of the dogs and cats it handled during 1972. This "kill rate" is common throughout the State, and the cost to the taxpayers is enormous. Over one million dogs and cats are killed in animal shelters every year. This pet slaughter costs over $50,000,000 annually. There are many reasons for this gro-Amg problem and at the top of the list is the high cost of spaying and neutering. The cities of Los Angeles and Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara have all established municipal low-cost spay/neuter clinics open to the public. All are very successful (booked up 4-8 Creeks in advance) and self-supporting. We know many other communities want to establish these clinics but the problem has been the initial funding. It is for these reasons that Assemblyman Dixon Arnett, San Mateo County, has introduced AB 1056 which will appro riatg $3,000,00 fp _._ m the State Treasury to counties, on a one-time basis for the establislment of municipal low-cost public spay/neuter clinics. He believes (and we heartily concur) that with the establishment of such facilities throughout California significant impact on the problem can be realized. Surgical sterilization is the only safe, humane and effective method of pet contraception presently available and should be priced at a level the general public can more readily afford. Because you and your constituents can benefit by the passage of AB 1056 we ask that you actively support this legislation. AB 1056 is scheduled for public hearing before the Assembly Agriculture Committee on May 23, 197_3. Your letter of endorsementma be sent to Assemblyman Dixon Arnett State Ca itol Sacramento California 1 with copies to Your State Senator and Assemblyman,_ We hope you will also request your county's Sacramento Advocate to actively support and lobby for AB 1056-3.-n the State Capitol. Enclosed is a timely article on low-cost spay/neuter clinics published by Modern Veterinary Practice, March 1973. Sincerely, Bette J. Ffdpps Enclosure Legislative Analyst NORTHERN CALIFORNIA BRANCH I 1 k In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California February 20 19 73 In the Matter of Letter from Senator John A. Nejedly related to Animal Population Control Measures . This Board on February 14, 1973 having received a letter from Senator John A. Nejedly expressing concern about animal population control measures, and suggesting a legislatively spon- sored program of control such as a survey and licensing program and the reduction or elimination of license fees for animals spayed or neutered; and On motion of Supervisor E. A. Linscheid, seconded by Supervisor J. P. Kenny, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that said letter is REFERRED to the Special Review Committee, authorized by the Board on February 13, 1973., to investigate the ?dog predat;iori-problem in the county and in conjunction therewith to make a complete analysis of the entire animal control program. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote of the Board: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, J. E. Moriarty, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, A. M. Dias . NOES: None. ABSENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc : Senator John A. Nejedly Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Committee Supervisors Agricultural Commissioner affixed this 20th day of February, 1973 County Administrator W. T. PAASCH, Clerk By_ Deputy Clerk Elsie Pgott H 24 7/72-15M 4 PLEASE RESPOND TO: • COMMITTEES ❑ DISTRICT OFFICE NATURAL RESOURCES AND 1393 CIVIC DRIVE WILOLIFE.CHAIRMAN 0 WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA 94396 AGRICULTURE AND WATER (415) 934.4558 JOHN A. NEJEDLY RESOURCE3 ELECTIONS AND ❑ SACRAMENTO ADDRESS SEVENTH SENATORIAL DISTRICT REAPPORTIONMENT STATE CAPITOL SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 93814 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT (916) 445-6083 SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PENAL INSTITUTIONS,CHAIRMAN ` CALIFORNIA, LEGISLATURE s it a -e RECEIVED February 8, 1973 17 n 14 1973 W. T. PAASCH CLERK BOARD RA GFSUPERVISORS ERVISORS 8r' ma Mr. Alfred M. Dias, Chairman Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County Administration Building AGBOA ITE rI /�•'��fl, �'>7 Martinez, California 94553 bi 7+� 9D /1970 Dear Al: (date) May I respectfully refer to the communication of Dr. Gills relating to animal population control measures. I earnestly request your consideration of this problem as one serious to the community and deserving of your attention. The emphasis, I suggest, can no longer properly be left to allowing the animal population problem to be responded to by apprehension and destruction of animals. Some legislatively sponsored program of control is essential. In this connection and in addition to the comments of Dr. Gills, the Board may wish to consider an in- tensive survey and licensing program and the reduc- tion or elimination of license fees for animals spayed or neutered. Very truly yours, lL-y12G ohn A. Nejedly Se tor, 7th District JAN:cjr 0 0 IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY , STATE OF CALIFORNIA February 20 , 1973 In the Matter of Proposal of ) Contra Costa County Veterinary ) Medical Association for ) Animal Population Control . ) Donald I . Blomberg , D .V .M . , representing Contra Costa County Veterinary Medical Association , having appeared before the Board on this date and presented a low cost sterilizing surgery proposal for animal population control ( a copy of which proposal is on file with the Clerk of the Board ) ; and Dr . Blomberg having indicated that his proposal was pref- erable to the proposal to establish one county operated spay clinic because the veterinarians in the county could provide low cost service through 20 or 30 clinics operated by the veterinarians in the county; and Dr . Blomberg having stated that the proposal presented by him would not by itself accomplish animal population control and having cited other measures (detailed in the aforesaid proposal ) such as an annual door-to-door licensing program by the County Department of Agriculture ; and Supervisor E. A. Linscheid having indicated that the pro- posal of the Contra Costa County Veterinary Medical Association should be examined by the special committees already established to consider animal population control , having pointed out that said proposal had already been referred to the Committee for Development of a Proposed County Animal Spay Clinic and the County Agricultural Commissioner , and having recommended that the aforesaid proposal also be referred to the special review committee endorsed by the Board at its last meeting (February 13 , 1973 order referring to the Board County Government Operations Committee [Supervisor Linscheid and Supervisor J . P . Kenny] for report as to composition of the special review committee ) ; and Mrs . Barbara Poppin being present and having pointed out on behalf of the Committee for Development of a Proposed County Animal Spay Clinic that she had submitted a statement (a copy of which is on file with the Clerk of the Board ) outlining the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal of the aforesaid Association and having indicated that a spay clinic operated by the county would still be a necessity , and that there was a need for combined and cooperative efforts on the part of all concerned with the matter of animal population control ; and The members of the Board having discussed the matter and having considered the aforesaid recommendation of Supervisor Linscheid to be appropriate ; NOW , THEREFORE , on motion of Supervisor Linscheid , seconded by Supervisor W. N. Boggess , IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the proposal of the Contra Costa County Veterinary Medical Association is referred to the aforesaid special review committee as well as to the Committee for Development of a Proposed County Animal Spay Clinic for study and report to the Board . The foregoing order was passed by the following vote : AYES: Supervisors J . P . Kenny , J . E . Moriarty , W. N . Boggess , E. A . Linscheid , A . M . Dias . cxBrIIFJAD Corr NOES : None . ABSENT: None . c r'rl+fJ tkat til•;•a fall, it'.. 8 ccne•t•ap7 of tfl doew c . c . Count Government Operations ons Committee 14al;d wa aria` • o �• on h •� °�lS a� County p fiat:t�•pa•a.�i7 a�;ept,d by tai• 13l+ard•�6rp.r County Agricultural Commissioner *;*or@ 01 Contra Centro Ca%nt,. Co;;f om;o. on A Committee for Development of a Proposed inta.w.n. ATTCST: W. _. PAASCH county cl.rj County Animal Spay Clinic 0 "/;.,a/;.;o c4•rA 07 .o;d Beard of S"rvi.or•, i, Contra Costa County Veterinary Medical Assoc County Administrator nT � C J rl'; iOAKA OAK 010740EO48 02/17/73 1GS IPMRNCZ CSP 1152230545 MGM TDRN EL SOBRANTE CA 10 �� Mailgram ZIP 94553 RECEIVED SUPERVISOR AL DIAS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD ►-�� ^01973 COUNTY BLDG W. T. P A A S C H MARTINEZ CA 94553 CLERK BOAR OF SUPERVISORS NT COST O. BY eputy THE S.P.C.A. HAS HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO STUDY THE VETERINARIANS STERILIZATION PROPOSAL. SUCH PROPOSAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED' TO BOARD APPOINTED SPAY STUDY COMMITTEE. THE VETERINARY ASSOCIATIONS REPRESENTATIVE OF THIS COMMITTEE IS DOCTOR BLOMBERGO C BRADFORD CONTRA COSTA S.P.C.A. 1422 EST MGMOAKA OAK cG : FVED A.n ^ 1973 ,March 1, 1973 WTRA. P A A S C H CL;.�O BOARD OUPEORV SOS CO By SPAY of Contra Costa County P. 0. B::x 5261 Walnut Creek, California Gentlemen: This is to advise that-Vie- City Coun=- cil, at its meeting of Febiaary. 26, 1973, unanlnouz4 endorsed SPAY's low-cost spay- ing clinic program as outlined in your letter addressed to the"Coungll1 Very` truly yours, Harlan J. Heydon CityClerk TM* 1 aw cc: Board of Supervisors x� ,�.�►-��.�,��, �..,�,�,, � .� � c��-tee. 3alu `` ; e�Kt�( Abrr , i TELEGRAM 2/20/73 10 :10 a.m. ALFRED M. DIAS RE: DR. BLUMBERG 'S REQUEST TO APPEAR BEFORE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FEBRUARY 20 TO SEEK SUPERVISORS RE-EVALUATION OF COUNTY LOW COST SPAY PLAN. IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE VETERINARIAN PROPOSAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUB- MITTED TO THE SUPERVISOR APPOINTED SPAY STUDY COMMITTEE. THIS COMMITTEE WOULD GIVE A FAIR APPRAISAL OF THE VETERINARIAN PROPOSAL FROM THE DIVERSIFIED INTEREST OF THOSE APPOINTED TO THIS COMMITTEE. MARY LUMSDEN, REPRESENTATIVE, DISTRICT 1 SPCA 1 r. P ,", ASC • CLERK BOARD-OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA C STA CO. [MY Deputy A PROPOSAL FOR ANIMAL POPULATION CONTROL Members of the C .C.V.M.A. agree to perform sterilizing surgery on animals seven (7) months of age, or younger, according. to the following fee schedule : 1. A tubal-ligation will be performed on all female dogs or cats for a fee not to exceed $15-00- 2. A vasectomy will be performed on all male dogs for a fee not to exceed $15.00. 3. A castration will be performed on all male cats for a fee not to exceed ; 12.50. During the first six months of this program these fees shall appl-Y to dogs and cats of all ages . Following this initial period the owner must be prepared to show proof of the dog's age if there is a differ- once of opinion between the owner and the veterinarian. Individual animals may be rejected for specific medical reasons; e .g. , estrus, pregnancy, obesity, disease , old-age . As a part of this program we shall propose to the Board of Supervisors that the following recommendations proposed by Mr. Seeley in his inter-office memo, May 26, 1971, to Mr. J. P. OtBrien, County Administrator,* regarding low-cost animal population control, be put into effect: 1. Department of Agriculture conduct an on-going door-to- door annual dog licensing program. 2. Departmont of Agriculture conduct an on-going door-to- door annual cat registration program at $2.00 per cat. 3. Fee for licensing dogs shall be modified so that license for sterilized dogs shall be about one-half that of non-sterilized dogs . -z- Properly -licensed and zoned kennels and dog and cat breeders should be exempt from increased fees. 4. For those animals who are sterilized after the licens- Ing deadline there will be no foe for licensing the follnwing your. 5. A $15.00 sterilizing fee deposit shall be required of anyone adopting a non-sterilized animal from Contra Costa Animal Control Centers. \. nor �v RECEEiT (date)SPAY 0973 P. 0. Box 5261 W. T. PAASCCLERK BOARD OF SUPERWalnut Creek, California 94596O�TRAC t co By�� January 15 , 1973 The Contra Costa County Veterinary Medical Association has announced the availability of low cost dog and cat sterilization (at a fee not to exceed $15) which will begin March 1 , 1973 at many county veterinary offices . The method of sterilization consists of a tubal ligation in females , vasectomy in male dogs and castration for male cats due to anatomy. This method differs from the more complete spaying and neutering operation and it does not eliminate the female heat cycle or male sexual urge. This plan is to offer sterilization to all dogs and cats for the first six months and then only to animals seven months of age or younger. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES 1. Many veterinarians cooperating The Association has made no will enable a greater number of commitment to perform a specified animals to be• sterilized. number of sterilizations per year or length of time program will continue . 2. The program will begin at once The program will be available to (March* l, 1973) to* help in all dogs and cats for only the controlling pet overpopulation. first• 6 months , but then only to animals 7 months or younger. 3. This method of sterilization is Does not eliminate female heat less offensive to those object- cycle or male sexual drive (which ing to more complete surgery or from County Animal Control has the "desexing" of their pets . accompanying drawbacks) 4. Brings cost of sterilization Spay operation (ovario hysterectomy) lower than cost of spaying and alleviates chances of ovarian or neutering currently available uterine cancer and other complications through private veterinarians . frequently occuring in older females. 5. Greatly helps to control animal Limited by decision of individual over-population by sterilization. veterinarian and his ability to schedule additional work. The sterilization plan as presented by the Veterinary Association offers the opportunity to begin immediately to reach a greater number of animals. The eventual limitation of offering this only to pets seven months of age and younger seriously effects the total success of the program./- Many of the problems referred to Animal Control i I Page 2 often occur as a result of the female heat and their attraction of in tact males (quarreling among males endangers nearby children, livestock, property and the pets themselves) which will not be eliminated by this method. A commitment should be made by the Veterinary Association for a certain number of sterilizations in a given period and that the program will continue until such time as a non-surgical method of sterilization becomes readily available to the general public. This program offers a positive beginning and can be viewed as an excellent supplement to a county' operated low cost spay clinic. Due to the enormity of the problem, the combined efforts of the veterinarians, the County and local humane groups along with an all-out educational program for the general public is* required. We point to the two-year successful operation of the Los Angeles Spay Clinic with plans for additional clinics, and the many humane groups there which offer low cost spaying as well. We feel the proposed plan for sterilization by local veterinarians in addition to a county operated low cost spay clinic will assure greater success in controlling the ever-mounting pet surplus problem. 'c 193 p 5, Sao • 00 F S Gp. Dom" r Cti ERIC f0k itY / f,�3 12y�' �Zyt►4 � Oar 02 9 ON PM "I a 0 p►Z• NEZ t2'�01 R. OKt'� ° � �` fl°S aR U'� O M �C%2144) 0 'T�N -5000� c°N'LR SRF 0� C0 �,� 4R p A� �► y�tl y i► Z cS t1L 22$ flR5 ?.?Sla ©� NPI E� S Oar ppL, tSR;C gp6'S 'AA 1p�RVIS T TO VP�,U VRA gI 40I�'i alSa� ��°� IC5 I k1552 M �I 0� $� tlS�'Sg5 SRT �K� SOB R Ppp �`'„� Oar 2eZ0 PtiTgEBflPg� 53 0'S R VIS° Zxp YVI P F� 4�5 PgMP� cP 9 ALO d S,3 0?.L ©IV U OIV ;. Z ,q t�!►R�ON� IN 1�fl D 0 ° y- ii IS .TE4 Tis RRfl PRv PR`s 4LP� N 55 cflM%-j0- y to KPVR"�Z �� °�° -j R V 'DISC OCL cflMMI I PN 0°MM�,��,TI ts lr i MGMOAKA OAK 2-010740EO48 02/17/73 ■ ICS IPMRNCZ CSP 4152230545 MGM TDRN EL SOBRANTE CA 1....rt . tf Ma ra ". ZIP 94553 RECEIVED SUPERVISOR AL DIAS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD ��n 01973 • COUNTY BLDG W. T. P A A S C H MARTINEZ CA 94553 CLERK BOAR OF SUPERVISOR$ NT COSTA 90. lay r � THE S.P.C.A. HAS HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO STUDY THE VETERINARIANS STERILIZATION PROPOSAL. SUCH PROPOSAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO BOARD APPOINTED SPAY STUDY COMMITTEE. THE VETERINARY ASSOCIATIONS REPRESENTATIVE OF THIS COMMITTEE IS DOCTOR BLOMBERG. • C BRADFORD CONTRA COSTA S.P.C.A. 1422 EST MGMOAKA OAK i • • i 0 RECEIVED I Fr=B g- 1973 L T. PAASCH NT A COSTA COv1�s 3333 Ronald :day Concord, California February 6, 1973 Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County Administration Building Martinez, California Dear Sirs : We the parents of the Holbrook Elementary School P.T.A. wish to add our voices to the many asking for better control of the dog population of Contra Costa _ County. This problem is getting quite out of hand in our area as in other areas and packs of dogs are becoming more and more prevelent. Several_children from our school have been attacked and bitten by_,-1ogs_.gf tbe.se packs, making walking to and from school a dangerous under- taking. Many of these bites are not reported to Animal Control, therefore no actioncan be taken. Those which are reported are often not investigated unless the dogs ' owner can be identified, which can rarely be ascertained by the child or from a descrip- tion supplied by a small , frightened or injured child. 'Te reauestt that more and better patrol officers be emp of ed and that the priority for expending tax monies be adjusted to cover such expenses. Sincerely yours, Janet Powles Holbrook Elementary School I k � In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California February 6 19 73 In the Matter of Pron_ oral for Animal Population Control. Supervisor E. A. Linscheid having presented to the Board a letter received from Donald I. Blomberg, D.V.M. , Antioch Veterinary Hospital, Inc. , -1132 - 10th Street, Antioch, California 94509, trans- mitting a document entitled "A Proposal For Animal Population Control"; and Doctor Blomberg having indicated in his letter that his purpose in submitting this proposal is to afford the Board an oppor- tunity to reevaluate the role of the County in this matter and to eliminate the need for a County operated "spay" clinic. On motion of Supervisor Linscheid, seconded by Supervisor J. E. Moriarty, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that aforesaid documents are REFERRED to the Contra Costa County Agricultural Commissioner and the Committee for Development of a Proposed County Animal Spay Clinic for review and comments. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote of the Board: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, J. E. Moriarty, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, A. M. Dias. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc: County Agricultural Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Commissioner Supervisors Committee for Development affixed t hth day February , 19 73 of a Proposed County Animal W. PAASCH, Clerk ."Spay" Clinic County Administrator B Deputy Clerk Sandr Stilmler H 24 7/72-15M ANTIOCH VETERINARY HOSPITAL, INC. 1132 - 10th STREET ANTIOCH, CA. 94509 LRE �T ' 4. 6, /� 7-3 T. P A I? S C H January 22, 1973 soOF SI;PERVISORS O A OST _ Deputy Mr. Edmund Linscheid l3 Civic Avenue Pittsburg, California 9+565 Dear Mr. Linscheid: I am enclosing a copy of the proposal for animal population control which the discussed on the telephone the other day. it is important to understand that there is much more to animal population control than surgical sterilization. We have enumerated many of the additional features that are necessary for a successful program. Some of them could be put into effect without any surgical program. What this proposal really accomplishes is to give the Board of Supervisors an opportunity to reevaluate the County's role in this matter and to eliminate the need for a county operated "spay" clinic with all of its attendant problems . Respectfully, J. oattZ44. Donald I. Blomberg, J.V.M. CCV14A Representative to County "Spay" Clinic Committee DIB/s Encls. PROPOSAL FOR AYIMUAL POP ULATIM! ',MTTROT, :_embers of the C .C.7I.7.A. agree to oerf ora sterilizing on animals seven (7) months of age, or ,younger, accordinT; to t<Ze follo,ning fee schedule : 1. A tubal-ligation will be performed on all .female do,l-s or cats for a fee not to exceed `>'15.00. 2. A vasectomy will be performed on all male Bios for a fee not to exceed A15-00- 3. A castration will be performed on all male cats for a fee not to exceed x12.50. During the first six months of this program these fees shall anrl; to dogs and cats of all ages. Followinn this in:it:.ial period the must be prepared to show proof of the dog's age if ;here Is a iii"er- ence of opinion between the owner and the veterinarian. Individua:i animals may be rejected for specific medical reasons ; e .. . , 03trus , pregnancy, obesity, disease, old-age. As a part of this program we shall propose to the yoard of Supervisors that the following recommendations proposed by 'r. Seeley in his inter-office memo, T-lay 26, 1971, to Tfir. J. P. O tBri en, County Administrator, regarding low-cost animal population control., be put into effect: 1. Department of Agriculture conduct an on-going door-to- door annual dog licensing program. 2. Department of Agriculture conduct an on-going door-tc-r- door annual cat re^istration program at x'2.00 per cat. 3. Fee for licensing dogs shall be modified so' that license for sterilized dogs shall be about one-half that of non-sterilized dots . Note - Properly licensed and zoned kennels and dog and cat breeders should be exempt from increased fees. L�. For those animals who are sterilized after the licens- ing deadline there will be no fee for licensing the following year. 5. A $15.00 sterilizing fee deposit shall be required of anyone adopting a non-sterilized animal from Contra Costa Animal Control Centers . nCARD OF SUPERVISORS COFITRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: Fgbruarv _l3 ,1973,_,,_ TO: E. W. Gills , D.V.M. Orinda Veterinary Clinic 23-M Orinda Way Orinda, Calif. 9 +563 FROM: W. T. FAASCH, Clerk cf Beard SUBJECT: Appearance before the Board of ,Supervisors of Dr. Don Blomberg, Chairman of the C.C.C. Veterinary Medical Association, Animal Population Control Study Committee Your matter has been listed on the Board calendar for ,_„_TT gsday, February 20, 19ZI _ and will be taken up at approa mately 11:15 a.m. . Barbara Kem Clark cc : County Counsel Administrator Department Agricultural Commissioner Board Chairman 71-1-500 Form 26,2 0 AGENDA ITEM—/—/ Otinda Weletinaty Clbzic L/) 23-M ORINDA WAY for (date) ORINDA. CALIF. 94563 PH: 254-0211 RBcBIVBD r.!--In 9 —1973 County Clerk W. T. PAASCH Board of supervisors CLERK 90 0 ,0rA CO Co- D OF SUPERVISORS ' RT Contra Costa County By MPUW Administration. Building Martinezi. California Dear Sir: The Contra Costa County Veterinary jjedical Association requests the opportunity., to address the Board of Supervisors., regarding animal population control, on- Tuesday,. February 20, 1973. Dr. Don_ Blumbergof Antioch.,. Chairman of the Associationts Animal population- Control study comm1tteeY, will present our views and proposals regarding control of animal population in- Contra Costa County. Sincerely, E.W. Gills.... TY-V-Nr- president., Contra Costa County Veterinary Medical Association,. ' V CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A. L. SEELEY ■RANCH OFFICES AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 100.37TH ST.. RICHMOND 94003 SEALER WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 161 JOHN GLENN DRIVE 273.7040. EXT. 3255 K. E. DANIELSON SUCHANAN AIRPORT 1420 HIGHWAY 4.■RENTWOOD.94413 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 04320 084.3314 ASSISTANT SEALER 682.7.7.30 October 31, 1972 RECEIVED Mrs. R. G. Carberry, Jr. - Mrs. Robert Hart OCTA/ X972 Mrs. Jamie Larson W. T. PAASCH Ms. Sybil Sticht CLE K BO D OF SUPERVISORS Ms. Barbara Thomason RA COSTA . By Deputy Dear Ladies: On August 31, 1972 I wrote to each of you stating the manner in which letters to the County Board of Supervisors are handled. The Board-Appointed Spay Committee and I have carefully reviewed your suggestions and comments and wish to point out that: 1. We are also deeply concerned about what happens to these poor animals that are surplus. 2. We are working towards the creation of a county—operated spay clinic, with the cost of spaying and/or neutering to be around $17.50, including all shots necessary prior to the operation. 3 . The County Board of Supervisors has also agreed that the county would operate such a clinic after the proponents supply the funds necessary to get it started. 4. While a spay program is highly desirable to help reduce the propagation of many unwanted animals, it would not solve the following problems. a. . The disposition of dead animals that come into the possession of animal control personnel, or those that are so ill or seriously injured that they must be humanely destroyed. (In 1971 there were 16,254 dead animals received or picked up by animal control personnel. ) b. Even with an active spay program there will be some unwanted young and older animals that are turned over to the Animal Control Centers for sale or disposition. (In 1971 there were 46,5$7 animals that had to be put to sleep. ) -' Ladies • -2- • 10/31/72 What we are saying is that the county must have some means of disposing of the bodies of these unwanted animals, and there will always be some. Our present crematorium at Martinez will not meet the air pollution control requirements and the refractory has deteriorated to such an extent, that the entire unit must be replaced. Right now the burner is operating so poorly trat we had to obtain a variance from the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District or have the unit shut down. Disposing of these animals in otheroways presents many problems and is exceedingly costly. Hopefully, you now appreciate the course of action the county is taking on the surplus animal problem and the need for an expenditure for a new crematorium. If you have any additional questions, please contact me, and if you would like to assist the citizen group working on obtaining funds for the spay clinic, please contact Mrs. Barbara Poppin, 825-0610. Sincerely yours, Arthur L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner- Sealer Weights & Measures ALS/ac cc:', Clerk of the .Board County Administrator �/� 199d- ,�,� PslE utDSUPE �'::: �? SfP 1 P BQAA It, 4T,-41 ti July 26, 1972 RECEIVED ±11L ^ 71972 W. T. PAASCH Contra Costa Times-Green Sheet CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS c/o Letters to the Editor corRA co rc t 1940 Mt. Diablo Blvd. ey. i Deputy Walnut Creek, California Gentlemen. In your article in last week 's Times concerning the low cost spay clinic, you stated that the organization called SPAY has collected $2,500.00 towards such a clinic. However, you failed to state that "concerned citizens " have to collect $80 ,000 , before the clinic can become a reality. It has taken approximately one year for the hard-working members of SPAY to collect that $2 ,500. According to those figures and the number of animals destroyed last year at the Animal Control Center, in 32 years and 2,016,000 dead puppies and kittens , we will have the money for a low cost spay clinic in Contra Costa County. Why not use the money allotted for new incinerators and bigger death chambers and set up the clinic NOW and stop the unwanted litters of animals from being born , and save the kittens and puppies from needless fear, hunger and death? One single cat or dog spayed can save literally hundreds from being born each year. Please help by writing to the Board of Supervisors , Post Office Box 911 , Martinez. Just a few short lines will express your concern. Sincerely, Linda Crow 228-1097 cc Board of Supervisors CONTRACOSTA COUNT?A. L. SEELEY BRANCH DISK[! AGRICULTURAL cowwlssloNER DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE loo.27TH Sr.. RICHMOND w0! SEALER WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 161 JOHN GLENN DRIVE 223.7060. EXT. 3255 K. E. DANIELSON BUCHANAN AIRPORT 1420 HIGHWAY 4.BRENTWOOD 04512 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 94820 634.2019 ASSISTANT SEALER 682.7550 July 14, 1972 RECEIVED Mrs. Wallace ShelbyW. T. P A A S C H 2901 Ponderosa Drive CLERK 80 DA CF SUPERVISORS Concord, CA. 94520 Ey Deputy Dear Mrs. Shelby; IV Your letter of June 19, 1972 to the County Board of Supervisors has been referred to me for reply as I am in charge of the Animal Control program. Mrs. Rice' s letter to the Editor, which appeared in the Times on June 18, unfortunately does an injustice to the county, as it is not only misleading in what it says, but is misleading in what is omitted. My letter to the Editor of the Times dated June 27, 1972 (copy attached) states what I believe to be misleading. The omitted information is that our Board of Supervisors has stated its support of a county operated spay clinic. Please note paragraph three of my letter to the editor and the Board order dated August 27, 19719 which is also attached. Your deep concern over the continued increase of unwanted animals is of equal concern to many others and particularly to the local .Animal Protection Institute. Your strong statements would indicate that you might be more than willing to assist this group in their endeavor to make a "county operated spay clinic" a reality. In order to facilitate your communications with the local Animal Protection Institute I am sending a copy of this communication to its president, Mrs. Barbara Poppin--phone number 825-0610--and suggest that you contact her. If you would like to come in and discuss this communication or any other animal control problem, please do not hesitate to let me hear from you. Sincerely yours, Arthur- L. Seeleyp " Agricultural Commiss oner Sealer Weights & Measures ALS/ac C�y ' Attachments (2) cc: County Administrator Clerk of the Board Mrs, Barbara Poppin - - i In the Matter of Awing ) Committee Rocommon ions ) ' with Respect to County ) Animal Spay Clinic. ) } This being the time fixed for continued hearing on the 1971-1972 Proposed County Budget, Proposed Special; District (other than Fire District) Budgets, and Proposed County Service Area Budgets; and The Board having heard all persons wishing to comment on the proposed budgets; and Supervisor A. M. Dias having submitted the report of the County Government Operations Committee (Supervisor Dias and Supervisor W. N. Boggess, with Supervisor J. P. Kenny substituting for Supervisor Boggess ) containing recommendations on the proposal for establishment of a low-cost county animal spay and neuter clinic; and The committee having recommended that the Board encourage interested citizens to proceed with the accumulation of $81,000, which is the estimated amount necessary to provide suitable facili- ties and medical equipment required for the operation of the proposed clinic; and It having been further recommended that a committee be appointed by the Board, said committee to be comprised of Mr. A. L. Seeley, County Agricultural Conmissioner, a committee of the Board of Supervisors; one member each of the Contra Costa County Veterinary Medical Association, Contra Costa County Kennel Club, Animal Protection Institute, and Contra Costa County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; and one citizen member from each supervisorial district, to work out a proposal for the mechanics and procedures for the operation of a clinic .following acquisition of the $81,000, said proposal to be submitted to the Board of Super•- visors for approval; and Supervisor Dias having moved that the committee recommends- tions be approved; and Supervisor J. E. Moriarty having stated that the record should clearly indicate that the Board by this order is committed to establishment of the clinic upon receipt of the aforesaid funds; and Supervisor Dias having stated that the Board commitment is in accord with the intent of the committee; and Supervisor Moriarty having recommended that the committee of the Board of Supervisors referred to in the committee proposed to be established for development of plans for implementation of the clinic, be specifically designated as -the County Government Operations Committee; and ,Supervisor Dias having amended his motion accordingly, Supervisor Moriarty thereupon seconded the motion as amended; and The Chairman called for the vote on the motion, which passed as follows: . 4 / �U J 1/ 46 Juno 279 1972 Lottors to the Editor ' Contra Costa T ZOD Wal=t Crook, Califc=ia 94596 Door Birt no t Lettor from airs. 3010:I C. Rico Contra Costa. Mos Jima lS, 1972 06:itz"a Costa County dons not spond A563,000 n yaour to destroy aninaly. Tho money i3 Pont onforcin; 7une 21 972 Contra Costa County Supervisors RECEIVED ' Contra Costa County Court house Martinez, Caiiforni.a �6j ly 7 �� p ,V 7. P .'. '�, S C H I/ sUWZCT:1/ � AY e. r8i�'I'ER CLEY-10 CLERK ARD r SUPERVISO-tom COSTA Co �T7f�f���� T cy GE1 1rC►bZ : - - ty On Monday, Tune 19, 1972, I listened to Tim Dunbar'sprogram on EGO and a voice reported a situation which exists in your County which appears to be even worse than the one Behave in in San Mateo County. The voice was that of a female, a Contra Costa Citizen, and she reported a tale of her visit to the "Humane Shelter" in the County where she discovered that 46,000 domestic animals were destroyed in the past year. There was a considerable concern in San Lkteo County over this over-population of domestic pets and the sad plight of the need for the destruction of these pets. It is a sad plight for the unfortunate innocent victims whose only crime is to be the offspring of pets owned by irresponsible pet owners. The pet owners should be penalized for contributing to this pressing problem, but how does one do that. Now, if you will check with San Mateo Co. Supervisors and the Santa Clara Supervisory you will discover that they have taken steps to correct this serious problem by instituting a Low-Cost S Neuter Clinic, San Mateo will go in operation Tanuary 1 1973 andS Clar will be fashioned after the Los Angle s Clinic with fees of $11.50 foriales and $17.50 for females. Their announcement will come after their July budget meeting. Upon checking further, Los Angeles already has this clinic and is now showing a n f:U and they are adding another Yet to this original clinic and are in the process of adding 2 more .clinics staffed with 2 Vets in each Clinic. Now, does not all this tell you wmething? The phone call on Yonday on EGO tells me that there is a move on foot to put thru a Spayf Neuter Clinic in your county and in order to same time and effort on everyone's part, I say, don't fight it because the interested citizens will stay on your backs until something gives andthe longer they fight, the more citizens become educated and concerned. My only regret is that San liiteo is working thru the "Humane Shelter" rather than on the County level such as in Los Angeles and Santa Clara Counties. Oh yes, the City of Palo Alto is ready to open their Clininc this fall, reportedly in August. They voted this is last year, or have you heard? It might be a wise idea to get on the ball and check out the above inforwation. No, I am not a part of any organization - just an interested and concerned citizen who became educated thru the efforts of Citizens For Low Cost Spay/Neuter Clinic in San Mateo County. Your opinions would be appreciated. Sincerely yours, cc: City Manager 2600 Martinez Drive ' Burlingame, Calif 914010 j U In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California September 7 19 Lj_ In the Matter of Designating Committee with Respect to Proposed County Animal Spay Clinic . Supervisor A. -M. Dias having called attention to a recommendation contained in the August 27., 1971 report of the County Government Operations Committee (Supervisor Dias and Supervisor W. N. Boggess, with Supervisor J . P. Kenny substi— tuting for Supervisor Boggess) that a committee be formed for the purpose of developing plans and procedures for the opera— tion of a proposed county spay and neuter clinic; and Supervisor Dias having recommended that persons who are to serve on the committee be designated and names submitted to the Board no later than September 28, 1971; On motion of Supervisor Dias, seconded by Supervisor J. E. Moriarty, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the County Agricultural Commissioner is requested to obtain the names of those persons who are to represent the Contra Costa County Veterinary Medical Association, Contra Costa County Kennel Club, Animal Protection Institute, and the Contra Costa County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and each Board member is requested to designate a representative from his supervisorial district, the names to be submitted to the Board no later- than September 28, 1971. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors A . M. Dias, J. E. Moriarty, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J .. P. Kenny. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. hereby certify that' the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. c .c. Co.Co.Co. Veterinary Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Medical Association. Supervisors Co.Co.Co. Kennel Club affixed this 7th day of September, 1971 Animal Protection Institute W. T. PAASCH, Clerk Co.Co.Co. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty ByA, een F ,Ir Deputy Clerk to Animals Co. Agricultural Commissioner County Administrator H 24 4/71 A"rd Members IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA August 27, 1971 In the Matter of Approving ) Committee Recommendations ) with Respect to County ) 'Animal Spay Clinic. ) ) This being the time fixed for continued hearing on the 1971-1972 Proposed County Budget, Proposed SpecialDis,trict (other than Fire District) Budgets, and Proposed County Service Area Budgets; and The Board having heard all personswishing to comment on the proposed budgets; and Supervisor A. M. Dias having submitted the report of the County Government Operations Committee (Supervisor Dias and Supervisor W. N. Boggess, with Supervisor J. P. Kenny substituting for Supervisor Boggess) containing recommendations on the proposal for establishment of a low-cost county animal spay and neuter Clinic; and The committee having recommended that the Board encourage interested citizens to proceed with the accumulation of $81,000, which is the estimated amount necessary to provide suitable facili- ties and medical equipment required for the operation of the proposed clinic; and It having been further recommended that a committee be appointed by the Board, said committee to be comprised of Mr. A. L. Seeley, County Agricultural Commissioner; a committee of the' Board of Supervisors; one member each of the Contra Costa .County Veterinary ` Medical Association, Contra Costa County Kennel Club, Animal Protection Institute, and Contra Costa County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; and one citizen member from each supervisorial district, to work out a proposal for the mechanics and procedures for the operation of a clinic following acquisition of the $81,000, said proposal to be submitted to the Bpard of Super- visors for approval; and , - ,.�;. "I ? ; Supervisor Dias having moved that the committee recommendaiw- tions be approved; and Supervisor J. E. Moriarty having stated that the record should clearly indicate that the Board by this order is committed to establishment of the clinic upon receipt of the aforesaid funds; and Supervisor Dias having stated that the Board commitment is in accord with the intent of the committee; and Supervisor Moriarty having recommended that the. committee of the Board of Supervisors referred to in the committee proposed to be established.for development of plans for implementation of the clinic, be specifically designated as the County Government Operations Committee; and Supervisor Dias having amended his motion accordingly, Supervisor Moriarty thereupon seconded the motion as amended; and The Chairman called for the vote on the motion, which passed' as follows: AYES: Supervisors A. M. Dias, J. E. Moriarty, E. A. Linscheid, J. P. Kenny. NOES: None. ABSENT: Supervisor W. N. Boggess. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Supervisors affixed this 27th day of August, 1971 W. T. PAASCH, CLERK By ^ , a4r-��- Miriam A. Scott Deputy Clerk cc : Board Members County Agricultural Commissioner Mr. A. L. Seeley Co. Co. County Veterinary Medical Association Co. Co. County Kennel Club Animal Protection Institute Co. Co. County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals County Administrator ALFIRED M. DIAS SUPERVISOR I6)6 TWENTY-THIRD STREET CRMEy SAN PABLO.CALIFORNIA 94BOG �" D TELEPHONE 233.3836 SEA(, _ N£isCUL£s PINOL£ `- TARA HILLS 1 MONTALVIN MANOR CONT 'Ir UNW EL SOBRANTE FAIRMEDE • SAN COLLEGE HIGH 14HOS + BOAR SORS PAO WHITECLET � ytp4 ROLLINGWOOO REG.VED .: EL CERR KENSINGTON 7, / 7! 4 !, P ,O S C H August t 2 7 1971 DISTRICT TWO CLBR BOA OF SUPERVISORS g 1 A COST By .. __.. ..---.... _..__. Deputy RE: ANIMAL SPAY CLINIC PROPOSAL FROM: SUPERVISORS ALFRED M. DIAS & JAMES P. KENNY We met on the proposal to establish a low cost animal spay and neuter clinic to be administered through the Animal Control Division of the County Department of Agriculture. This ;�G 4 matter is,I\included in the County Administrator' s Budget Message for consideration by the Board in the budget deliberations for fiscal year 1971-1972 with an expenditure of $67,500. We also reviewed in detail the proposal submitted by A. L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner & Sealer of Weights & Measures. An item of importance in that proposal is that the citizen's committee volunteered to appropriate the cost of setting up the facilities (building and equipment) . At the public hearing held by the Board on August 12, 1971, the Board received comments from persons in favor of and in opposition to the establishment of a spay and neuter clinic. In reviewing and analyzing all testimony both for and against, the Committee has determined the following: RE: ANIMAL SPAT' CLINIC PROPOSAL 2 1. There is no question or no doubt that this is a serious problem in the County. 2. There is no question that the problem will continue to increase. 3. There is some evidence that this program could work, or at least help to alleviate the problem. WE RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING: a. The $67,500 r-egues-t--be—de-l-e-t-ed--7from the current budget. b. The Board encourage the citizens group to proceed with acquiring the funds to provide the building and equipment. C. The Board approve a committee of A. L. Seeley; a committee of the Board of Supervisors; a member of the' Contra Costa County Veterinary Medical Association; a member of the Contra Costa County Kennel Club (both organizations voiced opposition) ; a member of Animal Protection Institute (API) ; a member of the Contra Costa County SPCA (both organizations supported the program) ; and each member of the Board to appoint one citizen from his district. This Committee of twelve (12) will then be County wide represented. RE: ANIMAL =SPAY 'CLINIC -PROPOSAL -` 3 { Y d _ . This Commi tee. to work. out.ahe mechanics and procedures for: the operation of a clinic following the acquisition of the $81,000 pledged,. e The Committee' "s proposal then to be';subrriitted to;` the .Board,'of Supervisor approval. J e s P: Ke y k AMD:JPK=ads r c y. ' !rt ' c — F t ti 7 S" r fb T iF n ^ ,i_.`L f1 ftri.f gyp;�r i���. =moo OU U U, cm jCj �J C... Q LL O ZZ W V W Ilk un o � . n) v ;� 4-7 a August 27, 1971 - 1971-72 Budget - Animal Spay Clinic Dias: Report on the animal spay clinic. Supervisor Kenny and myself reviewed the proposal submitted by Mr. Seeley. Citizens committ6e volunteered to appropriate the cost of setting up the facilities. At the public hearing, the Board received comments from persons In favor of and in opposition to spay clinic. (Mr. Dias read report of County Government Operations Committee dated August 27, 1971) s s e s e Dias: Move we accept the _report„ of.,the commit. ee.. ._ . Moriarty: Have no objection to the report. Add one thing. I don't think a spay clinic established on a permanent structure will really be successful. We have to have a mobile spay clinic so that It will go to the people and go in each area. I am certainly in favor of it but only on a mobile basis. Dias: This was discussed by the committee and we concurred there should be a mobile unig. This would be a part of all problems and mechanics to be reviewed by the committee at the appropriate time. Moriarty: I hope if and when the people go out and raise the $802000. . . to have people go out and raise the money and come bac�`'� ` without a commitment would be wrong. Dias : We realize, the committee, the problem is here. We alsoJ ,,� y �- realize there was no proof on either side that it is good or not good. Realise other agencies now performing this. Committee 11� --s could come back with some other new innovations. It is our guess the committee will not become active for some months and in that time we can learn more. Moriarty: Concern to me that this report does not say. . . who a committee of the Board should be. Should be the committee which has already studies this. I would move ,►our..regort.be amdnded to ,designate .the .Government Operations- Committee be the committee represented by the Board bat. not...naming the committee members. (Moriarty seconded original motion) 2 . Linscheid: In this particular proposal, what it does, it delays it and makes it impossible for people to have this service . I think we should consider putting this on the ballot in addition to appropriating the money. What we are talking about is complete reform of our animal control package. If it is necessary and desirable we carry this on, we should probably put on ballot next year for capital improvements authorization. Dias : The amended motion no mention made of any other item in Seeley's report of licensing cats with the exception of the comment that was made by the interested people to be earmarked. Moriarty : Regret committee report did not recommend the increase in fees now for unspayed animals . The committee should consider that . a.. 2 : 4 yes 3 : yes 4 : absent 5 : yes 1 : yes 124 A Austin Lane Alamo, Calif. 94507 Board of Supervisors County of Contra Costa County Court House Martinez, California Dear Sirs, Enclosed is a resume of the thoughts that I expressed at the hearing held last Thursday, August 12, concerning the establishment of a Spay Clinic in Contra Costa County. I enjoyed the hearing , the manner in which it was conducted; I only wish that all who were represented could be united to make such a clinic possible and profitable. Sincerely,. "LvCEIVED 1riG � � 15;1 W, T, PAASCH RO OF StJPEFty sons T aeputY . ' Augu9 12, 1971 The Need of a Spay Clinic for Contra Costa County I speak as a private citizen and as a teacher. This is a personal problem and a community problem. I have a female dog who was found on the freeway and has become a part of our household. She has had two litters of pups and I am in the process of paying my vet the usual fee for having her spayed. I live under a very tight budgetJand this fee is hard for me to squeeze into my monthly operating expenses. At this point though,it is very necessary if I plan to continue to keep a male and a female within the same household. As a community problem I am concerned about the way that we treat our lost and unwanted animals, and I am concerned about the many pet lovers in our county who live on small budgets and fixed incomes. These people,too,have a very real need for a pet both as a companion and a protection- the low income families, the teenagers and young adults, and the senior citizens. They� too�have a need to be able to have an animal spayed at a nominal cost. This problem has a hidden concern because it is closely tied into the mental health of the community. One of the best things to help preserve the wellbeing in an average child is his love and concern for a pet. For the emotionally disturbed chil� one of the best helps is in giving him a live furry pet- not a furry stuffed animal. Our senior citizens enjoy much companionship maintaining a pet in their households and the pet in turn serves a very useful purpose in protecting such a home. We need to constantly evaluate and change to meet the needs of our community and our world. The young women who have formed the Animal Protection Institute have done a fine evaluation of the need of a Spay Clinic for Contra Costa County. They have approached the public and the problem in a very realistic manner. The have presented you a practical plan of action that is highly possible to become a plan for counties were Wei able to establish such a clinic, They are asking for the funds for only the professionals who need to be involved in such a project; they have already shown you how much volunteers can do to cut the cost of operation. I am not surprised at all by the stand that the Kennel Club has taken on this issue. They make pet raising seem a privilege of only the affluent. Most of my friends who have pedigree animals would not have need for a county spay clinic. They most often have only a female dog which is not too hard a problem to control' i.f they do not want a litter of pups. The sale of a litter of pedigrae pups pays for the maternity care of the mother and gives the owner a profit. When the owner decides that his dog has produced enough litters jthe spay fee to the vet of his choice is already provided by the litter itself. '. I would hope that if a Spay Clinic isestablished in Contra Costa County that a provision to neuter male animals would also be included in the operation of such a clinic. The Los Angeles Clinic which has been quoted so widely at today's hearing does include this service in theirs. Irby daughter who is a student at UCLA was able to have her cat,Jeremy, neuie.t-ed for $-7.00- a fee that even a young student can afford out of her meager earnings. ( I am also concerned about people who are not pet lovers. To include neutering in the clinic's operation would give the community at large many peaceful hours of sleep by not having to hear the midnight love life of the kitty cats.) i In summarizing, I would like to see Contra Co� � County be a leader in the establishment of a Spay Clinic. I would�t�at some of the following concerns could be incorporated within it. 1. Put into operation a self supporting spay and neutering Clinic. 2. Establish a pet shelter and an adoption center. 3. Have a public relations person involved in a full time job in educationing the public at large concerning pet care and pet problems. { I have a friend in Alameda County who spends her working days speaking to public and private schools, and parent groups� on the care of pets and the responsibilities involved within the community.} CO-:TPA COSTA COU?7'i­, 4 0- I' -: Dill. I;Z;C L _LL D CO`COH-D, C-`-LL0-N-1k 94520 Supervisors Al Dias and Warren Boggess County Government Operations Committee August 169 ign Attentions J. P. McBrieng County Administrator A. L. Seeley* Agricultural Commissioner Additional Information and comments not presented at the August 12* 1971 public hearing - spay program It was suggested that our department send additional Information and comments to the members of the County Government Operations Committee$ with copies to each board member. In order for your committee to properly assess the remarks made by speakers at the public hearing on the proposed county spay programe we wish to call to the committeets attention the following information: le on April 169 Ken Danielson. Assistant Agricultural Commissioner visited the Los Angeles City Spay Cliniot where Dr. Vansell by himsdlf performed seven surgeries that morning. 2* The morning prior to the public hearing, Mr. Danielson phoned Mre Robert Rush. General Manager, Department of Animal Regulation* Los Angeles City, and confirmed the published figures that 12 - 15 operations were performed daily at the clinic during July* Dr. Vansell performed all operationse contrary to Dr. Proctor's statement at the He'aiing that a Dr* Zigler assisted him In performing this many surgeries* 3, Dr. Vansell stated to Mr. Danielson that two veterinarians working together could perform as many operations as three veterinarians working Independently. Our proposal calls for hiring two veterinarians. 4* Representatives of the Veterinary-Medical Association repeatedly made reference to the 3500 spay operations that would be performed by county personnel and how It would have practically no effect upon the continued Increase In our county's animal population. The most Important point was not stressed. By having a differential in license fees for spayed and unspayed females, together with a program that finds the unlicensed and unspayed animals, many more people would be taking their animals to their own veterinarians than Mose-groing to the anuniv ap-ay mariter, 5. A limited county spaying program might also diseourage the local veterinarians from raising their spaying ever-Increasing level. RECEIVED /8 71 V/T. PAASCH CLER BOA OF SUPERVISORS A COST By .......... Deputy Supervisors Al Dias -2- 8/16/71 Warren Boggess Attention: J. P. MOB en 6. The morning ar the hearing fir. Danielson phoned Dr.. Lloyd: C. Falkner of Colorado State University. Dr. Falkner was mentioned by the veterinarians as one of the foremost researchers in non- surgical sterilization for dogs.. Dr. Falkner stated he has conducted laboratory tests of this particular hormone vaccine. The neat step is field tests. The U.3.D..A.• and Fe.D.A., require tests in three areas of the U.B. This will be 1 2 years in testing. General use and sale to veterinarians throughout California is five years away, if clearance is obtained from the U.S.D.A. and F.D.A. AL3/ac oat Board Members CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK' S OFFICE Inter - Office Memo Date: August 12, 1971 To: County Government Operations Committee (Supervisors A. M. Dias and W. N. Boggess) From: Clerk of the Board Subject: Attached is material submitted at the hearing on the proposed spay clinic . cc : Administration and Finance Committee County Administrator IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Hearing ) on Proposal for Establish- ) August 12, 1971 ment of a Spay Clinic. ) This being the time fixed for a hearing on the proposal that a spay clinic be established for the purpose of reducing animal population in the county and in connection therewith establishing relatively low rates for services provided through such a clinic; and Mr. A. L. Seeley, County Agricultural Commissioner, reviewed his reports dated May 26 and July 15, 1971 on the study conducted by the Department of Agriculture with respect to the feasibility of a low-cost spay clinic at the Animal Control Center; and Supervisor J. P. Kenny invited comments on the proposal and the following persons spoke in favor: Senator John A. Nejedly, Mrs. Keith Thompsen representing Animal Welfare Association, Inc. , Mr. George H. Cardinet, Jr. , Mrs. Barbara Poppin representing Animal Protection Institute, Mr. Theodore J. Sorich II, Mr. Warren L. Smith, Mrs. Mary E. Lumsden representing Contra Costa Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (filed a petition bearing approximately 800 signatures), Mrs. Mary Klein Mitchell; and The following persons spoke in opposition: Dr. Robert Schneider representing Contra Costa Veterinary Medical Association, Mr. Nick Calicura, member of the Contra Costa County Kennel Club, Mr. Dale J. Cook representing Contra Costa County Kennel Club, Dr. Larry Proctor representing the Contra Costa Veterinary Medical Association; and Supervisor Kenny then stated that the spay clinic proposal had been given prior attention by the Board County Government Oper- ations Committee (Supervisors A. M. Dias and W. N. Boggess) and that said committee should now review the matter taking into account the testimony presented this day and submit a recommendation to the full Board upon the completion of its review, in addition to the report on financial implications to be presented to the Board by the Adminis- tration and Finance Committee (Supervisors E. A. Linscheid and J. E. Moriarty) to which committee the Board referred the matter at its August 2, 1971 study session on the budget; and Supervisor Moriarty requested that Mr. Seeley furnish each Board member with current data on the Spay and Neuter Clinic operated by the City of Losgeles (and any other such clinics for which figures are available) together with information as to the status of studies being conducted by research organizations attempting to devise animal birth control methods, and that the information be taken into consideration in committee review of the spay clinic proposal. THERE WAS NO BOARD ORDER. i • I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a matter of record entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Supervisors affixed this 12th day of August, 1971. W. T. PAASCH, CLERK By NancWIngMbam Deputy Clerk cc: Administration and Finance Committee County Government Operations Committee County Agricultural Commissioner County Administrator TEXT OF PRESENTATION AUGUST 12, 1971 W. T. P A A S C H CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON A COT CO. By Daputy Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board: I'm Dr. Robert Schneider speaking for the Contra Costa Veterinary Medical Association. You may recall I spoke to you a few weeks ago on the problem of valid statistics on the animal population of Contra Costa County and about the animal population survey we are carrying out in the county involving 10,000 households. As I mentioned then the survey won't be compiled for a few months yet. However, since I feel some of the data which we are collecting would be very important for the purposes we are here for today, I have done some analyses from samples of respondents to our questionnaire, in addition to analysis of other data on this subject. There are five points I'd like to make this morning: 1. The major portion of the female dogs and cats in the county are already neutered. 2. The faster growth of the dog population vs. the human population is not due to overproduction. 3. Analysis of experiences of the Los Angeles clinic indicates such operations will not markedly reduce the young animal population nor pay their own way at charges below $25-$30 per animal. 4. The proposed clinic in this county probably will only be able to do 2,000 to 2,500 sterilizations instead of 3,500 as indicated. 5. The overall effect of the proposed clinic, functioning at its maximum, will only be a small effect on the total animal population. 1. The major portion of female dogs and cats in the county are already neutered. From our data we have preliminarily estimated the (7,med dog population as 100,000 dogs. There are h3,000 females of which 52% are neutered. For dogs two years and over, 40-80% are neutered in the various • 0 2. ages; the older the age the proportionally more neutered. We estimate 80,000 owned cats in the county. There are 425000 females of which 52% are neutered. For cats 3 years of age and older 70-90% are already neutered. I feel the group of owners left that have non-neutered female dogs and cats would be harder to convince of the necessity of neutering their animals, regardless of cost, hence the clinic would be doing many animals which would have been done by veterinarians anyway (est. 40-60%). 2. Faster growth of the dog population vs. the human population is not due to overproduction. In 1966 the OWNID dog population in the county was about 60,000 dogs, now it is 100,000. This indicates a growth rate of 15% per year for the last 5 years. I feel most of this large growth is due to people procuring dogs for reasons such as protection. This idea is supported by the percent increase of impounded dogs and cats between 1969 and 1970. There was a 14.3% increase in the dogs which was in line with the 15% growth rate of the owned dog numbers in the county. The impounded cat increase was only 3.7%. While I have no figures on the increase in cat ownership in the county, 3-4% would appear to me to be the normal expected increase per year. Thus I feel that the increase in the number of impoundings reflects OWNED animal population growth and not excess production. 3. Nay analysis of the experiences of the Los Angeles clinic indicates that such operations will not markedly reduce the young animal production nor pay their own way at fees less than $25-$30 per animal. These conclusions are based on a discussion on July 16, 1971, that I had with Dr. Vansell, who is the veterinarian doing the neutering for that clinic. A. He is doing six, sometimes seven, neutering a day. This equals 1,200 to 1,300 per year. 3. B. He does nine dogs to one cat. The biggest problem in our county as in L.A. is an excess in cats (which I will show in a few minutes). Yet those using the clinic are mostly dog owners. This indicates to me selectiveness, not necessarily on an ability to pay or on a need to control the animal population, but on owners' decisions concerning the clinic cost vs. that of the veterinarians. C. Of the animals he neuters, 50% are 3 years of age or older. In Contra Costa County 40-80% of dogs and 70-90% of cats are already neutered from three years of age and up, as is also probably true in L.A. County. Hence, as judged by the proportions already neutered in both dogs and cats, the clinic would be drawing large numbers from animals which would have been neutered by veterinarians anyway. A sterilization program will have to consistently do very young animals to make any headway on reduction of excess production. D. The waiting time is now 5-6 months from when one applies and an animal is neutered by the clinic. This is long enough to have another litter. E. The clinic is not paying its way. $17.50 per animal times 1,250 animals done per year equals $21,875 income, which just covers the veterinarian's and his receptionist's salaries. 4. Also based on the L.A. clinic and my own experiences I feel the county clinic will not do over 2,500 neutering a year and not the 3,500 as stated in the animal control request. The 2,500 figure was arrived at by doubling the L.A. figure of 1,250 per year. I actually feel the clinic will not do over 2,000 per year. I'd like to also point out that at a fee of $15, 21500 sterilizations would generate $37,5r income, just $7,500 over the actual salaries, without fringe benefits, of the two veterinarians. If only 2,000 4. neutering were achieved, then the $30,000 generated would only cover their salaries. I feel the fee would have to approach $30 per animal to make the clinic self-paying, including covering all operating costs and salaries. 5. Lastly, I would like to show two tables of the overall effect the clinic could be expected to have on the production of young animals, hence on the dog and cat populations in the county, even if it were functioning at its maximum of doing 3,500 animals annually. TABLE 1 EFFECT ON THE CONTRA COSTA ANIMAL POPULATION OF A STERILIZATION CLINIC DOGS CATS 21,000 entire females 16,000 entire females give rise to give rise to 205000 puppies 40,000 kittens Consider neutering 3,500 females per year: A. At ratio Los Angeles clinic (9 dogs to 1 cat) Neuter: 3,150 dogs (15%) 350 cats (2%) Those left 17,000 puppies 39,000 kittens produce: B. Only 3,500 entire female cats neutered Neuter: NONE 3,500 (22%) Those left 20,000 puppies 31,000 kittens produce: Thus, under the circumstances of 9 dogs to 1 cat as is done in the L.A. clinic, there would be very little effect on the overall young animal production in the county. Since many dogs will be brought into the county from surrounding areas, a reduction of 3,000 dogs produced in the county 5. probably will have no effect on the dog population numbers. The reduction of kittens of 11000 is negligible in view of overproduction now of around 15,000 per year over what is necessary to maintain the cat population at approximately 80,000. The optimum situation which would be an ideal of doing 3,500 cats only would reduce the cat production 9,000 kittens. This would be a sizeable amount but would still leave 63000 in excess of numbers needed to maintain the cat population. Table 1 deliberately makes two erroneous assumptions: (1) that the animals that would be neutered by the clinic will not have been neutered by private practitioners (40-60% probably will have been) and (2) that the clinic would be able to do 3,500 neuterings per year (actually 2,000-2,500 would be the expected maximum). Using the figures of 50% as the proportion that would not be neutered by private practitioners and 2,500 neutering instead of 3,500, then the net effect on young animal production would be reduced to 36% of the figures given in Table 1. Thus instead of reducing the production 3,000 puppies and 1,000 kittens in situation A, only 1,080 puppies and 360 kittens would not be produced. In the optimum situation indicated in situation B, instead of 9,000 less kittens there would be only 3,210 less. Now what about the accumulative effect? If again the idealistic 3,500 cats were done each year, wonIt the accumulative effect be 17,500 after 5 years? Table 2 says no, since the turnover rate of cats in the county is 1/3 per year. Thus each year 1/3 would leave the population and correspondingly that proportion fewer will be left in the population. 6. TABLE 2 ACCUMULATIVE EFFECT OF NEUTERING ONLY 3,500 FEMALE CATS PER YEAR YEARS AFTER NUMBER ALIVE 1 2,400 2 1,600 3 1,100 4 700 5 500 6,300 (17,500 done) 6 300 7 200 8 130 9 90 10 60 7,080 (35,000 done) Thus five years later, after doing 17,500 non-neutered females, the accumulative effect would be only 6,300 in the population. After 10 years, where 35,000 females would have been done, only 7,080 would be left in the population. If 50% will have been done by veterinarians anyway and only 2,500 are done instead of 3,500, then the accumulative effect after 5 years would be approximately 2,300 instead of 6,300, and after ten years, 2,500 instead of 7,080. These numbers will not be large enough to eliminate the excess kitten production in the county during the next 5 to 10 year period. SUMMARY: I feel only 2,000-2,500 animals will be neutered by the clinic. The effects of doing animals that would have been neutered by veterinarians anyway, of the waiting period for getting an animal neutered by the clinic (being long enough to have another litter) and of the lack of any marked reduction in accumulative effects from those neutered because of the high turnover of both dogs and cats in the county -- these factors will make negligible any reduction on the production of young animals by the clinic's operation. RECff1_V'U • T. PAASCH CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TEXT OF PRESENTATION JULY 27, 1571 ey ^�grvTis Co. �7 -P - ty MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD: I an speaking at the request of the Contra Costa Veterinary Medical Association. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to talk to you about the proposed county sponsored animal sterilization clinic. This is an emo- tionally charged area and we would like to see more substantiated facts and figures presented before a decision is reached. A little background on myself--I'm Dr. Robert Schneider. I'm a veteri- narian--I'm not in practice, but in research mainly involved with statistics. I am director of the Alameda-Contra Costa Animal Cancer Registry which is part of the California State Department of Public Health. This cancer registry is unique -- it is the only one of its kind in the world --• it is an attempt to study the natural occurence of animal cancers in the animal populations of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties for leads that may have application to the human cancer problem. Since we are looking at cancer in terms of the animal population, it is important tnat we know something about that population -- hence my reason for being here today. I have a few questions I would like to bring up concerning the dog and cat populations of Contra Costa County and then I would like to make you aware that answers to these questions could be forthcoming through data we are now collecting in an animal population survey involving Contra Costa County. 1 • i The first question I would like to propose is: What proportions of the female dog and cat populations in the county are currently not neutered? What is the age distributions of these animals? This is important because we are finding that by certain ages a large majority of the owned animal population is neutered. For instance in cats, in ages three years and above 70-901*/�o of both males and females are neutered. Then what really may be needed is a good educational program or other means to induce owners who ultimately will get their animals neutered anyway to do so at an earlier age -- that is, before the possibility of unwanted litters. Second question: Who owns the non-neutered female dog and cat populations? Are they owned throughout the county or by high or low socioeconomic groups? And also geographically, where are those animals located? Does one set up a clinic in Martinez, if the need is, say, in Orinda? And the need may well be in areas like Orinda, in terms of the litter production. Last question: How many excess litters are being produced each year in the county? In what parts of the year are they produced? How many animals are disposed of for other reasons? This is important because the problem of large numbers of animals to be disposed of may not be due to excess production of very young animals, except for short periods of time as possibly during parts �e of scat breeding season. Anyway, I could go on with other questions, but these I feel are the 3 most important areas -- How many non-neutered animals are there, who owns them and where are they located, and to what extent is the problem of excess animals an excess litter production. one? (2) I would like to now briefly describe the animal population survey, and make you aware of the data we are collecting. The survey is in both Alameda and Contra Costa Cdunties. It is a random 6% survey of all households .._ hence in Contra Costa of the 178,000 households enumerated in the 1970 census we are contacting over 10,000 (10,597 to be exact) . Discussed animal data form. (copy attached) (3) Alk R�C 1 ATE D 0 C H 1000 Henderson Avenue CL_,K BOARD OF SUPERVISO"t;: Menlo Park, Calif. 94025 C Tj�tA .STA CO. Au Cy _ _ � et oep�:,� 7, 1971 ATTITUDES OF DOG OWNERS TOWARD SPAYING Recently, the Contra. Costa Times printed selected results of my survey on attitudes of dog owners in San Mateo County toward spaying. These results were, unfortunately, set forth by the Contra Costa County Veterinary Medical Association as arguments against a county - operated spay clinic. I The statements extracted from the survey were accurately reported. However, the Veter- inary Association used my statistics in exactly the "loose fashion" by which the Association I claims spay clinic proponents generate interest in their program. As an example, it is true that only 19.6 per cent of owners stated that cost was the primary reason for not having their dog spayed. But, there were more informative breakdowns by category of dog owned. "Cost" was indeed the most frequent reason given by owners of mixed breed dogs and unregistered purebred dogs. These owners comprised 61.9 per cent of the number of owners surveyed. Only the fact that cost is relatively unimportant to owners of American Kennel Club.- ,registered purebred dogs lessened the importance of cost to the group as a whole. i ! Accordingly, while cost is relatively unimportant to owners of A.K.C. - registered dogso it is obvious that controlling the offspring of registered purebreds is not the objective of public spay clinics. The objective of such clinics is to reduce the population of UNWANTED animals. Thus, the fact that is truly relevant to the spay clinic controversy is that cost is a very significant barrier to spaying among owners of mixed breed and unregistered purebred dogs. There were several other facts included in my survey which should be of interest to those considering the establishment of a county - operated spay clinic. 56.5 per cent of all respondents stated that they would DEMITELY have their dog spayed if the cost could be significantly reduced. The respondents were asked to state the maximum cost which they would be willing to pay. The average cost volunteered by all respondents was $19.90. 74 per cent of those who would spay their dogs if the cost was significantly reduced would pay $17-50 ( the fee established at the Los Angeles Spay and Neuter Clinic) or more, and 77.8 per cent would use the facilities of a public spay clinic. I would like to take issue with the Contra Costs County Veterinary Medical Association on one final point.. This orgahization states that the " low cost spray clinic ..... has not been and can never be "self supporting". Although the Los Angeles Spey and Neuter Clinic has been in operation for less than six months, its General Manager, Yr. Robert I. Rush, has operating figures which show that the facility is already "breaking-even" financially. In faetp in Junes, revenues were $3,384.90 while expenses were $2,729.00.. O Er, _A 1- - August 12, 1971 CL yr^h UUF.RD Or SUf-eRVISO^` C i, GO. TO THE HONORABLE BOARD OF 'UP!,RVISORS �Y CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STATEMENT OF GEORGE H. CARDINET JR. 5301 PINEHOLLOW ROAD CONCORD,CALIFORNIA. From my background of 16 years in the livestock business, 7 years as an Equestrian Trails patrolman,member of the East Bay Municipal Utility District Land Resources Committee and some 30 years of riding over Contra Costa County's range land,open space and parks. I wish to respectfully commend for your favorable consideration the spaying program before you today and particularly Program #2. Livestock have been harrassed by dogs and dog packs,a situation that becomes increasingly more acute. Also deer, rabbits and kind- red animals furnish sport for these dogs. Cots meaaee -Ae less« 411*/d A comprehensive control program as is proposed with a built in identification system for the balance of the dogs will give effect- ive relief to the livestock man and protection to those of nature 's creatures we hope to preserve for posterity. to the livestock man There is little satisfaction/whose stock have been maimed,injured suffered loss of weight and broken fences in their desperation to finally run down an unidentified dog. Identification would at .east allow a means of securing compensation. Likewise the ranger or ,patrolman would have a lesser problem with a controlled dog.4population properly identified. The more effective enforcement of the rabies program is also mani- fest in this proposal. There is not a Supervisorial District in Contra Costa County that doesnot possess in substantial measure livestock interests. With our President's Legacy of Parks Program, that of the East Bay Reg- ional Park District and the East Bay Municipal Utility District 's dedication of their watershed lands to permanent open space plus the impetus being given to establish more open space areas by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission insures a substantial per- petuation of our livestock industry and a continuing wild life pop- ulation. I do respectfully urge your favorable consideration. Thank you. In 1970, Contra Costa County Animal Control destroyed 44,377, or 66% of the impounded animals. The majority of these were healthy, loving,pupp;e5 -and- kitteno who were unwanted, and never should have been born. An additional 14,725, or 22%, were dead on arrival, many having been abandoned to starve to death, or suffer and die alongside a road after having been hit by a car. Only a small percentage of this figure would have been picked up from vetern ary hospitals. These two totals of 59,102 destroyed;; or dead on arrival animals represent 880 of the total animals handled. only 8,141, or 12% were either redeemed by owners or adopted. Incidentally, those unwanted, abandoned gets who do survive, often do so by forming into packs, and endangering lifiestock, gardens, and in some extreme cases, even People. The tax-payer has been paying, is now nayinR, and without a start toward controll- ing the average 1947o annual increase, will continue to pay an Fver-increasing amount toward the support of rising Animal Control costs. In 1960, we tax-payers paid $161,000 toward animal control costs, while by the year ending June 1971 we had increase to $563,000, neither figure includin^ plant acquisition. Obviously, our present system of merely picking up and destroying, is not adequate. We must begin on a positive program that will help to level off and eventually decrease the epidemic proportion of unwanted pets. Ot:-:erwise our need for new shelters, incenerators, and animal control personel will increase along with the increase in pet surplus. Ile must consider that the projected figure of 3,500 pets per year to be spayed at the county clinic will result in approximately 6 puppies or kittens less Der spayed female ( obviously this is a conservative figure, especially in cats) , or 21,000 less the following year. This is hardly a drop in the bucket. Using the Humane Soc*ty of Marin County's figures of 'one uns-,aged female and her puns left to do what comes naturally, mry in 0 years result in 13,000 pu^pies, and multiplying that by our tirojected 3,500 spayed females, we could end up �:ith 10,400,000 less punnies or kittens fn 6 vears from the initial 3,500 spayed. The propesed differential of fees between licensing of dogs and registering of cats in spayed and unsnayed females, would result in sending many more net ouners to their own veternarians, greatly increr-sing the amount of females to be spayed. In Fairfield, inhere there has been a limited spaying-aid Drayram for two years, they have reversed the 19% unward trend, and actually destroyed less animals in 1970 than in 1969. The Los Angeles Clinic has passed the "loosing stage" and already is showing a profit in their latest current operating data. Mr. Rush of the Los Angeles Clinic, and Director of Animal Control stated V,e "Sneaking for the City of Los Angeles, I would have to conclude that the clinic is now a success." YIe have daily calls from pensioners, widows, and limited income families who realize the net surplus probem, and have been responsible pet owners in every way, asking us if there isn't some3shere they can go to have their pets spayed at a reason- able fee. For many the base rate of an average$35 minimum for cats and $45-$75 minimum for dogs is beyond their reach. Ile do not feel that having a limited income makes them any less caring or responsible net owners. As in New York, San Diego, Palo Alto, San Jose, and many other cities, we in Contra Costa County, are considering a County-operated lo;•:-cost snay clinic. I urge your foresight in support of a pro -ram whici-, along with a public education progra-, will do much to help begin reducing needless suffering of unwanted nets, and need- less waste of tax-payers money tol:•ard an ever-increc.sing pet sur^lus problem. Barbara Poppin, President, Animal Protection Institute 0=3 EM 3114 Asmero Rd. Concord, Calif. 682-3873 W. ?.' PAI%) -1 CLrfRK BOARD of SUpFRVISORS f � CO T ST CO. SIMS- `,��1._- eputY - - '�','..�m%--- ...., .....,.: -:�L�'� :• � .: ........ " - .!.. ',-L - .,_..... ,i. ;�---l.,�%,,.- - i kf�t?.Ivl� -e�1.11%14D,.";�;",il�-"t�1.171-11; , . .. .- - . - . . ,. , . .. . .F., ,�,,�-; ­:..';�A-*', -:r � , .:, � -­`--♦.-.,- "- �!� !" 1.-.. -�­. `_V,, ._.­,,.;AI..sI�;,P ��-.z:�,.,.�-.'�f.,!..Z.".�,'�,.!-;-i;�'-,-�!!.,.-..,� . . '' ... %.. .. . . . - ..�, . . . .. �..-,-.,-,.,.!.,.--!-;-' - ­­ - - - .. r_A;.� ,.hk."'..._ . . . . ..:. . . " ...I "... -%, r;4j�-._,z-­ ­'I.I.--ZI�I.-.j ­;;­. . ''... , _.,.,,I_.,..-,�-o.,...;' . . . , . , . " . ��` �'..... .. - -.,�-.-.".....-....... _- ­.... . , Y ..'.�':`." % .. , . ,�11:,v.'16 ,�%��: ::.-.-., ..4: .,�-,� �t� . - . 1.­�­';-��.%�'..'.�-�­ '�2�,.`.'.'�.�'--'..; .,�',- �­-. ­���:.-', -",,,'t..�- . ... . . - -z�,.4...;Z2.­ .­...., ...,.,.;:,.,. .�,,:, -. .:. :. , ... . . .i . ... . ­rc, � I..... . ja ,. - .. ". . . ,. ,M. I . . ... . , -r , ::�: s a.- -..-... -,.� 7-:--�_'.-.'�._. �. ': L�'U;N � -- . . . .r.. . .. ,, . . . .-..... .. . �?.;,..." al.,.... - -,-... ..,�., - -," . . . ,�-,:�.,--` .,.!­.,.�C.d' o .. . .�-.!�z" .. . ... .I 4 � ._ ... .. . :. - . .. .,.��:�� C. - . 'T-' . .. . ...�. .. �_ . . .., . . ... tw .� . -. . .�.!�.. .� p�, ., ..:.. �0!?�! . . - . .. � .. . �. . .. . . . . �.... .- .. . , . . .. ... . ,. , . . . . .. -� . - - ...... -:.,:.... -...:.: � . ...� .. �;:;�:..'�..-`.':'r_-,:*. . . %. - . ...-...... ;.' :.-..-;;:'; ......... . . �, . .:. _ .4:..':� . , - , 9 .. .. - � . - .- . . A . ... .. . . .. Ir...... ..:: . . , . ... ..... . . . .. m:.. , ..:.I- .;.,--.`,-::;.� ;�7 ,�...., - "I , i ,.7, ......::, ...!-. . _.; .. . . . . . . "�C .. . . . . .. . �I... . .. . '... - � .. . . . .� .. . . * .. .; . - . ..w ..........�........�E... , .... -. - .' 1 . . .' . ... .. .. .� , . . ' ;"' ' - .,.. ­ IjI -7 : -'.. . . . �-%,.7�'..,Y.-7_ .DEPARTRIENTAL BUDGET, -SUMIART 7 .. .- . : . - - - � . ­.1' " . .: . �i . . . ...I... . . . � . . . . . - - .. _... .. . . . . . . . I . ­;%... . .. . : : ., risea 1 70�7V, _�:-'-.`-.::� �' .�:.: - _ ..;,. ; d . : - . . �:.;. . . . . . . I , ..-;., .. .; .. . . . . , .. 4�. . .. . . . . m., .% . .. . . . . I- F,!��.----,.-� � . . .�. ... e; �, . .':. . ... . . . *�-- -_. -..- -_­ t.:_. ;:; ....... . .. . I I.... %... .- " -•• 1, , ;. . �... ... ,- . �;:. ... ­ . . . . - . . - , �­..�- . . ..; . . .;. . . ... . . . . 7 10� . .. . . .. . ...,;.. . - - . . . . . . ... . . . . . " , . .... . . . . .. . .. ., .. .J.-.51- ..�, - . . . . m . . �_..�.�.`__'.....�: - .. ... . . . 0. -. 400�.�: . ...:....� - . . ..... . . W:;-.... .. . . . 48n'd . ' . ... r .t 0 '�.: .. ';.�_:'.-� m m..". .- ... ..... . . !:;w:!.:j .�- . . . . unction-fttivi. . .:::: ..:j .. . .: -P . . y - . Budgat..N 6' ..:j -17;- I . m... - . ...:-. � �. , - J.:, . . . I . . .I . ._ . . - � . - .............. ... . _ . . . ".:!..-x-, .. - USPLIC PROTECTIO; .. . - . . .. o . . . . . - �:;".o.. . . , ..: z. '.��,. '.." ....I . � . . .. , , , . . . .. . . ..:.... �.... . . .;.. ......�. . .t _: .. . .. . . ,,. ...;. ... ..: .:, . ...... .... . . . , ;. : . ­ . . . :�-�.::.. . - - -. ..!... .7. . . enera . - - - .. . .. ' . .. _. . .... � � ,.:......:. .. . - 14 ,.; �; . .!.:..- : .... ..� .. . '- . , - - . ... , . . Oth . ..:, ... : . . . .. . . .: . .. . un - .:. .. . . . . 'i, , Z .. , .:: . G . I , , er Pro!ec Jpn . . : 285. :. '- �' . - .1 . . . . P6 , .:.�:�.�,-: .. - , :.�:�.�,::��Zr-:.- 'o.".. . , :.�:�.�': , :.�:�.�, , :.�:�.�, .. ,. . .... .. . . .m. . ; .1:m . . :...I..... .. .;. , :.�:�.�,:. �... . ...... .. . 4.. w ... . .. .. . : �. . . ­.. . .I . . , , !: , . -. . : 19 7 I. 1.�.....­. ...... .. . . I..:�.. !� ..,-.,.. .-,.��.,.. . . . ,� `19 69 m- 19 70 . RIO - . . ... . .;..- .. . n . :..:�-.�Incftaoe:� ... - --:,-.--:-"�:-�--_,-. ,-,--.,-;�� I .... . . . :W. Expe dl.t6re ... � ..:! , .. .. .. . .I . . . ' ' ' ' . .: - ,�.., .;.,�,'--��..i . . . : m I ' ' .. . .. ' " : 1. .... . 1 . ­.: .. .: . . . ..z... . , ..-,.. .. .. ....- ......'....... ..��:r�;._.., .. . ..­.-. ' d . . .% . .., . . - - �.. Bud sked . R Recommend' . - jjaj -�: . :.;_.;�..:7.�,.- :... . . I .. Q Re 'I Roca .. : 6 0390) ... ..i.,,'�_ - . . ..�. . . .. .: .. '. ._. . - . , .- -_ .:._..�. - , - . . ... . .. , .. . .I . .­ -;' ... .I . . :. ..:::%v: : 7 ... ,� ,:: . . .. . . . . -. . . .T. . ..: .. , - i�' � "N .m.- r.. .. . . . :, . . . :: .. - ... ... �.��,,,�,:!,.-.�i�...,�....,.,?, ,,,,.,!,..�-11.�-_,;. j... . . -- t . . . . . . .. . . .. - . . ... . , � ..; .- ... . .. . . . . :� . � '.., . . . .. .. . . .. . . . ... .. : , ..4'. . :._ .. ., .. .. . . ... .. . .... . . . -:512 1. -- -- .- , . . - . .. ...I :. .."..L.�"'.--, _ . ..I : .. : . 7 '4 : , , � - . . - .. . 'a Z - . . . . - - . : $ : 76,360 $ A60A ...� .. . .. �. .. . , . - . . Solari i'& Wagas . 1'._-.�:�I I ;:I,l 9 . 6 .- .- S. . . .n,'�,21.�'L... . ._...:.... .. , ... " ­�.',­ . : . . . . . - ,�' . , :. ....-, : . .. . . . . ..:�,: . - . . . .. . . . .. . , .7 . 1 ........: �: :I,.;,...­., � .­.: . . . .��,. ­�: .- .. . .. .. . .. :: , - .:. �­.... ;.:...:.. . �� ',` :�.- ­,�-.,.` . . . - .­ ...... . ..-. ... , .. . . . :..' . � . � ; . , . . . _. , I : , �.. . . . . .. . .... I . . ' . . . . _.. . .. . . .:... �� �,�... ... . ., :�.�- (.`�... .. ': :-71 ..., v,j� ..: i. .. ,I .� . . .:�. .. ].. � I.. - .. ....A.,. .� . . ... . . "._ .,� ..1. . I SOrULCOS &:SIIPpIi6i3 . '. I I - . .:'. -. - . . - . . . . . . .. �.,..-... 7 017 - . 19,475 M11 .. .. . '..­. .. . . .. ..9 I � . . 0:m . .. ., . . .. .. . " . ... . . I .2,293 . . m . ... .. . . :� .. . . .; .7..., ," . . . . .. . .. 1.. .. . :.-... .1., . ..I.. , .� . I . - - - . . . . .. . .. . ..- :­ . �::, '--,r.. -;1�1­aw . . -. .. . .... ' .._. . .. ,... ... .. .; . .. .... . . . ... . ..... -, , .. 11 m_:..i.-ki.-- . . . . . I q�::-,:�.:. : :.. . . rfixed :Aa�sata .- . . . :600 � . ,_ . .... . . .. . .. ,: . - :� �, , " ...- .. . : ...(41M _. ...- '. -,- .:.'.--:� ' . .;::..:. . 132 : : -- I .7 . ...v .. . . . . . . .... . . . . ... . . . . . :... . .. . 1._:.�. . .. . .. . . . . . . � . . . . . . - . .... .m .. . . .. . . � .. . .. I....1. .. . . ....... . -, �.. - ... �. . 1. . : . . ; . - . . ... . . . .. - ....'. . . ... . ` - ... . .. C -et, . ross-: ud .. .A.... ZI. . . o . . .­.%..., . . .. - . ..I. .. . . ' i : ��. .. ._.:....:.. ... . . Le.99i.."e.P6. ts Applied ' . .:�m�' : ... - . I . ..... . _..... . � .".. . . . - . ... :-, . . . .. .. . . .. .. . . . : . ; .. . , , �-�...... t . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . , i ..,: ..� ­ - . __ - _.. .. '... .. ....;..., .:.i . .. . . . . . . . . . . --__ �,..::1..�.-'--`.....;---,J�S-.--� , . . . . . .. . . . . ! - . . .. .. . -,.... .. i- . . . .. .. . . . . . .. .. . . .. .;j�:.::,., -0 I . ... .. . . . ... . .. ...'.... . . . . ..... .�:... :V . . : . . ....- . ­: . . . Departmental ... .. -­ . .. . . '.. .:t1kental . .1 . - .. . . I .�.... 8... . : _... . .. ... ... . . . ' . .. . ..- , �- . . ; ' . . ..... i_. _'-_; ..:­.;_- e . . . ..... V..?�'_`..-., .�. ., 'Appropriati . .. : " 1!.8 -,736 ,. - . S 95-9967951.802:...:::`: , , . . . . W� . .. on it. % %$�: - �....��..,.�.. . , .� .. - 7: -- '....:..i,--, -�.`t�- ..... . --- . �.. t ,.Q66.-'::-:`.�.�..::. . . ...... ,-.�,.-' p� .-.�- - .:!�I . . ­ . . :.:.. .. . . . . . I ;�..._ .. .. . - . . -- - , ­ I...,�.­, . . .:�'......:. . .. . . � .. .. .... . - ......­. ��--��!;.'-?�..',�4i--�r.'!!....-."",,.".-,.:�. : . . ... . .. o . .. . - , - ... .1 - .. .... . '! ' ' : . . . - . .:- .::..::.._.., z7t�...... .. . . , . . .. -i� .. . .-'�-_&,-..-;;"::. - . i . . .:�. .. . .m..- ... . .. � :. ...., �::.-... .. ..., , m 7 .. ..... 000: .... .:�.:�.:. ...- I.,.. . . . . , ... 37:, - 000.. .." . ......... .- . . S' , . . .. . - . - - , - ': � '..". . . . . � ,_�:E .. . . . . , -�:.�, '.,,..:2-.��-. --.F�.,-,� ' ' '.. �::. .. Depar"tmo4'aL`RavanU.0:. _m . 0 . . . $17 . . 4WO6.. .::: . .. . ?;.. ". . �, Z` . . . . . . I 1: ...., . 1, .- I I .- ....". ... . . . . m.:.. �_.-....­ -. . . 1. : . m , � ..-�?­ .,.� . .---- - .. .: �� i� . .:1.i�'. . . I . � . . . .. .. ., .1 '... ..; . ...I- . . . . . . . . 1. . . .1%. - . . .. . .. . - - , ._... ..... ..:.­_. .. . . . I . ­.... ... I .- . ' I- ... , `� � .. ..... . . . ; . . , ..... .. . . . . .... . . . . '. , . .. 4. . . . . . ... . .- .. . - - , . . -1 . . , ! .:.., : . ­ - , ; ... .. . . .. - 0. . - -i.. . . ': I * ,�. . - .. . j a .- n ; .�,. O-�; . .: . . ...i... �. . . - .. .. . . . . . . 11 .1. .. ....... . . . . . . . . . .�.. -0-1-1. I, :.. - - . _ . ., .. . . . . . . . .. . .% , ..... . -, , - 7.. o - , .. - I ..... . . . ­ - . . ' ' , ,". ; �-., �.:��...,... .. : . Perm 3n int Posl tia 's, ':� n�. .. , - �- . _ . . . .. . � . . .� . . . , I . . i.%, K. ... ___ - _ F . . ...:, .. . '. .. .- .A . .. . .. .. ... ...�. .. . . - - . . - _. .-. . - . . .. .. . ': - . .. '..�-. ­ .. 1, . . . . .-J:: .. - _:.; _­ . . .. __ . . . . . . .. ... .. - . .. . . -..,....... .. .;"..�.I.�.'-i.....-�-... .. .. ... . �, - . .. L . . . . . , - .;:-;w . Ime , . . . .. . .;- ... . . . :!... . . .. . . . , . .... . .. .... ..- . . ..;­_ .. .. .. ' . . . . . 4,:. ­�'.. ._-....I.-_!.... . . . , . . . . .: - ... ­ - . ...._ .. . , _;:.1 . ... . :.. . . . _1.; .�;� . .. ., . . !.. . .., -.,: .�" . ... .�.. - � .. �­�. ;-....�'.- .. - . . . .. .; .,.. . -Re ort�� .,_ .. . . ... - I -, ;�` :�.-. . '. .... . . . . . .1 .: -. Cat .: . ..!..: , .-...,;. -.% . . .. or's . , , .� .�, - ,� m .. . . . .. . . .. . '..... ' . - . ­ ...; .... .. . .. -.-. ;��; .�.. .. . . ... . . P P. 7:.� ,. . . �, ,. ....�.- �, .�, . . .� . '... . . .. .,.... :1.. . :�'.. :.. . .- . ...�.�..,.. .M...I. . - , , , .,, . . . : . : . .. .. .... ..;- . ., .. . . , �, ­V.�... .. ­­� I , , - I � � , - .. . ..-..:. . . .., � , . . , .­ .. .:,. .. ..- . . .. . I . . . ..... ';.....: ., ..�:. -;, ":­ � - * . . . . ' .. . .. . . . .. .. . . . ......'...l.'.. . _.. . ..:_I .I.....-..-::,. . .- . .......: . . . . " .;:.....,..%.. '.. .�. . ... -.7 ,- - . . . .on...... ... . . . i. . . . .. .­..._.� , -�� . . .. . . . %: .. - ­­ ..J.�;: . v� 't...,.,., . des'-afie...I A t I me.- , .. . . . .. :: , t'; .�. .... . . ... . ,�.'..:: ..­�......:�- �......I... .-:,.:�f'_ : : :*Incl-u : � 12 - " fii , ,,- � - - . . . . . . .. . . �--1.:J� -.--.. .��.�.-�:......... ,...;,... .. .-.:.: : , - pos- . . . . .. . : - . .. . . . .. '.., . . ;?�;;: :i;..., . . � . . . .. . ! mm. -- . : % .. . . .:.. I . .::;�- . . . . ... . . . . . ... . . ... . �_ . . '.. . .:... ..��..r. � " �., . S . . . . - . . . : , � :1 . . , A.: . : . A-. .,.- . . . . .... ,m ,:.�-, . _.� , . . . . . . - . I I- ,I , , '':.. , ,;-.7;:-,.. . ... ­.� _- 11 . . . �. � . � .. . I ..,.: . - �..,:.. .:�. .. . . , - . . . I. . . .... .. . . . . : . : . .. : �_ 1. . . .. _...t.. . ... .. . - d-.�_ .I.. M _ .. .. ..,,. ... .:..P - . - . . . . . .. . . . . . . :.;.�­ '..:.,_.._­. . . - ' .. . ... . .A. . - . . . . . ... ­. : - . . .: :, .. . - ... .t , 1_ . .% , . .. . ... .. , - s - - .�. . . . - . . t . .. .. _......., . . . .. .: ..�...! :�,* ­:.:�-`.H.A..... . ' . . : :­ ..... :The�Poijn A !�respt#n,.JIj:lv .f ..(,,.n r. . ' .i._. i. .:�.:*.'.; ���I. I . . . I � . ..:.. . . _ ... ­. !�. . � . . naPce:--andI:' _ .- . , .- . . . .. . . oi:1 orci ng. t ic Coup ty -.An i ma I...Ord N degftica :; .t -,._-.;,�-',-.,.:'..: _,-i.--_-_�:'.-: . . ..... . . ­ ­ ' . . . . . .... ..- .. - - - _ . � �,.i­�T;., . . -ire - '. �e­­ � . _....Y.....-:..; ''.....;.. .F. ,�. � . . . ..- . .. ___t .: ...!I . . rdi - y . nL .)e twd&n- .. - .. .. .i ._-_.,. Z 1�.�.. ,... - -, ., �.- .:. �'­ ... .:: o.:.�i_...: . . :. . -.]" "' ..I.­��:2 � ..:.:; . . a . Ynancet-.,: 6 �_a,9 r e c' I 6.-M, - . [tic County .and th i - -..t ,-,`��.- ..:. .:. a .. . i -7: ..:. "'.. . - � ...i. ..-�­:,.... , ­.,. i nco rpo ra:t' d . . . :�., .. .. . . . les, Is ' -:j'... -��, -_,��. ..:.:; ­ . . depar men-v 7_:.. . - a C11 . 4 h.' . ,... ..:.:; ......�;. . . ..., .:f.. , �:- '. , - , " , . . . � .. . _ .--t�.;, ,..�!.i�.. ',' ... -% . ... . . ....1 s.­.respons ib C . 0 V, providing pound services t h :,�!e�-aiwe -. ,'.: ..... ::', 1, , . ..� . .. ... inc I �­ . .. . ;services ­6:.�,b�i­ -�;;i-:Y::'_ ,-..,-,-,.....-,-,,�...-;I , : % County. .� I .�� " , ... .. .,_.-,.,-...- .. . 0 t e .6titIr . , - .. .. ...I. ...- - , . .., : . . .. . .. .. ... - . .. � . . .. .. . - , . . . . . . "..... ..... - .- '. ..; . 61 . . - ... - _.... .. .. :.. ese�ser ces, inc ud �r �... :...Z�.....,. '.. 5 '.. .. . 6.. . vi, V " . . . . . .. P P ... _� a.�...-. ,.- _.. . .. . . . . i . . ..- ,.-,., .. ,",- ..". . � .--.: -m-. .... . ... . . . . . �.: 9,1�.h _.- , .. t - .1 - .. - : ... .... :.. '. . . - . . . . , , ... . . . .. � _. . _. . ,.�.�!,.-.. '. ... . . .. .. .: ..t.. -.'m-. .::;:Z,.*_, ­";-..­.� ...�.-.. " :; . . . . . � . 7 �,­:- . ; .. . �...:.t-.�.;-...,:-.�:...�.-.'-:�: - _. ... ... . . . . . � .. ... ... :.,�,.-�.�.,-:..,-f-,Z-:.�:.'-.!:.i�.:.-'��t,, ....f , , ; . , . . . .. .;. ... . - mm. ... . . .... 4 .% I.. . .. . ..:. -.: - .;. ­'- -....". ,7. -,`,� , . 1,..- ..i -...- � . .... . .. .. _.:�- :­_�,. . . . ..'�. . . ..... .. .... . . . . . . . .:;.:.,%...I;. . ".....- . . J.�.�­ Z" _. . " . " . . , .St. r t'.�"?_'....t '_ ...'_�; ... _L . . . . ;. - m.: -.1.,z,-m. atro s to - - k -' ­ .ray. an*ma I � . ,..:---.,.-- ..-�-:--"".-w:�-,.,�i.,,: -", ...!,.. .. . - . . �':"' I , . PI-.q _.��P-, -s and� investlgafe' •cb�pj ' - -: ­: -,:.-"-.:r:�,:,�- '�-`-��:.__ : . ,.s `-�-� -_'� .. .... . . - .- . . ....... , .... -;_ ­'�!I. . . ai.h. s.1 :­ ;Z.. � ... ... ... . . f- -C . . . ... , ! . ., _ -,.o.� ... - n a . . - ­ ... - , , . . .. . -.., - ... .. , " , Shelter " .. , ­ , !::;`-,:;..:.'..;'.�_..'! . . . - - t it..' ounty An i ma .for. impoun ,,� ,zr:�:�.� - - , ­­. ... . �- _'. - - ' . . :,Ii� , 'Ie rea Z;0 I--:;, � " .. . I . � . - . .. _-..,j . .. ­ . . ..,,_.. ... . . : . . ... . .:-.1,760 � , - - . - . .. .. . . - . I . . . . " , �,. -.�:.- .. - - . .!. .. . .... :,..,I ..... . . ._.. .... . ,- - - - . .1 . .. . d-i rig�.:66d/br:. .. .-"-. -­ �` --..-.---.1'_ ,::,..' . . ....:,!,.,� . ... . . . . . ' . i .. . . "' ' ' ':• - .... - , ---- '... --..-.----. :m . , . . - .. ., .. _�.`_. .,' -, . . . ... . . . . ... . _­%. .. . . 0 ' - tj�I i censed - . ... . m,' ; . - -.., .... ... ". ... � i spas i ng. T ,,t ray�n. " ' "' ' -:", . . - - - � ...;� ;. . .. m . - di . .. V! a s. - ........ - ... ..... ....- . :: .atid unt ar.red an animals.I - ... ... � - - .1-.-' .- ­- ...-.. ..-i` �, - .. :. .. ..... :.. .-.---:,., - - _ . . . . . . , ....-� . ... _ - V� .. . : .: ..3. ,:,.The* ting-animals . . - ....' .... ._.... ... - . . ::: . .4.�... .'... . . ...��,.;.*::.�.,.....�"'.'..�.��-', , .� -_ I . . .!�- qua rant uneI.L.of.1,b ifci#- 6b s e r va tj on'-:a -jt �ihethirz ih `� "."`......*;�.- - .. -.� '; .7,; . .. . .:. :.. .. . . . .. . - ... . :..� ­....... :. �. - . . .. .Y..:...�,:, ..;�:_! . . .. ..:.-- , . r N. . ... - .. . .. . - . . .. ..S 6 .. ... .. I i. .", . ....:-: .i.......... ..;�:_ 5.'., . . . . . ,­. - .....-;. . I . . . .. ... . . -, --�..--�`., ; .._..";`-'... .. .... ..... ... .., . . . .. . . . . .. ,. : abi.d. .. _'. . . . . . . - �-....-. .., ;.- . . . . . . ­ .pre . . . . . . ..- . �. 1, I . . .... . . .. . . . . . . . :.­.­.. .. . ­�....�...- - , :,;%,-%';� . _ . . . . . .. . '. . �. '.. ..: .. ... . . . .. . . . .. . - . . . ,. w . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . , . .,; ­_ ... . . ::L. .., .. ... . ...im... . . . I . 4- R m � J- "' ' I OF . . . . .. - ;... �... _:!,.. .....,;,�... _.........:.-...- ..� .., ....*I_.._'x`i I . . ... ... e..ova I -an :1 - - ,. ... .. . . . '. C. . . .... .. . . . . . �Posa.%: I :an ound in�publj` ' 1.450! -�;; :';.'.;., --,. :.:. .-.-.:�.... . . ....;.,-!�..-.�.,," - - . r. . .. .. .. . . � � : .. ... .. ..... . . . - . .... .. . 1. . , - �;.'.- I . . . .... , . ... : .. �tc: R . -�.:: - -.;: . .. , 7 . .. . . - , I -�..: '.. ,-� ' -�4`. � . .. ... . .. . .- ..f.;..... .. .._. .: ..� . .. ... . ... .. - M,�... ..- .; , , . L:;:�-Z . . . . . , � . . . . . . . �....... . , . '. .. .. . . . .. - . ,, . . ...- . .: . . . . -. ... . :1 ­ � ., . ­­­..4., ...... :...-_,:Z- . , ..:.. ..... _.-. - ...,'.., ... .. . ... . . ­I.;.:....-. . . -- - - �'.' -:�ie.;�:; , � - .. . �,:. ;... ;.! .1 . . . ... 1;.: ,.�:A. _�'�.. -...-..� ­_'E,.,.m::. - ,--..:-... -I . . ;... . . :..!.._�... . . I . . .- . . . .. . . . . . . . ... .. . , .... .. - -:.�.m., . _.. . .. .. ...'.....'. ".,- - ... . .. . I . . . . ... .. . ... . -"....... a -..,; . �. .1 ..� 7-1968-69 - t. &.� Eit '. . �.,rdje­ - .1 . . . :.,.�':..'. . .. . _ ,__ ... . .. .. c t I V I it .:-. .. .:-..� 1967768.. . .. .A . .. - .I.- . .: I.—- .. . . s -':- �:::.-19 70�;;.7 F . _i , . .., ...... .. . . ­�� ..... -__ . . . . 11 . . P cted: . ials ' 1. . .. Wn i n c e - 7 ....__ .. ---- ":---12';000 �:�.. .pj. k 'd . . ..... - . . . . .. . , ,:.up. . .. . I . .: . �'- .. ­::­ .... .... . M-1 .. : :. : 716,968 . . .. .. .I.. .01 .. . .. .r. ; - ...... . . M. 1: 3 1. .1. - . , _" , . - . .. _ .�. - ; . , ­.. � -, , - --�", .1. �.... . . . - 12": )O '_-� -- . . .i .. ... . . ­: " %: - ... :..., ... . .. Animals s .iUrrendered -. .13 i...I. ....'m... � . : . .. . .. . ... V ':.- . . ..t -" - - -, - �0'- :.�'- . . . . 1. 4 , . . . �.'-. .,..-. - 7 440. � . . . If .. ::. 9� 09 :. 0 . W. - ' . .0 1:.� .: , - . . :. :: ..... . , -I . . .. ...An i im I s. re' '!- -z .. . . : . .... . . ... � " , .... dei�med - - - � - .1:.., .%. . ... . .- � .. . . . . . . .. .. . _ . ` .: :.. �­ 'I .. ...._... .... . .. ... .I... .1 - .....":. ;...,. ..::: . .. . . ., . . . . . . .. . .. ... , . .. . . .. . ... . . . . . .. ... . . - . . . ... .�--.....,!.,..:�. : . :. ' ': 4 .. ' . . . ..'..�.. ... ... ...�:.�,�-._.. . . . .. . ..: 1 . i . . .. ' ., . . . . cir adapted'-.- . . : 4 ':-.... .... .1'. 5 ? , :` -, I ' . - . -1 � .!.-...: ......'.. . - .. .. .. ... P . . * . 1'. 2T .. ..:.:.. V 6- ... .Y. .... . ..­�.: � .-I.......-.... ..........--, , . .. :i, ...., .. I . .. .. . : I. . . . . - ' ..;­. .... �.;. .....- . I..-:t :f ., � !. .:.. ,...''.." . . ..._"" . .... . . . . . . - " , I I_,,��r��:�. I.. - .. . - , --;- ��--- . ' ;r f6 �56 , - .'�- . . _..... ,� ,- . . 7 .; . . ,692.. ,' 800-� .. ' ' , . v:;...'':".. .. ..-- - . . - .. .. . . ., . ._. - . -.;,:-m, . - : j nomals destroyed 15 509 :'- �. ` IS - ­.-:-�.....�.,.......".-.-.�-,-..".. .-.--... , k, * .. . . . . , : . . . . . . : . .,_. ;:� . .. - ... m. .. Total . P . . - -...- ....:.m.. . ..:. ,!! :� : , . . . t366 . . .. . . i - :-, - M`20O. '.. . .. -.1 78...,:.'....:.III - , ..-=__�I .. .. . ... .'.V_;. ��_ "..."","-�...; .. . - . . . - ' . - t '-6 - . I.... patrol. I . . - III 11)­� .. . .. , .., ., '133,000;.:::: : . . :_�..%-.-. .!. ..-.. . . . I . . . Fil i.I ti.5 ...� .. lli� " "T-1 .� '.-::-,.- . . . . . . . .%.. � � ��!:­. .. . ... - t : -. . . . . . . . C. ,000 :.: 1. . ,. ..... _ ,� .., . ' . . .. . . . . _. . . . I.. . . _ ­... .- . . . .L.P .. _;. .... _.,.: �.1 .. ......1 ...; .. . . - ... . . . .. . . . - . . 1 . .. . - ...-.: i ­ . ..lm . -.,. ... . . .. .!..... .... . . .. - ... .-.�:�. . - : ". ': ,, . . .. . .... .. _:... . . . . . .. . . . I . .1. . ... . . . . . . . . ... ­ I . ..�. . .. . "I. . :_... . :.. . . . . ..1 .. , . .. .1 . .. .1 ,. . . . . . "�. . . .. . . - .. . . - I . - : , I . .. . .-I... . . .. . : . . .. .. !. :.... ... - .. . , .. � ... . ... . . . . ..]. 1. - . . . . .. :.- . .. . . . 7! ... :...... .. ... . . . , a,;,...... .:.... . . . 1 .. I.. . . . . . . . . . . . .: �� ". . :. ..: . . .:. �. . . _ . . . . ,F_ �a _.. ..:. ��.... .:�..i . . .. . . . . . . . . . ...... .. . .. .� . . ...1.Im. -::. .. -...-.-.�-.-..,� . -, ,, � , __ ... . .. . 11 � _ :..... ­.- . . . . . .. . . .. . .".. ....:. ... . . ­ .. ,: .., .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. _d w . - . --:... .. . _: - .. ' . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . , I , , . .. :. . . . . I ....... . , _ .. . . . . S I n .... . I�.-,-I . . ..: .:-, .... ... .. ... .. ..� .....;., .w res and waqes- . : ...:. . . . .. ...�. '.�.. . . . .. .. - , . .. . . . .. .: :� . :. .. , .. . .. �.:.�.­ .... . Z �..­;. .!:� . . -_ .... . .. . . . . . . ... . . . .. . .- . 1. .... ..... . ....;.... m:......�,. . . .: Re i r -S'a-I a r i��6_ I I - - . . . I.m. :. . �­. ­_.��-; -.:.",:...-.:.� : ..,...:.,�:? . � . .. . . ..... _ . . . . I es i nc I ude�. ,q .......� -­:, .j'! '. . . . � . , . : .. . . - ful ! year: budgeting f . Z�,.;-; . _.. , .. . .... .. - . .. . - a .. ten authorized - i i..'t.I bns..! .Z. .,.-;-,'­N>--I . I . . . �7' ,-03, .: for: - . , :.:.. .. ..:"U. . ... .. . . _�Pci� .L. '" - . ­.:..:,.�.-.'.L,..r w'�;.�_-K,..�. - ;.. �. _. .. .� .. Provision for.�:stand-by pay i s req es.,;j�&:,j .... -.1 .� . . . . .......I...?2 ' .... ac ., is"--, e _ ., ._. , .. '. . . . . . . - I led .at- -,'822. 'b " "' � ..;, I . . . . . . . .1 �. � - : nd �rccbm,.iand . . __ . . . . . . . I '. . : . .. : . 1'.. . . .. ... .. ; S3. :..;% Ca f.f."* k'' � . que . .. .. . sm......... . ...... .-.,.-...,',-'�, -. ,...-, ,.�..........��.. . .... _�.'1 . : .,:. -sred ant) rerrimme!nd I( 0 1-­50()%.*-.-,.,hi-Ch i% -O'i . . . . . . - . n I -a t..%4. . ­. .:-.,.. ­............. . . . . . . . ! .:........:.... - . . S.21 16re than' budgettM'.'I "' h ' ' " , t., , , .., . .::F.'.I...I . ... . ... . ... ; . . " . .. - , ­ '. ,,.: ' . . -, ... . . I . .. ye r - - .;... .. and is, . . - . -. . I , .I e c" , !:... 'd_t ....�._; Cc,.. , ...� .,.... .. . -.... ...., I_' ,_: - r is - 7 .:..... :.....,.. ­z.:. - U -.J' ' , - 01 - , , un . . ­ ., .. _� . . I Supp ru . ... ... � . . _.....:n, ._ . ...... .�.,,n : a .. . .,)7: "1(!� . t" -1- , : ,. . . , -- .; ,, ... . . . . .. .. .; :1 r .. ,�!,.- F IM_7�-,Y-C,! :!." . . . . _� . _ f.��--._..._---.. .. :.-,77, '-. ".. . - .�'. . I .. - . . ...� , -. , . , S. e•XPC . . . . _ . . � . .. . .. ... : . - % .. � . . - - - 4..... . .. . . . ... . . .. . . . . . ...,;;..:.. � ;- '. .. . . . . I..: ,.­: .. - .... . .1 . ..... , . , ,d. i . ... . . . . _'."V. ;::. . I :. . - ... : . . ... :. , - - - , , . : . _ ... � .. m . _.. - -! - . % . .. , . :: . . . .. . . . . . , - . :. .. . . " .:: .. . � . .... I . ., 1� -.. . . . . �:- .. .,:, : . . 1,�::. ., . : . . .. . . . .. - ,:::� . . . . ... . . . . .: - , - ­ ......T - . . . . . . .. ..... .?.- : .. . . . .. . .. - .: - .:� . . . - I. I .--.'�... ..'.-��, �� �.; . . . .. . . .. ., , . . . . ... . .1 . ...... . .. .., "i .7. . . . I . I I . .; . . . .. .. .. - . . .. . . . . :- : .:`�:.,.-:., :.. , ..:. . . - : % : - . . . . : _ - -. . " .� �'. . . . ;.. .. . . . . . .. ... .. . . . . . . . . . . , . ..- ... _-..�.--m- , , - , . . , .. . ­ - - , . . .,. .. . , . : , . . %. .. ... .. .. �a ­ .. , . .�'.�'. t"-;!� .. . . :, '. . I ::�. , . . . .. . -:... ;. I.- . . . . . . , , , .- . . . . - ..: . . . . , . .. .. .. : -, , , �� ­�- �-: .! ; . . . . . . �.- -. , : . . .. . . . . . . . . . . % %. .. .. . .. . .. . . . - -z"- "�-,.-,,n'_..:.,U. . . r. . . - . . .. . . .. :; . .. .!%� .. -.. ..., . ; . .. %. . ,. . _:�.- .. _r. .: . . . . . . . . .. .- I . . - .. . :� _', - ... . . _. ., . .:.. . . . , ; : %. __ , . . I , . . .., . - . ..,� .- -�--�:,- ..%;, - ..-.�,- .. .:, . . I . . . � . . a ..m�:�- .. . . . . .. .. :.�-..-., .--, -- ..., -�.-.,... . .�.� . .. ..... .- .. . . - .. ..._ . . . . , :. I , :.: ,;�-.! , - - . ... ;,:-,...'�.',;'i.�,.;�.-,-.-� .� . .. .. . w . . .,:" , , , -.-. . .% . .. . . . . . .. ... . . . . . ..... .. .. , .., . . . : , .. .: , - -. :�� " . . . I - ,... :�':-.,'_.I-....-.......'. �_.-Z.,.....: .... ..I. .... . .. , I . . ...: :, . . .... . . - , " ..:. .... ..... ­. . :,. I .. . , - . .. : : - . ...:.: . ': . .-, '. - 7..� . . . � '" . .� . .. . . . , .. .. - . . . . . .. . .:.%. :.....:: .. , - . ­. . .. . - . - 1. . , . . :- .. . . - :.. . � . . .... . .. i . .:. ... .. . ... _. - � . . . . . .. . . . ..�i . ...! .,. .. .. . . .: . . .. . . .. . . . . . '..,. . . . .. . _. .. I . . .. : . . . " . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. , . . . .. . . M., -w..-�,--,- ..'.'-,..'.-..- . ....... . : - ..�. .: �. . :- . . . . . . . . . . , .. .. . . .. . ­ . ... .. . .. . . - . . .: . .-.. ... :..�:... .. , . . _. . ... _.......,....I .. . .. . . ..:. . . . . : .. , . .. . - .. . . I...I . . . ... . I..: : - .. . ... .4'.. I——....... .. .. " .: a.. --- .. .:i.::-;-'.�z-�-,., ��."!.�,�-�.�;..%! [�, I I I I I I - . I 1 ,9 .' I I a ,inI I I I nsI I .11 I. " .Z _'7- .I , .; . i� r.,."t-z.-.. 1. IW !�_! 1, -•C:...X: �� I -,-- �,L--..--_--�- ,.. 4 � . - .� Z!, -�--.7 -,ggr-if e, , . I... .2 I ... _-.1.1-.1- - i .I.. * 0. , .'-.. - V. o� . mm...... - . o ri. .-"=.'. I . :'r'm.,-" I I I... I 1. .. . "FIff" N _" 4 . - � . - I !, ...... �__ 511-11151-a t - _"'-., . -- ­ . - m I - .W.. * 9 I � - IS m .'_�. � • Th;s wc,s -}c 10 ah �4P1 n ��ds U.-J, Y'e !p or r:r r'Q W I CII/ ( �T 6c�AS V0 7' fJej n/ 7' p A/ (errs COMMENTARY t �•� i PA Pit,P, 'f-t wt e. ie) IL 1 ciS -t�� Sr�bc� � L Ve49.mar, c,ti1� le �44 -eY. Animal protection Institute of Contra Costa County receives numerous I , calls daily from responsible persons who realize the surplus animal problem and seek to have their pets spayed for a reasonable fee. Many 1 pensioners and widows %1hA pet is their only companion and protector, i and other individuals living on fixed or limited income, provide their i ' � . pets food, shelter, necessary shots, and love. They have confined their female pets to their yards as urged by the Contra Costa County Veterin- ary Association. But a neighborhood suitor entered over, under, or through the fence - and now an unwanted litter is about to arrive to comdete with the thousands of other litters seeking loving homes. Howevert supnly exceeds demand. These concerned people SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD WE SPAYING CHARGES (consider now, the present fees averaging $35 for cats, $43475 for dogs, BASB COST at veterinary hospitals)o We of A.P.I. resent the Contra Costa County Kennel Club's assumption that people will not even pay a reduced rate of "$lS or $20 of their funds for getting that °skinny dog° in the yard fixed." (Direct quote from C.C.C.K.C. letter) Our many calls from pet owners seeking help proves the contrary. We feel that the C.C.C.K.C. and C.C.C.V.& grossly underestimate the intelli--encs and concern of pet owners. A.P.I. supports the proposed county operated, low-cost spay clinic. Agricultural Commissioner A.L. Seeley, upon request of the County Board of Supervisors, submitted a feasibility report in which he proposed said clinic will be self-supporting. We do not feelg based on Mr. Seeley's 12 years of administrative experience in his positions that he would jeopardize his reputation or dupe the publie�b► pEoposigg an unrealistic financial plan. • • His tnronosal .to raise $81,000 through private donations to build and equip the spay clinic, would exclude this initial burden from the general tax fund. As stated by Mr. Seeleyg the clinic will be self- supported by the $15.00 spay fee for both cats and dogs, and by fees for rabies vaccinations which will be available year round at the clinic for those dogs newly acquired, or having attained 4 months of age. Con- trary to the C.C.C.V.A.'s claim of an incomplete budget, Mr. Seeley's figures DO include costs of surgical and medical equipment, drugs, office equipment, etc. This entire proposal is a matter of public record The taxpayer has been paying, is NOW paying, and will continue to pay an ever-increasing amount toward the support of rising Contra Costa County Animal Control costs. In 1960, we taxpayers paid $161,000, and in the year ending June, 1971, we paid $563,000, these figures not in- cluding plant acqu13itAonso As the surplus animal problem grows, so will the expenses - and our taxes. 71he Humane Society of Marin County reports: "One unspayed female and her pups, left to do what comes naturally, may, in 6 years, produce more than 13,000 puppies. Cats are even more prolific." C.C.C. Animal Con- trol had do destroy over 440000 animals in 1970. andtber 14,725 were dead on arrival, many the result of abandonment. These two figures represent 88% of the total animals handled through Animal Control. Only 12% are redeemed or adopted. We would be the first to support a means of safe# non-surgical sterili- zation for animals. Me join the county and state veterinarians in their support for research in this field since .there is no single method of population control. HOWBVBR# Senator Nejedly's committee (composed of veterinarians, state officials, animal control regulation department managers, and the Humane Council president,' and vice-president repre- senting Northern California), which wet July 29, 19710 in Los Angeles, was informed by Dr. Lloyd Faulkner, who is seeking a sterilization vac- cine, that such vaccine is years away. lie recommended alternative meth- ods of birth control such as spay and neuter clinics. Bven the publi- cation, Modern Veterinary Practice, implies that it might be well in t the best interests of veterinarians to "bend a bit more" on the issue of low-cost spaying and not gust by "going along" with half measures and honing these will be sufficient. Pet population growth is far surpassing human population growth. We CANNOT wait an indefinite number of years for the "hoped for" non- surgical method of birth control. The C.C.C. Veterinary Association did not give any projected figure as tothe costs of the vaccine? pill? Intra-uterine device? or as to who (pet owner or vet) will administer these, what the service will cost, frequency of administration (various reports range from monthly to yearly), side effects, etc* will a reminder be mailed to the owner that it's time for Fluffy's office visit, or to pick up a pill, etc.? In referring to the San Matto Survey by T.J. Sorich. the C.C.C. Veteri- nary Association would lead the public to believe that a spay clinic is unnecessary and impractical. However, quoting from the conclusion of this same surveys "Spaying of female dogs (add 'cits) represents an alter- native which is immediately available." It is further stated in this survey that the COST of spaying is the greatest barrier to spaying among owners of mixed breed dogs, and the second reatest barrier to spaying w"ong owners of unregistered purebred dogse These two categories of owners represented more than 60% of the owners respondirg to the questionnaire wailed to theme . To update the C.C.C. Veterinary Association's figure of an average of only 4 ovariohysterectomies performed per working day,information ob- tained July 300 1971, from the Los Angeles Spay and Neuter Clinic, on their current operating data, establishes that their clinic has increased 1 from 6 ovariohysterectomis performed per w rking day in May, to 12-13 per day in July. 481 operations were performed from Pebruary through June, resulting in possibly over 6 MILLION fewer unwanted puppies and kittens in six years. The higher percentage of operations performed in July would multiply this figure even more. The follovA ng statements concluded the Los Angeles Clinic report: 1. There have been NO mortalities among the animals operated upon. 2. There have been NO emergency calls arising from post-surgical complications. 3. There have been NO letters of criticism from animal owners who have used the Clinic's services. Mr. Robert I. Rush, General Manager of the Los Angeles Spay and Neuter Clinic, Department of Animal Regulation, stated, rather enviously, that he would like to own a business with similar potential for financial success. Whether you seek to have your net snayed, or are among the ranchers, homeowners, garden enthusiasts, etc., annoyed by the abandoned strays and oackso we urge you to call or write you Sunervisor, and to attend the public hearing on the Proposed Spay Clinic, to be held Thursday, August 12, YO an, in the Supervisors Chambera, County Administration Bldg., Martinez. The Board will respond to your support. We need the clinic NOW. The foresight shown on the adoption of this program will surely--set a precedent for other counties to follow. ANIMAL PROTECTION INSTITUT8 OP CONTRA COSTA COUNTY �..,�eOL f CJ /�"7 W. T. PAASGH CLERK BOAR{? OF SUPERVISORS ✓ can�rR.� cdys'YA COco�,p By .l'`E� .: H-puty O 01-1 1 � d 61 34 w RA ' WU MARTINEZ 457P PDT AUG 10 71 LB194 SSM2 79 L PKA 135 MP NL PDB PALO ALTO CALIF 10 CONTRA COSTS COUNTY BAXXX BOARD OF SUPERVISORS P O BOX 911 MARTINEZ CALIF I URGE YOUR SUPPORT- OF A COUNTY- SPAY CLINIC FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: IT IS A POSITIVE ANSWER TO THE INCREASING PET POPULATION EXPLOSION BECAUSE AN ANIMAL IS NETUERED ONLY ONCE. IT-SUPPORTS EFFORTS TOWARD COMMUNITY POLLUTION CONTROL BECAUSE G THOUSANDS OF UNWANTED ANIMALS MUST BE DISPOSED OF EITHER THEIR DEAD BODIES, THEIC ASH FROM INCIERATION OR THEIR LIVING WASTE PRODUCTS WHICH ARE ALL POLLUTANTS. PET OWNERS DESERVE CONSIDERATION FOR THEIR TAX DOLLARS. A SPAY t -) CLINIC IS TO , THEM- WHAT A MUNICIPAL GLXXX GOLF COURSE IS TO A TAXPAYING GOLFER. .-- LASTLY REMEMBER THIS IS A SOCIAL AND MORAL PROBLEM t Nr.g-2 ToC,4 1-t- S By A� ` io Qe E cif Det E PEARL HANNAH PENINSULA ANAIMAL WELFARE SOC INC BOX 71j" z 275 PALO ALTO CALIF 94302. vT]7D C {' !a7T. PI'% AC RK BOARD OPSO T OSS�cy THE CONTRA COSTA SOCIETY "Br&* PREVENTION OF CRUELTY To ANIMALS 16x1 Soft Claus eft wef W&mewk CWHaete lhocue= 525AS66 t 1 ° UCEIVE CV Mary Lumsden, 1622 Santa Clara St., Richmond . T. P A A SCH C Ct6RK BOARD OF SUPHRVISORS Secretary, The Contra Costa S.P.C.A* coN cti► The Board of Directors of The Contra Costa S.P.C.A. recaamend that the county$ 1. Coonstruct, equip, and operate a low cost spsy clinic. 2. Adop oat registration as a logical means of creating revemne for the Animal Control progress and as one means of controlling the surplus cat problem. 3. Consider higher license and registration fees for unspeyed dogs and oats as a logical means of providing additional revenue for the Animal Control programs and as an Incentive to owners to have their pets spayede opponents of the county law cost apaly clinic infer that if individuals camaot afford necessary veterinarian spay fess, they should not aeon a pat, in most instances, we agrees 800=9 too m+mY pet owners who cannot afford these services do own pets. This society and the county are then faced with the problem • %%hat do we do with the resulting surplus animals?„ A low cost spay clinic is the first positive move to c:aentrol the ever increasing cruel and costly surplus animal problem. Such a program, working in conjunction with additional, and more stringent, animal control regulations, will reduce the surplus animal statistics. We do not state Oat the surplus animal problem will disappear or be solved overnight. If we do net establish a lar cost spay clinic, the county will be forced to construct additional animal shelters and hire more Animal Control personnel. The county taxpayer will bear the financial burden. We wish at this time to submit for the record peti ti ons containing the signatures of approximately4o0w t residents of Contra Costa County who favor a county c:onstructeds equipped, and operated low cost spay clinic. V Jam, 197/ VC ERIC SOP.?.D OF SUPERCN(�iA CESTA G Beam of super►liors: Contra Cost& County Martins,. California sirs= My Ii plea" make a statement! To my knowledge: it is not a unanimous feeling of the veterinarians of this county to oppose the. spay clime. Because 1. do not have permission to use their names,. I will not therefore identify them. One doctor personally remarked to as that he would have no objection to supporting the spay olinie. Human birth control measures and relaxed abortion laws have. resulted in loss children available for adoption and a smalles school enrollmonti Therofors,: I fool, it follows that the spay clinis will shoat the same. results: in our animal populat— ion in the countywhen put into operation, thus saving our tax moneys in the near future. Fran Bailey t ( Xrs.. James F. Hai ley) 2735 acacia Mad Walnut Creek 94595 934-x+398 �r -T_ f '>t f :r f. 1� - P fi. ... .. ...... C r: 3. O. ERV _a K 4 a R 3 � C •sr. Z&— o or C01Y. i/ TRR >�t. Lam-: ,, ol a... Ito K/ •.h f y.77 S Alto 011W Z-0 ee- l: '`4�':� - .•.i,. y.;`. t: Via`( f a����� k• x -ry•-.�,' -�;�,_ ,,,,•,;;ate' � ':�, 3. �:k7= - , /� y, - .v1SJi ..... :. _ fire _ r ej - I �... •.. ice,"'.:' '-'.�.. .iGtl' .. .. .. 941 .001 A� ' 716 . ... ...... - , .... . . : ...:.. , „ .e.h:.YX.{:�Y'•t4 ir.,+. ., ..,...a. ...r.... .....,.c. .....:•S°.•�.!LMY\.... :.h.t,_,'f,'V-z'Mf. J P6vw ca.0 to N, d�at� .R �-LtiA.i. .+�t _ -A/Nw. i f � • i ., tvw�anxl.A �CAb 4U t;' aAj LAI IDA 3:5.7.7 ���..,�.�'`�'`►.�`��.._ ,cam. ���-t� � �? . _ . ._ . .--- _ . _ _. _.------ . 3 a a. _ RECEIVES _ V T. PA A $ C Ft CLERK BOARDCONT OF SUP ERVISORS rsac FULy r 1. (Popular Logs) magazine August 1970 Raising and selling pure bred dogs (mostly beagles) for medical research, approximately 50,000 bred annually. White Eagle Farms, Daylestown, Pa. sold 29,000 in 1969 and 40,000 in 1970 $100.00 per dog - to breeders like them a loving dog is nothing but lives #2. In stili another issue of Popular Dogs, bodies of Dobermans found ' skinned professionally in a ditch in New Lenox, Ill. are they raising them for skins now? ? C • #3. In many copies of the above magazine and Dog World it would s CO no 0"`� S C that the breeders are constantly giving money (grants) or whatever, O ssa CO vH to vets to cure many ills that seem to me are the eeders fault in CO the first place - too much inbreeding and indiscriate breeding. #4. Dog shows, dogs seem hungry and in many cases tranquilized. What does a ribbon mean to a dog - nothing - to a breeder - money and more money in his or her pocket. #5. Case in point last week in a local beanery in Moraga we were having a bite before bowling. I spotted a darling little puppy looking in the restaurant for his owner - I found said owner, a hippie from Canyon, he was a very nice young man and seemed to love the dog, but with complete disregard for the leash law. I asked where he got such a beautiful pup, he stated that a breeder in a fancy station wagon came over to Canyon, giving the whole litter away, moaning that his bitch had mated with a Malamute so the pups were worthless and begging the hippies to take them of his hands. He also stated this happens all the time, so where do the breeders get off claiming their stock is always wanted and that they don't contribute to the over-populated animal world. See cover of "Mainstream" for evidence. Breeders can be nothing but matchmakers. #6. As for proddingon a larger scale, remember that the Los Angeles Spay Clinic came about as the result of petitioning on the part of California Humane Societies (such as Mercy Crusade and Pet Assistance) The refusal of the Southern Calif, Veterinarian Med. Assn, to take any action on the stray problem and the high number of animals that — ,U were destroyed by the City's six shelters in one year (roughly 200,000),5' 91, G were crucial factors (I believe in our county roughly 99,,'6190) were _f % destroyed in only two shelters) which proves the situation in our county Is critical. The L.A.Clinic is no-.-:- operating acid self supporting under the following # schedule of charges...Spaying fbemale dog or cat....... 17150 Neutering finale dog or cat.......11. 50 These charges include all shots, presurgical exam, anesthesia. surgery post surgical hospitalization and all required medicine and pharmaceuticals. Information furnished by Cleveland Akmory, President of the "Fund for Animals, Inc:'#i Wall Street, New York, N.Y. #7. The breeders are always stating a spayed purebred with alpapers in order can't be shown at Dog Shows - this is untrue- they can be shown in 1 r2- Obediance Trials and win the same ribbon and trophies an unspayed dog can win. Dog shows are big business and rapidly becoming an industryi' - 771 M OPEAgM-G DATA " 'a=, _ i SPAY AND NE€313 CLINIC ld, 7i 41 coy�r.+ c -A co. 36Uroe of Dataat fit'. Robert 19 ?tiandCAMOMI MMN Departmnt of Animl F*gu2sation 215 Wont Street mss® Waled, Oa2ifornia 90012 Phenee 213-"5-5771 ate Z1 'oz�atiern "fbtalneda Ouly 109 19?1 a. Operating figures for the first four-end-swhalf months of operations at tha t* As Clime GFebruart► 17 Leh June 30. 1972? are the followings 12331 MOM 22,4 ►4.Q0 b. ! > ae exwenditures are comprised of! Salaries $12.193.00 1 y � fit9220*00 �yquip�►t 1�.�?'�. POtal o. It should be noted that the large aro® for initial equipment to to be awrttsed over twenty yearsa or at a rate of $58.64 per month. T TIvrefores a more meaningful comparison of revenue and wgxam es is ohosn below# !:,TAT. arcs .2.x#.00 Salaries 12,193.00 'higply almn a 49220.00 AMOrttaativn Of Equipment t 1/2 M", a A 58-64) agi,as TOT,PZ F.XPMS'n 016.676.88 d. While the "to date" revenue has lagged behind uses, the reveante-expense 000parison for the last two months for whioh data are available shAws that revenue is AULP34DY beginnIng to BUIT220 "s# Revenue 2615*_" 13.384*9A Salary and Supply Fxaenaee "*00 2#729.40 ee From all Indication** the ClInIc to Atasay at the finanoisl breakoven point. ". Bush statede rather owtously# that he would like to epi a business with similar potential for f itmartaial suo+ess. T. Z at XUaber of w"glaal #peratlow porfarsedt fty n5 Tis* TOta1 to dattoo tscludeS OPOM lane Perforse d to FebtUarya 7hrah and , f3i. oto Vis* 4m a bads of 20 waling d yo err Month.9 there tee" about six avezatiMs Per dray perfarMd In PWY* nine per diet' In JMO anda in 4 a O .welv* to tlfUenpor s ed BocauEe did f*r the ®*s swrfte*a is viab grftter thaw am be gently a eco tom• plane am kh* is to *zpand the faetUtiea sud to tnareame the CIWQ"3 d rat h*wr fr atOt toemt�n- 'aur hourx a Trio 2=ag o ,Me Als earl.RODS -a . ilge eb Aro Mwh is pleased that the C4..inie affors a valuable, serftee to the pabila at Ivw oo*tl. FIs eat& or dogs a" spsysd for a FIof '4",1 7.S0 while Mle eat* or 40Ss .are MWtend for $12.506 b. Altboueh dwguid for the Clinta's ie tAs bem groat and 461 surgSad optmttoss wwm parfoamd through Jww 30, 19n, the ClIzI elOs "cord is exce3lent# 1. The" ha" !17G MortAlitl" among the &MMIs *Pezated cava 20 s ba" be= P,;!D a"r"► 1s azisisg r== Pnt- surglod eiieations. ,3m ase ham letters of arItlaim from ani, owsers Orbe have used tvw Mata n sewleas.' THE CONTRA COSTA SOCIETY for the PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS 1622 Santa Clara Street Richmond, California Phone: 525-0566 July 17, 1971 RECE! Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County W. T. P A A S C H Martinez, California 94553 CLERK ON A c0AA T SUPERVISORS By :puty Gentlemen: The Board of Directors of this society recommend that the county construct, equip, and operate a low cost spay clinic. We agree with Mr. A. L. Seeley's recommendation, Program Number 2, with one exception. We oppose the proposal that the construction and equipping of this county facility should be dependent upon the donations of private citizens amounting to $81,000. We feel the financial obligation of this clinic should be shared equally by all county taxpayers. We are of the opinion that this spay clinic would eventually level off the rapidly increasing number of surplus animals which creates a costly and cruelprcillem. The cost of expanding existing shelter facilities, and the need to:'cunstruct new shelter facilities would decrease. We have enclosed with this letter forty eight (48) comments from citizens favoring the low..cost spay clinic. We received only one return opposing construction from Gary Korsgaard, D.V.M. All veterinarians in this county were solicited requesting their comments. Dr. Korsgaard's comments opposing construction of a low cost spay clinic are enclosed. Your consideration of our recommendation would be greatly appreciated by this society. Respectfully, --40 Geor ;�dford Jr. g s PRESIDENT GB:ml Encl C01 August 2, 1971 Honorable John A. Nejedly Senator, 7th District State Capitol Building Room 2074 Sacramento, California Dear Senator Nejedly: The Board on July 27, 1971 fixed Thursday, August 12, 1971 at 10 a.m. as the time for hearing on a proposal to establish a spay clinic in this county. Enclosed for your information and use are copies of the Board's order in this matter. Very truly yours, W. T. PAASCH, CLERK By Dorothy Lazzariiff Deputy Clerk dl Enclosures In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California July 27 19 In the Matter of Hearing on Proposal for Establishment of a Spay Clinic . The Board having received requests from various parties for the establishment of a spay clinic for the purpose of reducing animal population in the county and in connection therewith estab- lishing relatively low rates for services provided through such a clinic; and The Board having requested and received reports on the proposed spay clinic from the County Agricultural Commissioner, so that detailed information would be available for use at a contemplated public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, on motion of Supervisor J. E. Moriarty, seconded by Supervisor E. A. Linscheid, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that Thursday, August 12, 1971 at 10 a.m. is SET FOR HEARING on aforesaid matter before this Board in its chambers, County Administration Building, Martinez, California. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, J. E. Moriarty, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. c.c. Senator John A. Nejedly Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of County Agricultural Comm. Supervisors (6 copies for distribu- ,affixed :his 27th day of July , 1971 tion to organizations) - 4��K PAASCH, Clerk County Administrator By Geraldine Russell Deputy Clerk H 24 8/70 10M _LCE I V CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Department of Agriculture 24.4�_191T. P A A S C H Inter-Office Memo -"DR D CO 3UPERco.V�::'11' TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: July 15: 1971 Via J. P. McBrien, County Administrator FROM: A. L. 'Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner-Sealer of Weights and Measures . SUBJECT: . Surplus Animal Problem (Report requested,; by Board Order dated ..,6/29/71) Your Board requested that I report . on July 27 1971 the problem of surplus animals' in Contra Costa County. We originally provided your Board with a feasibility study on a possible spay program for this county. This report of May 26, 1971 was givgn to you on June 29, 4 1.971- In order to aid your Board .in determining the seriousness of ! the problem, we are attaching a 10-year statistical summary and a graph. This information shows a continued increase in the number of animals impounded, those disposed of (P. T. S. * and D. 0. A. *) , along with . a continued increase in the cost of operation. We recognized in 1965 that the county should establish a "Priority for the Scheduling of Calls" to go along with many other policies that prohibit or limit the circumstances under which our personnel will provide assistance to the public. The reduction in services and the establishment of the "priority" system were done in consultation and agreement with representatives of the County Administrator's staff. It seems logical to assume that unless some changes are made, the same increases as shown on attachments 1 and 2 .will continue into the' forseeable future. There are two other situations which are not apparent by looking at the attached data, and these are: 1. Facilities for holding the animals are overcrowded at both centers. 2. We are not holding all stray cats the required 72 hours because we get more strays than we can handle. Strays left in the night depositories without some identifica- tion are "put to sleep. " *Put to sleep; Dead on Arrival. Attachments 1/70 (500) `d," - b �4 ►+ bd H dH �d c� td d 1.0 0d to to H p dg ci 9 9 • O � 4 4 � H crgH � � A im 9 a a � 0 a 0 • ct H m 4 � p ►. ►�' H 43 ct • O A o 0ID 0 1210 o 1--& a C? x H o ri Eg 8• ct ct H % �1 0 H H � dF1 HcOt N r x p 4 � Z O�'! � O ►�'! 009 d 10 r 0 40 0 N N r O 11t Om 110 w N N •4 V► O F-� m %.n o w �O o ma~ N %A N N o %.ft N v N O • • ►� * O O o Y w O ►+ N W • w 00 %0 FJ %0 N 17 -Q N 00 N N is cf H C] ct O w O% a c0} N N O O n d � Z d � � N N � N � Wy��d►► ct y O O O w N �O N OD OD N N N r wOzn N O O N %A �i NO O %,oOO In N W NO %,A V %A w �O W O W 0 a Go h A;D O� O W F¢t+ O N N w N H !-� N o co vc o o �o w o vc- N N N H Csi 0o -7 0o ZD O O O� O Vt N w Vt In N N In M kA 00 N ct O co N w w m •v O O% a% Vl O lip 0 O �7 N "Co lR O N V w "000 N w W N %0 \O vt %A O O w w "n co v% N v. y N �- t-n vs v oN. a `t• ro n a * 40 o N N ,►x N y � %D \0 N N llt110 0% N -W O � W W • • • . • • O N w lR 00 O N �O W O M ZD O Ch O% O O% l.n N p O W 0 00 w 0 N O W \O N O y O co I-d to to to -4 to 5 04 G 'd •O t r 1 y ct H 0 t J pct 0 A ca ra ...0 n Q a 4 o H Ct� 0 R' cot ct H M tl! O ct F+ ct o g ul � av a OIg ►i 4 m # N H N \WCC O ut (7% OD N 4r N Vt W W 1J FJ O W O W O N z t N 01) <T O l%,n b O Vi O Vt Vi F� Ftla Ch -r FW-� O Ch 0 1.R W i • O Q H � s * cot n ►-+ Vomit O FJ \0 tea) Vti N N W W �' W W Vii ct . . . . . • • . . : . M y !-� . •O V N OGT fi' N W OD Oh - a ti0 4 ODO� c t0 O ti0 %.A OD Vt O Vti V O% Ch Vt � N Ut M I- 39 3 cd Vt O j 0 tj At q H l�h t8 •ON uRt` \0 ON N • N lJt • • %.AMant cO ]to \0 W W 4 W 4;r � W • • M N •N M0 •W OVt Ml Q � ct4 N NO H N W O► W -�i Vi 4r 4r w N 0-4 O ti0 tit} N -moi FJ ZD Vl CO O O N N O Vt O� 19 O \0 OD O W Ut \0 DQ V1 �i OD lJt O� ct O \0Vt i OD OD iT Vt t'-`• O N OD %A %.At � s N N O OD O cit 0� �A � � � chN OD %.h OD Oti O F j Ch OD F wN v ti°Do N v c O w o o co 4r u v 0 io o �o o c o c o $ (o $ o S S i t V - �p N - 1 N N j { s i i �p f i 1 0 O I o � 4ab i � O . ra N _ �p Q K . CD H OD t t 1 { r c C- 18 18 tv- W t4 NO N N 1 r 4 o e r OD /( A-1 i,. l'V. T. PAASCH CLERK BOOAO OF S A EORVISORS ll BOARD .OF SUPERVISORS By �" aputy CONTRA COSTA COUNTY In the Matter of Regular Calendar of Board. REQUEST THAT MATTER BE CALENDARED FOR BOARD ACTION DATE: — — TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS It is respectfully requested that time be allotted on your next regular calendar for consideration of the fol- lowing: (State specificically matter to be consid- ered and action desired by Board..) . af f r . II: -a 0 br. Rn be_rf *5LI ri e:JP I -�5o ne, ao i n s ids ip�'i S Q i1i ual id 1 t0,012 �n i It is estimated that !s- o minutes will be re-qu i.red for presentation. Preferred time: {1'v 30 a.m. p.m. 58-1 - 500 - 26.1 In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California June 29 , 19 ZL In the Matter of Control of Animal Population. The Honorable John A. Nejedly, Senator, Seventh District, having appeared before this Board to discuss the problem of unwanted animals and to urge that the Board seek an effective means of reducing their numbers; and Senator Nejedly having called attention to legislation which he sponsored last year to encourage spaying of cats, which legislation he stated was not suggested as a final solution but to prov6ke recognition of the animal population problem; and Senator Nejedly having introduced Mr. Edward Newman who presented a statistical report entitled "California Animal Control. Survey 1969-1970" and furnished the Board with information concern- ing the Spay and Neuter Clinic which was established in the City of Los Angeles as a means of alleviating the problem; and The Board members having agreed that serious attention should be given to the matter of surplus animals; and Supervisor A. M. Dias having recommended that the County Agricultural Commissioner be directed to submit in 30 days a detailed report on the problem in Contra Costa County and the Board then consider the appropriate action to be taken; NOW, THEREFORE, on motion of Supervisor Dias, seconded by Supervisor W. N. Boggess, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendation of Supervisor Dias is APPROVED and July 27, 1971 is fixed as the date for submission of the report. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote of the Board: AYES : Supervisors A. M. Dias, J. E. Moriarty, W. N. Boggess, J. P. Kenny. NOES: None. ABSENT: Supervisor E. A. Linscheid. 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of cc: Senator John A. Nejedly Supervisors County Agricultural affixed this 29th day of June , 19 ZL Commissioner W. T. PAASCH, Clerk County Counsel County Administrator By Deputy Clerk Dorothyf A. Harkne s s H 24 4/71 IOM ao • 14 co t G O t'7 r! Q r�•i rpt ttt In In d Q1 .7' tr► O w p+! M0002tM q1 4J W 4) O�4 n aD G4�4r4 1a mtn cn O 0) W C 044 � r-4 i coo I i i i i i .__...� Q 0 J d bD C ri m 0 Ct 1 t i t i r m 10 0 O :3r4 r-4,4 P4 co r-i -A �w 34 O to 0 41 Uwcpi u G1+ G 4.iG u Eti c0. 44 41 > u.�r4 `° ►a O a o o � 3 c cni O -H ttl L) rd 14 41 -A C:) ` 00 Cl co Q1.G GD"O 'C) O i w I 1 I Q< 4► L) sJ 44 O 14 « .-+CS N �y Mei 1 a! tzt « O 41 u V P.Ch cn p Z i ry tt1 U tit J.1 rj °'p dr ?,u�u.0 X 41 ,.a. ( A H O O 3a O G Co " .-1 C-4-i �.,.f\\J o `z d G G� cr «u) to sn > rn cv 4,0a a curl tl w cd G C >NCO M .0 1J O .7 th N tp m ! I 1 r-d O H O u to $41-4 4) U to « Q e-1 „"{ C N•rl O >-, Ca 41 `7 � I 1 i t 1 r-t (� en O 43 O � G T3"a tv N � O to d. O 1.!b tR tll C? 1=1 .�. ► C3 :3 G $4 00>,ss O 4J R,41 A 41 $4 'O CO 00 4) x to V :1 u n cn N O +n M o n v1 rf cc u to A. to J wEs-) 0x « 010+ M a% 0 rn allo rna 0 0 r+ 34 a a > wa) O .4 O 0 U w 0 O a rt N Q co .� tQ O v W to 1.)44 vi N N ,O a tri N "4 41 til ra " n NO N iO m 41 a m .0 a co cd p Mw i-t .O cc rWO . i t t Ln r^i Ai •2 .,-a k co.G >,w O P4 Q Cdw g��r4 41 Ct u x•ra O to N'd - Q $4 r-+ ,-+ C �d C+ 4 ao 4 ao Q to m N w 41 >y CO N p'C b a0 N tT N tct n O .' h N ON ,A 41 u .tt U G C +7 t� N n O 00 m Q Go tri N r4 0"4 "4 to w O « « w w w w w Wt u t<} U d {'� tt t r �Q t-! tr} ()o r! r. ix C «4) cd 41 r. r.v >, N •-4 00 ttt to r-4 4-1 00 41•rd r-! a00 41 tO cd -P6W > Jbo OD m 'Q 1 0 0 m H kCd•+C4 w U oj cn M (3 -.1 4 O aD O tO cr1 O O P+ O O O 4.1 O O m $4 rA r► O 1* r-I N o n n r-! cn P:0-3 G.A •rt p. r-410 (30 co N tr'? n •• O 13 U cow • w w !` u 1 O N W U >,N 0 "4 E+ U O C C t70 r� r1 r-! tr! tM N O r-I C U p b tb 1-4 zOO 44 4) p E.0 w >+ ti 00 G to oCO 0oxcnn $4 dUtow410 r1 4J„C„C r4 td C s.t " W.� OT1T3 > 41 w to cc w t0 co co.0 C tg CO} 43 r-4 41 tic G7 > G 4 t(13 G G O tD r-! to O O r4 d C 0 [a 30.1 M O h h O O O O O O O 1-4 %0 :3 M "4 %0 M 4.1 h 00 O M O M O O O N M w h I 1 .rI w w I I 'G N O .7 O h �D r-d O Ul tlD tp M 1-d 00 t 1 G M h in OD Ill r4 %0 T W r-t 00 0) �p r-1 In r4 k W t/} .0 U h ON c7% %0 r-i 00 N 0p O %0 O .7 h Ln 3d N N h h 00 Irl O1 00 M 1 'T 00 Ill 1 h I 1 1 OI iJ 1-1 %0 M M 1 N I I I 0 cu to U �t 1-i rl r♦ CU Ri rl U f~ H OD N %t O'I 00 M trl r 4 O 1*- r-i r4 lzr M ul a0 I;t N O O ul t 'T h h N m Ch Y1 M I M t -,t ON M M N h Ir) I O% h 00 M M N M %D I In I Ill b A 1. O r-1 O b 0 14 r-I Irl O+ W %D N ra O O Ill %0 00 Irl tD 1-4 tr1 O h 0 N N ra W N r-I W rl N 00 O 171 01 00 U1 00 r-I r-I Irl 4) 0 W .-d N M r-I 00 ON %D M 0% %0 -It 1D O Ol O O 0p 14 U 1.1 N rl M - N N 00 N M M m M r-i r-i M r-1 0) A .d 0 co I:r co O M h O% 0% 0% %�D M O Ill 0, h ON Ill Ill M ON N CO M Ill Ill Irl h M %0 O O -4 O h h N M O T h %D h 00 00 N N h C7% N 00 i A 31 T N lD 1I .f ID —7 M M Ill ri In r--I 1-4 r1 N N O) A 00 h W Ill M O %D Irl %0 M N m i tD iD vp h -4 M O O O O %D h 4t Irl N 01 r4 O L N 1-I Ill zr O w 00 r1 %0 ID O 't 1-4 O O M 0 w w w w w w w w w M N rl M M r-1 N M r-I O l0 h 00 00 r-I Irl %D O M h O %0 M r4 Cl Go 1 N 00 m h M h M O 1�0 T O r4 rpt h N 14 0% 00 O% O r t 4 Irl .T tr) M N O r-t N M M M N w w w w w w w A Cl) N h Lr N h h r-1 r-d r i r4 r-1 Irl Ill Ill Ill N M rI ri r-1 N M 00 h N N OO .t co M N N Ill O, h a% 1.0 M 0% r4 O I0 10 %D 00 %0 -:r 1-4 ON %o M 00 %0 r-1 h OO r-i h �t r-i 0► M r-1 0) M M r4 a� 1-4 r-4 �t h N N r-1 -,t N 00 M N 1t h ca w ww w L �p M N 00 r-i Lr 00 h 1; N ID 0� Ill 00 O� r I 0` M rl (. rl h M r4 r-1 %t %0 N Ar. O co m O .O O 34 O of i� O 0 L 34 4J O O to C G 10 0 O w4 00 0) r-4 � vl 4) -r1 0 -ri 0 C4 a0) 41 U O -rl r-d O 41 U 'O k 0 k 10 E 0) -ri co 4) >% V O Co $4 U 34 O 0 0) b0 0) 3+ 41 Q) PQ A 0 L "4 Pi C -r4 4) 0) 'O U 1.1 U 0 k JJ L to ,56 4) G 11 1G C p 0 0 0 > 0rr C G 0 0 W G r4 0 3.1 O 0 (1) O P r-I -r-1 4) cuC O 0 0 0 O LJ O to o 1-, to M \D 0 a0 �\D to O m O O\ Cr1 O+ \D \D O\ p Ot 00 O t\ O► r-d O+ 00 Q` M tr 1 4• \D O O N -rl tf1 N 4 N00 I-- n rl N N p r4 N r4 W <0- (7% O O+ O M r- CD N rd }t toI 1 1 C\ IM O\ Cn rl p 1 00 1 1 OD 1 r1 1 11 0] 1 t � M r 4 N N1 1 1 1 to 1 N 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 1 w 1 U N d r4 ri U C\ 00 r- \D Ln O O 00 n .Y O W 1 rl 00 M to * 00 4 1 to 1 i \D r4 -T N t N �* N rt 1- 1 r-1 1 1 U1 rl 00 \O 10 1 1 1 w w r-1 A 1 r+ O\ v-d M O �t cn n n 1-4 O% N 0% N M � O m O O+ 00\ \O O \D \D f%% \D O \D Ct N M -�r N 41 O N tC\ fl- to \D N 1 N N O N 00 00 N N 0a }1 1 U \D O 1 Mr4 r-4 C4 y N NM N ^ N N \D \D N N r-1 Ln In U9 00 00 W \D r4 \D M rl O\ C\ M tG rl 1%- 00 N M M I 0 � r1 00 tf1 00 N N 00 O\ 0% r1 t� f� O M Q 1 O N r-1 r1 rl lr rl N 14 N M 01 N Q \D00 00 O M O M O 4 1` %J 0% Ln O Ln ao O C\ M U1 O O\ rl ri \O Q\ 00 Q\ ON p L1 1- 4 \D Ln N 00 00 CO) N %0 N O N 00 M M U1 U \O M t!1 r-1 O\ N I tp ra ^ r-1 N N Ln O 00 1\ M 00 \D Ln M \D N r- W f- u1 O n n 1� %0 00 N -4 N \D n 00 Ln tt1 t11 Lf) r1 .? trj r, N O N 1 O O\ r4 00 O w w w w w w w n w Q r-1 O rl �? N M r-d r♦ N O\ \D N M O ra \D 1� N O\ O M CT 00 Ln V-4 1- O Cnri r1 N .f \D O O• 00 -1N O\ 00 \D O ra 07 a 4 Ln \D O OD O+ O r-1 N 1 r, 4\ 1, N r-1 00 N fz �' tPt N Crl 1: r-1 1 r-1 % N rl N �', , 4 M 1- r1 N tD Lei ar �+ .•+ �1 rl C d N cc -I 'C W O gO u O 11 R O L O ,rl ra O r4 E-4 CgO 1t M irk W f1 V M 11 r7 H >+ a W 0 0 0 W W : to P to to M -4w o a tM a tD Ln a �h p Q M m .-4 M may' .t O a0 h r-1 u1 N Q ao O r-t h 11 W .7 to O •-a M 0% M m N 1 00 1 M � ^ ^ t 1 b O O� N O a r-t to N O to a c N tM w rl tM M N O N N %0 O► r-t N x r+ w U LM en h N o ap N oo to ' .-I a In W w N M %D -4 t 1 1 O O H h h r-1 i to M 1 OQ " h tM t N 1 1 N to r-1 M h N 1 r-1 I'0 t Q1 cb1 1 1 ^ t 1 wU tM^ r1 (1) r-1 U O H OD h tM M h cM O O r-1 0% H O O tl1 h ON M h i r-t 1 1 to 9-1 .4 to h %D i to 00 1 N .7 tM N 1 to 1 1 %D zn N 4 r4 h i N to 1 't7 AO CI t 1 1 rt r-1 N t M 1 O ra O rd (1) to h to O %D o N h O to M O 't V1 r-t r-1 O M 00 O co 0 r-i lJ O N O% h t0 1 O f M .7 r-1 h h O Q O M N N Cd m w w w w 1 ^ 1 w w V 11 r-1 tM OI 1 h 1 .-i M N tM 00 Ql A .d � 'D CO N M ap M to 00 Ln O M .7 h r-, O 0 0 r-1 Mrn N t0 h h O r, M h tD 0% 00 N O -4 a r 4 r 4 O 00 O 0% M1 00 �T M h M h t M p O r 4 t A 41 O to N 1 N M M �O tp m N' (1) A h t0 00 O ra �t kO r-i M .* N ra tO to to rt in co :r 4 N O N to O N to %D N M oo ,t r-+ iJ M h d\ %D r-i Cr) N ..7 h h r-1 Q 00 N O to 01 N lu U r-1 N M r-1 r-1 h r-I M r-t 10 Lr) r- o% M to N to .T �.o ON O\ a% N h 00 r-1 O o0 ON dom tp M _4 N %.D %0 CT r- 1-- r-a O M -,t %O M to ON 01M tr1 kp %0 O o0 to r- Nto N %.oco1, O% M %D r t ^ w N r-f M N LM a0 00 N ria ,,D O to O oo ao tD N Q to %D r4 tM W 00 M toO -,t h h N r-1 r-1 O N tD O %D ,0 rA %D -T r-4 r-i Q) h O �T N 1 00 N h N in M M r-1 rl .T %�p ,t to 1 w w w E N M o0 .7 N 1 rl 00 O N h M n4 M N r-t r-t N r-1 r-i o r-a m J� U rn 01 14 ris -t U 1L` r01 O QS O N 01 0 O ,-+ 1a t0 A 00 ca c 4J d0 01 O r1 to 41 b O 0. r-i c 01 CO O ,-t gn 41c0 G 14 G -r1 M dr. 01 O -�4 aJ b U m jJ O O� tv w 'O c A td x c v-r+ m ) Cd CL L G0 E O c0 O 1J 0 cd O 0 O O O tit cd Qci �N d 0 0 c o tca 0 r°1 m t-. ,.4 a z x z z z 0 w w w P. 0 a) cn a a I1 Oo In :3 -11 ON N ON r4 a JJ C% 1 tD r-1 �D 00 C m 41 CD ca cri :3 10 In 1 ••d %D -4 f\ 4 a a O 1.1 1 -A C N 110 N %D 00 JJ $4 M4 y p 4.1 O a a r4 00 -4 O+ U O b0 O G 1d'Cf bo•r7 C M C .CGUUD-V4GGcd �C M t11 M 00 qp rl O U•r1 CO rl 34 w yr a 4) s J'C-4 a A-4 Cd 44 x Jr a U m 0. 4J C U M Ga a% M N 111 ld >•rl O a 'b k 3+ 4 J�j p rA 1 , O% �T .t N � G WUr4 4) O7 6 O •r1 Gr4-4 -4 44 d � i i IA cd M-4 JJ b cd-A X a -4 1n U M M f` O ,c U 1n a a .0-4 a .-4 .-+ r-1 N 41 1-1 (U 54 0 6 4) 3 10 U PC O u 3 J.) O.0 P U •rl U ?+ p•rl 0-0 U JJ a i 1 r-1 E a .D CdLidr� a iJ CD O C .0 In In U `�' O a G U a 4J G Z•A In C UjLL,C In cd G a'd O O la a 1-{ In N �D N OO O7 r-1 JJ 41 a a E r4 44 (n E r4 tll 1 ON ON 111 C+ r 4144 Cd JJ 13 C O 11 'z a a O N O M O C W O JJ u •r1 p.O a W JJ bo 'bo 1 ^ tJ m E 0 a >r4uGa. 5 MQry .-4 A V7 0. cD In L' •r7 4J b W a a cd W r-1 V) Cl) M OO M � a JJ N CJ d)ci Cn m Cd Q.1n -A J�.3 L.0"jr k >> CU 1-4) CC O -A In bo y 3 a r4 h E E C"4 44 O JJ In 'Lf U a rt 44 ro a $44 o'd 1+ 1d u CWG P H•rlo a O� N � r 1 to r 1 rn O,D C.0 n4 O td O a 1n& U O 111 JJ •.-1 4•I td bp44 O 1J C•rl 3 U U W C '� 4 J I O f� M N �D N Ol JJ •rl JJ C O •rl to'C7 C 00 C JJ CC }-+ r7 JJ rd CO"4 y a r4 O W-4 "4 O 0-A U 41 .-a In IYJ In M cd a P b0 O) GL u r4 r-1 O 94 U U U) 111 v1 O U 4) G 4) 0 0. - ca Oa r7 N r-1 �? N E cd CC 14 S Q) 'UOa 0 O O JJ $4C $4aC " Obw w 44) ro w s.D 3 CO O� W a Q) -7 111 .-7 N r 1 M t3. Rf'O G r-+ Cl u N \D rl 00 r4 OO O+ a b a O -4 G O OO r4 00 r4 O+ bo JJ y a bor4 •"4 r4 G �+ a O $4 ^ G C •4 a C r7 1J) 4J cd O.Z'b 74) iJ r4 M .-+ M ca a •C C•4 O P cd U O G m M M n 3.1 U u >,$4aNOa. O Ln a .4 N r4 M Sd iJ O 1J tJ-A rl • R. r4) o a 4.1 G a r. JJG rl 0) In a o40 4)G oaoNu"4,4bO0ECdp o G N bo G X7.4•rl 4) P N J1 O x.14 a O y c �u O% N N M N In r 7 W 4 a $4 a JJ V•r7 W In O �D O a Cd 4 a rz C G r-+ a 0 a 11 n M 00 00 4)o cp a m U 1J 44 1J cd cd 1J U .4 In cD In N qi a r-7 a O a G CO .'� > n r- t` an $4 14 .D JJ N Z JJ W 44)44 C r7 N r4) � a U G cd a"q C a O'U-A ca •, a.-r4 CJ ro a o E G E Cd r-+ W10 4-1 G x•.+ 4J4.1-Ha C > (L)oro � � rn %D .7 .o O 'C 1.1 >,Ora O a •1 G O.0 SO N N O O t ca A. (w 13 4)J iJ I1 bo-L) 0^4 U e-d N 1n .7 O1 $4 ON M N t�i1 rl 'Ci to a ci G TJ ld a 14 v, O 1D N 1D 7>0 G y %D .t 1D O •e 1 y -4 all O t\ 111 O0 In d 4J cd C 00 cd M %D M O OJ •r4 JJ rd }.1 •r1 O U JJ ,O G S4) ld R. a a 9, >0. -+ w ni 3 m i.l 1;n O OG 94 E-4 Qj U E U . H W A •• O ca rA E-4a O O H 1-4 tw 34 E-+ r a a 3 >+ E1 U U C9 Z c ca PLCASC RESPOND TO: COMMITTEE[ NATUR L RESOURCES AND DISTRICT OFFICE WILDLIrr.CHASOMAN 13P3 Civic Dalvc WALNUT CREEK.CALIF.94595 ELECTION[AND `4t5' 934.4556 JOHN A. NEJEDLY R[APPORTIONM[NT LOCAL OOV[RNM[NT SACRAMENTO OFFICE SEVENTH SENATORIAL DISTRICT WATER RESOURCES STATE CAPITOL SACRAMENTO.CALIF.95814 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (9116) 445.6083 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE QUafg June 16, 1971 1� o7l Mrs. Jerri. Russell Board of Supervisors tiff• T. P A A S C H CLERK BO OOF SUPERVISORS County Administration Building ON PA CO3 a CO. Pine and Escobar Streets Br o:pl,er Martinez, California 94553 Dear Mrs. Russell: Please be kind enough to arrange for my appearance before the Board of Supervisors regarding a county- operated spaying/neutering subsidy program and the Alexander Lindsay Jr. Museum's application for Fish and Game county monies. Hopefully, you will be able to place my name on the agenda for the June 29th meeting. It is my understanding that these matters will be before the Board for a vote on July 1st. Please advise me at your earliest convenience as to ` whether this date is satisfactory. Very_ truly yours, JOHN -P,.. NEJEDLY Senator, 7th District n JAN:aj .amu d?j � t ED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ECEI V - Department of Agriculture 997 Inter-Office Memo W. T. P A A S C H CLCRK BOA PD OF SUPERVISCf2S C INTRA CTA CO. 12Y - O Deputy TO: J. P. McBrien, County Administrator DAT Ss May 26, 1971 Attentions Charles Hammond FROM: A. L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner - Sealer of sleights and Measures SUBJECT: Study and Recommendations on Establishing a Low-Cost Spaying Clinic On Tuesday, March 23, 1971, the County Government Operations Committee and the County Administrator instructed our department to study the feasibility of a low-cost spaying clinic at the Animal Control Center and to report our findings and recommendations. A number of individuals and organizations were contacted in order to obtain as much information as possible regarding establishing a clinic (see attachment #1). Based on the information available, there are two possible spay programs worthy of final consideration. PROGRAM NUMBER 1 ' Utilizing Veterinarians and Facilities in Contra Costa County A, B, Co and D all must be included in this program. A. The existing 32 Veterinary-Medical Hospitals in the county be utilized in a spaying program by requesting the Contra Costa County Veterinarian-Medical Associa- tion to establish standard, reasonable fees acceptable to the county for the spaying of dogs and cats. B.` The Department of Agriculture be authorized the necessary personnel to conduct an on-going door-to- door dog licensing and cat registration program. This would be a self-supporting program (see attach- ment #2 - request submitted in our 1971/72 budget for the necessary personnel and equipment). The registra- tion of cats could be accomplished with the same personnel. Door-to-door cat registration would have a two-fold effects 1. Cat owners would be paying their share of the yearly operating cost now directly re- lated to cats and this amounts to approximately $203,144 (37.4, of Animal Control activities). 2. By charging a registration fee many persons will surrender some of their cats rather-than pay a registration fee for all of them. (Some residents have as many as 30 cats. ) IPO (500) . 'J... P. McBrien -2- ! 5/26/71 Co Increase the license fees for unspayed female dogs and establish a registration fee for cats with a higher fee for the registration of unspayed females# suggested fees are shown under Additional Revenue Generated - page 4. D. As an incentive to dog OR cat owners and to get the program started, the license fee and registration fee for spayed females would not be charged the first year after the spaying has been performed. (See attachment #3). ADVANTAGES 1• The program could start earlier because there would be no building to construct or personnel to hire. 2a If the program proved unsuccessful the county would not be left with a building, equipment and personnel who would have to be discharged. DIS ADVANTAGES i. Citizens would criticize the program as being a financial subsidy to the veter- inarians, paid for by the taxuayers as well as the pet owner. (Pet owners would be forced into the veterinary hospitals, or pay higher yearly license and registra- tion fees. ) 2. All vaccinations felt necessary by the veterinarians would be required as an added cost to the citizens. This cost ranges from $10.00 for cats to $13.50 for dogs. 3. Veterinarian cost would be considerably higher than under Program Number 2. 4. The county would have very little control over the fees charged by veterindrians. etc. • PROGRAM NUMBER 2 County-Operated Low-Cost Spaying Clinic A through F must be included in this program. A. Citizen proponents of a spaying program must provide - funds for a suitable building and the necessary medical equipment. Estimated Costs Building (1#600 sq. ft. ) $56.000 Medical Equipment $ -O00 TOTAL $81.000 J. P. NeBrien -3- 5/26/71 B. Hire two veterinarians, one receptionist/clerk, and one medical assistant (kennelman). See attachment A. 9 C. Same as B, C, and D in Program 1. (Door-to-door dog licensing and cat registration, higher fees for un- spayed females, 1 year license free. ) D. No construction plans to be authorized until the amount of $81,000 or more is contributed by interested citizens. No restrictions should be attached to the contributions except that they be used to construct and equip a low-cost spaying clinic operated by the county. E. The county program would be evaluated on a continuing basis by the operating department and a complete evaluation conducted at the end of one full year of operation. F. Only Contra Costa County licensed dogs and registered cats would be accepted for spaying. G. *' Should the clinic not prove successful at the end of one year and the Board of Supervisors cancels the program, the facilities and staff would be used tot I. Handle the majority of injured dogs and cats required to be treated under Section S97f of the California Penal Code. 2. Observe all biter dogs and cats quarantined at the centers, thereby reducing the required j quarantine period from 10 days to 5 days. 3. Examine all animals being adopted from the centers to make certain they are healthy, thus avoiding many returns, refunds and -exchanges. Vaccinate each dog against rabies (low-cost) so licensing can be completed without issuing notice and follow-up contacts. ADVANTAGES I. Persons with low incomes and those with large dogs would take advantage of the county clinic. Many citizens are unable to pay the high cost of private veterinarians for the normal spaying and it would be impossible for some to, pay the additional cost because a larger animal is involved. 2. A greater reduction of surplus animals could be accomplished, as the number of animals spayed at the county clinic would be in addition to those spayed at the existing veterinary hospitals by 1 . . approximately 3 500 eanually. • 40 P. McBrien -4- 5/26/71 ` 3• All female dogs and cats adopted from the centers would be spayed (or sufficient deposit required that spaying would be performed by a private veterinarian) so these do not contribute to the animal over-population. (Animals with pedigree papers would be exempted. ) All dogs adopted from the oentere would have a rabies shot, therefore licensing would be completed at time of sale. 5.. The county would have the space, facilities and veterinarian help to provide low-cost rabies vaccinations throughout the remainder of the year for dogs reaching 4 months of age or newly-acquired dogst after the annual low- cost rabies clinics are completed. DISADVANTAGES 1. It would take a longer period of time to get the program functioning (a minimum of eight months after Board approval. ) 2. With a larger staff and a new program the Department of Agriculture would have more personnel to supervise, etc. 3. Research is being conducted which might eventually provide a simple chemical sterilization of the animals by shots or oral administration. ADDITIONAL REVENUE GENERATED A.* The license fee for unspayed female dogs should be $8.00. ` The license fee for spayed females and males would remain at $4.00. NOTES Properly licensed and zoned kennels and dog breeders should be exempt from in- creased fees. , B. Cat registration should be established, with a registra- tion fee of $2.00 and double this fee ($4.00) for .an unspayed female. (Based on our door-to-door survey the 1 population of cats in the county is approximately the same as dogs .- .-s.ee attachment #3. ) RECOMMENDATIONs i We recommend against Program Number 1t mainly because the Contra Costa County Veterinarian-Medical Association has not set a standard fee and their"average" fee is not considered reasonable, therefore, low-income persons could not take advantage of the spay program like J. P. McBrien -5- 5/26/71 most citizens who can afford the fees of a private veterinarian. NOT%t By advance phone notification, the Board of Directors of the Contra Costa County Veterinarian-Medical Association has set $45-00 as an average cost for spaying a dog (possibly $60.00 for some, depending on size, condition, etc. ). The average cost for cats would be $35.00. The veterinarians would insist on all shots being completed before surgery. We' recommend that Program Number 2 be instituted effective January 1., 1972.v or within 6 months of the time the county is in receipt of at least the $819000 necessary to commence building and purchase. of the necessary equipment. The recommended tee for spaying .dogs or cats would be $15.00. (See attachment #5.:� Attachments, including General Information Attachments -i. Brochure' -. Spay and Neuter Clinic, City of Los Angeles 2.. California Satan Council survey information sheet ' � • J. P. McBrien _ . � 267ient #1 PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED REGARDING A SPAYING CLINIC 1• Dr. George Blomberg, President, Contra Costa County, Veterinarian- Medical Association. 2. Dr. Lester Schwab, Veterinarian, Walnut Creek 3. Dr. Al Edward, Professor Laboratory Animal Research, University of California, Davis. 4.' Dr. Bruce Feldman, Associate Veterinarian, Laboratory Animal Medicine, University of California, Berkeley 5• Dr. Gary Korsgaard, Veterinarian, Concord 6. Dr. Joel Jern, Veterinarian, Concord 7• City of Los Angeles, Department of Animal Regulation Mr. Robert Phillips - Executive Officer i Dr. Willis Vansell - Veterinarian 8. Mrs. Betty Lumsden, Contra Costa County, S.P.C.A. 9. Mr. Gerry Dalmadge, San Francisco, S.P. C.A. iR• Mrs. Phyllis Merrill, Moraga 11• Mr. Martin Horowitz, Danville 12. Dr. Herald Wixom, Assistant Director, State Department of Agriculture 13• Mr. Francis Stoffels. Personnel Officer, State Department of Agriculture 14. Mr. Nick Calicura, Contra Costa County Kennel Club 15• Santa Clara County Animal Control 16. Solan County Animal Control 17• Schroer Manufacturing Company, Kansas City. Missouri 18. Gil-Mel Medical Supplies Distributor, San Francisco 19• Mr. Dale Ettleman, Surgery Supervisor, U. C. , Davis 20. Mr. Bruce Stringer, Pacific Professional Buildings, Concord j 21. Dr. L. Proctor, Veterinarian, Concord 22. Mr. Ken Humphreys, Executive-Secretary, California Veterinarian- Medical Association, Oakland cr , - ct Ln L tAl . d ?lo �� �ad�1 ;• W � O N e � J3 rt yy No • _ car n 04 M �� "may C c.o bC A� isid �itr S� �^ n. c n3 AA F'" a fit' �• x� g " � �q IrC �•r►►+ �y Ck.U9 1-6 M Cl A toW CX oAAvc > > P �'d ! � coo. N O N its A o. cf 0 %p 41 y r oS a C, F+ A z • o N o a ', y t� 1•� 1 ,n! 1 a o• A CL A os M y d • X O• 1 Fi r , CH -' _%p ^ I' Ob �A sA 4�or N 0 ar to Ch c o V� N W 3. 41 N jam' . A O� O A p,F1 > A � n � a y 1� N N NNl�- N ' � r'1 . � o`AZa r1 ' '• • A t t 1 1 1 1 1 w � z z' o • d g p 0 d > -•-•� 00 4VIb 4;r VA 121 to pip fe CL. ex er rib ct o tr� ?n CL To W O+OV1 Ch _ •+ s -' %A O O n pav o Oh0� � f �• a 00 rr �'. to 3 � � •',' . A A 0- X'-o A C A A r • c �• w fi �o p a. a • . . • d• ..w j Fit . i • \I i • w•f . IL ` . COtdM DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURA1971/'12 , Animal Control Division - 366 Adds Four Animal Control Officers ' One Intermediate Typist/Clark One Senior Animal Control Otfioer +:�'• ' (Permanent License Crew) •' "''��: JUSTIFICATIONi j : • ' A permanent dog license crew composed of six new positions Would cost approximately $43,976 the first year for salaries. equipment and uniform allowance. The license crew should canvas! ;.••:'. about half of the county each yearg providing more uniform enforcement of the ordinance and generating revenue. It is •.' estimated that there may be 76,857 dogs in the county when a ratio of one dog to seven people is used as the guide. Of thesep. , •''r '' approximately 16.400 were not licensed in 1970. This would indicate a possible revenue loss of $65.712 if all of the dogs were located. Although the Animal Control Division is not required to be self-supporting, this revenue could offset costs of such • crew 'in obtaining more uniform enforcement of the count :•, . g y ' ordinance to comply with Section 1920 of the State Health and Safety Code. It is expected that the momentum built up from previous , license canvasses will gradually decrease as the citizen becomes •' ' • ;=,,,:r ; aware of the fact that there is no concerted license follow-up , •; ;: . with the number of dogs licensed and revenue- declining accordingly�' Babies inoculation to a "by-product" of the dog licensing , . effort and is compulsory by state lax in rabies endemio counties +; whioh, of course# Contra Costa is. ".' Although this program will result in some overcrowding• the < �• need is so great that we recommend expanding this part of *he !unction now, regardless of the crowding. Temporary canvassers are not satisfaotorir. They develop a surge in the workload that the dIvIsion . ' is not staffed to handle* recruitment and train- lug difficulties are added, :they are not skilled to handle problem with the, public, or animals', • ' hence more dog bites and accidents odour. • 'COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF AGBICULTUBB 19?�✓?Z � . . Animal Control Division • 366 .•.:;� ; (Permanent License Crew) 9MMI Y 9z COST .; •,, 'A* Your Animal Control Officers . ` • 2hese otficere would make the door-to-door e6ntaeta• Salary Cost $23.208 Uniform Allowance 360 Personal Equipment, badges, lookers* eta. 640 $249208 ..,16 The Senior Animal Control Officer would direct and 000rdjrate' ,,: ' • the activity of the field crew and off ice, and organise the the compulsory low-cost rabies oltntes. Salary Cost = 6.561 Uniform Allowance . 90 , Peraonal Equipmentp :,► .�: badges# lookers& etc. _160 6.811 ' • '. .;,:.;.'- C, The intermediate Typiet/Clerk would maintain the dos lieense �''� • filesg handle correspondence and answer telephoned and questions about licensing. Salary Coat # 40551 `:;'••,';' . ' Ds $9.ul.lement_ne� (Capital Outlay) • 1 - Desk# chair and typewrlter # 435• i - Desk and chair 165 1 - Van-type vehicle 3.656 1 Radio 950 . . # 5.206 j.. • go* ••Auto lqulpment Costs • . '• 3 • Sedans from oar pool for the equivalent of 4 months for canvassing in the less populated areas and oheok • baok on individual-lioome •eases, $ 19600 ' .. i • van-type "hiole 1 600 0 ' '• • TOZAb .�.• P. McBrien Attachment #3 • : _ •. 51 261 7 1 LICENSE REVENUE - GAIN, LOSS COMPARISON The year 1970 is the latest year statistics on licensing and animal population are available, therefore, 1970 is used as the basis for comparison. , In 1970, 60,429 dogs were licensede generating license revenue in the amount of $254,430. • If all 32 veterinary hospitals would operate on an average of two dogs and two cats per day, this would result in 32.000 animals ;altered yearly. Results of allowing a fee exempt license or registration for the first year following spaying and setting a higher fee for unspayed females as recommended would be as followsi Because there would be only a 6 month period for the program 'to be in effect before March 1, 1972, only 16,000 dogs and cats would be eligible to receive the free licensing. Revenue for licensing dogs and registering cats in 1972 would represent a gain of $1499466 over 1970. In 1973 there would be approximately 32,000 free licenses, howevert revenue for licensing dogs and registering cats would still show a gain of $5,466 over 1970. This represents the low point in revenue during this program. In 1974 we should approach the point in the program when each following year should reflect similar statistics with approximately the same number of dogs and cats being spayed. Perhaps 6,000 free licenses would be issued (for newly acquired pets and/or pets that become old enough to,be spayed). There would be a gain of $639978 over 1970 and• should stabilize at -about this figure. McBrien Attachment 4 1#6/ STAFF TO OPERATE COUNTY CLINIC Annual Costs 2 Veterinarians A $15,000 $300000 . 1 8ennelman 99000 1. Intermediate Typist/Clerk 7, 500 Total Salary Cost Including Overhead-First Year $46,500 NOTge This cost would be offset by the fees charged in order to be a self-supporting operation. r •` ' J. P. McBrien Attachment , 5 5/26171 COSTS TO COUNTY AND RECOM14ENDED FEES . Eimenditures Amount Salaries 446v500 Utilities 2v000 'Office Equipment 1,000 • Library 400 Replacement of Equipment and Miscellaneous 3,500 Vaccines and Medicines 7000 Office Supplies 600 Auto Equipment 1,600 Operating Supplies 4,000 Costs to County $67,500 Less $150000 (Revenue from rabies, vaccinations ® $2,00 for 7,500 dogs new in the county, attaining the age of 4 months or adopted from the centers., ) - TOTAL COSTS TO COUNTY $52. 00 Anticipated spayings per year per- ; formed by county veterinarians = 3.500 $ 52,500 $15.00 3.500 The recommended fee Por spaying dogs or cats is $15,00, 4 CALIFORNIA HUMANE . COUNCIL .u: CAM"AVMA • WOOKAND W%WINOWA 913" 1:1 3'1 311•I 17! MAY 61911 HUMANITARIANS 1 ATTENTIONI ANIM^� CDNTAOL Ot=NTEA With the co-operation of Los Angeles City Councilman, Robert J.Stevenson, the California Humane Council has taken a survey of our state to determine the amounts of money spent and the numbers of animals destroyed in 1970. The startling facts are$ California spent no less than $50,000000 and possibly double that sum on animal control) In 1964-59 $5,000,000 was spent for animal control in 45 eountIOGe In 1969-70. $11 .000.000 was spent in 57 counties) In 1964-59 $5,000,000 was spent in cities and towns operating Independent pounds, In 1969-70, $12.0001Qnr went by these municiyalitlesl_ w* In addition to the aboyu, it is estimated that at least $30,000,000 was spent by humane societies and private citizens to board, feed, and eventually destroy millions of homeless cats and dogs) Consider these shocking figures, horsemeat supplies are nearly goner vast amounts of whale meat, grains, and other food are consumed by this huge oversupply of animals. How long will these foods last if the overpopulation of animals continues to skyrocket? . . And consider the pollution of _the waters from tons of animal wastesl Is there a solution to this fantastic overpopulation of animals? YOU BET THERE ISI - STATEWIDE CLINICS WHERE ANIMALS MAY BE SPAYED OR NEUTERED AT PRICES THE TUBLI' CAN AFFORDI How such longer will we continue to pour moneyp time and energy into this bottomless pit? THE TIME FOR ACTION IS NOW WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR? : . �► as � � � * sssaf � � +► * �► �r �► ♦ ee. ee ♦ �rssas • '• Write at once to all local and state officials, and to all ' news media and to the general public. Distribute copies of this fact sheet everywhere. Statistical information upon request• A STATE-WIDE CO-ORDINATING COUNCIL Of HUMANE SOCIETIES ry. a _ _ � yi•�' � �.J"" � 'UJB„ - _ 1 _ -r- 4 )-o- i J { � . . 47 � Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION AINN UAL REPORT ENDING 12-31-70 FOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ANIMALS HANDLED AT CENTER AND �P'8 MME�LD ded S d WmawmA P m S * ,_A�*+� Dogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 DI''Z Cats . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 * 2 Rabbits, Otpossums, Racoons, at; 7 Cox, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mnle, etc 17L Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb . . . 68 1, .. 51 Skunks 2 — 36 316 — Pigeon, Chickens, Ducks, Birds . 83L 3 28 Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. gig1 r Deer 53 TOTAL 67243 3430 4711 44377 14725 DETAIL OF ACTIVITY Calls Police and Court Contacts 1300 429 Veterinarian Contacts 1944 472 _ School Details 596 195 Vicious, Sick, Injured and Dead Animals 15457 4571_ License Investigations 7641 1328 License Citations Issued 2874 Warnings Issued for Animals at Large 2357 511_ Citations Issued for Animals at Large 1_=r+ Stray Cattle and other Livestock details 101. 2 774 Case Reports and other Public Complaints 4176 1037 r ..rte Routine Patrolling 36„565 9556 Assigned Special Patrolling 13309 3366 Confine or Pickup Biting Animals 4511 4202 1342 Release Biting Animal from Quarantine 4473 33215, 736 Other Investigation of Bite Report RECEIVED 4590 1250 Female Animal in Season and Dog Pack 'U / 60S —213 Improper Address or False Calls 25$ 68 Field Supervision W. T. PAASCH 3364 781 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS T Training, Pickup Reporta, Clean Truck, E6. RA COSTA CO.' • Deputy 7787 r TOTAL 100624 34416 +► Put to Sleep ** Dead on Arrival 68 ACD 1/ 1 . 0 Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION tiiVyUhL REPORT ENDING 12-31 ZO FOR TOTAL `'.': ASTERN POirl ION OF COUNTY ANIMALS HANDLED AT CENTER AND FEOM FIELD Ip4gunded Sold Red�ee edd P T S * D 0 A ** Dogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12952 1112 22602 1� Cats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8,'l 3 57 12 3208 Rabbits, Olpossums, Racoons, etc . 54 1 Cox, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc 52 4 9— 2- Calf, Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb 12 2 Skunks . . . . . . 2 9 27 _ 2�_2 Pigeon, Chickens, Ducks, Birds 2 —T 2 Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. 150 22 Deer r X 12_ TOTAL 27,345 1353 2350 16875 7267 DETAIL OF ACTIVITY Cels, amours Police and Court Contacts 757 246 . r Veterinarian Contacts 419 91 School Details 239 71 Vicious, Sick, Injured and Dead Animals 6854 1823 License Investigations 4154 693 License Citations Issued Warnings Issued for Animals at Large 1033 201 Citations Issued for Animals at Large 90�� Stray Cattle and other Livestock details 325 207 Case Reports and other Public Complaints 1652 364 Routine Patrolling 22801 5939 Assigned Special Patrolling 7001 1673 Confine or Pickup Biting Animals 1813 1715 456 Release Biting Animal from Quarantine i3O1 1395 275 Other Investigation of Bite Report 2238 514 Female Animal in Season and Dog Pack 208 65 Improper Address or False Calls 147 33 Field Supervision 2006 380 Training, Pickup Reports, Clean Truck, Etc. 31U7 TOTAL 1294 . 16131 * Put to Sleep ** Dead on Arrival ACD 1/68 2 ' Contra Costa County • • Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION L REPORT ENDING 11-31-r3 FOR F1NOLE CEItTER ANIMALS HANDLED AT CENTER ImwojMded §21d Red2eaed S DR_e�r Dogs = 1 2260 1130 Cats 9104 � � � 1000 Rabbits, 01possums, Racoons, etc . 832 'i 1Cox, Ball, Steer, Horse, Mmle, etc 3 4, 9 �?_ _3 calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb. ? 2 Skunks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 .� _,— 1_ Pigeon, Chickens, Ducks, Birds . . 282 _ 303 1. Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. . 7T _ 1 _ 133 17 Jeer TOTAL 15273 13`3 2320 15504 2199 ACTIVITY AT CENTER (Officers and Kennelmen) M ours Removing animals from night deposit 1= Kennelman duty 5332 Office duty 602 Field Assignment, Receiving Details (Beginning of Shift) 720 Return to Center, dispose, etc. (During Shift) 873 Complete reports, telephone, dispose, etc. (End of Shift) 774,___ Staff meetings and training periods 331 County offices, picking up supplies, etc. 25 Truck servicing. delivering and picking up equipment 424___ License Notices 1%82 Biters confined 1031 4 Biters released 9,06 39 Other investigation bite report 31 Miscellaneous public contact 11 (Clerical. Supervision and Emergency Stand' j Officer) Office Operation 13'2 Standby at Night to handle emergency requests 1111 i 20390 at on Arr3val sleep TOTAL **Del ACD 1/68 3 Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION UIII ICORPO-11,nTED ZESTERN REPORT ENDING 12-31-70 FOR POZTiOI? OF COUNTY ANIMALS HANDLED IN FIELD I_M2ounded Put to S eel Dead on Arrival Dogs . 2.1J.144 391 Cats . 11,11_ 195 702 Rabbits, Opossums, Racoons, etc 2- 1 ,_1133 _i 22 Cox, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc R, U Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb. . Skunks . 150, Pigeon, Chickens, Ducks, Birds _ Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. . Deer . . . . . 20 TOTAL 417L: 391 1861 DETAIL QF ACTIVITY calls Manhours Police and Court Contacts _ 163 66 Veterinarian Contacts 96 23 School Details 68_ 4 Vicious, Sick Injured and Dead Animals 2168_ 6611 License Investigations 1223 ___.226.._ Warnings Issued for Animals at Large 322 68' „ Stray Cattle and other Livestock details 211 1_555 Case Reports and other Public Complaints 614 144 Routine Patrolling 9840 2574 Assigned Special Patrolling 2_085 529 Confine or Pickup Biting Animals ,661` 182 Release Biting Animal from Quarantine 425 111 Other Investigation of Bite Report 754 Female Animal in Season and Dog Pack 40 12 Improper Address or False Calls 47 11 Field Supervision 657 137 TOTAL lam 51`03 ACD 3/68 4 Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION AilI.'U . REPORT ENDING 12-31-70 FOR CITY O. EL CERRITO iIMALS gANDLED INFIELD Imp u41d S ,gp Deega 0l, iv_sl Dopes . 1�,.5z -LZ Cats 279 43 159 Rabbits, Olpossums, Racoons, etc 17 2 1L Cox, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc 1 Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb. . . . . . Skunks . . . . . . . . 7 2 Pigeon, Chickens, Ducks, Birds . . Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. . 6 Deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _.. 7 5 TOTAL gal 71 327 DETAIL OF ACTIVITY Calls Unbomrs Police and Court Contacts 3 69 Veterinarian Contacts 125 21 School Details _ 25 �.. 6 Vicious, Siok Injured and Dead Animals 313 -�„90_ License Investigations �2 34 Warnings Issued for Animals at Large _ 3 9 Stray Cattle and other Livestock details 3 2 Case Reports and other Public Complaints -, 8 _11 Routine Patrolling _1320 173 Assigned Special Patrolling 359 _ Confine or Pickup Biting Animals 135 21 Release Biting Animal from Quarantine 106 17 Other Investigation of Bite Report 1 28-_ Female Animal in Season and Dog Pack _119 5 Improper Address or False Calls Z Field Supervision --- L88 10 TOTAL 1 �9 ACD 3/68 5 Contra Costa Count Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION REPORT ENDING 12-31-70 FOR CITY Or HERCULES ANI _MAL_S HANDLED IN FIELD Im o nd d Put to SlOeID Dead on Arrival Dots Cats . 14 Rabbits, ;!possums, Racoons, etc 3 Cow, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc __2 -- Calf, Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb. . . 2 Skunks . Bi2 1 hi Pigeon, Cckens, Ducks, Birds * . . Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. . Deer . . . . . . TOTAL ;6 I 12 DETAIL OF ACTIVITY Calls Manhours Police and Court Contacts Veterinarian Contacts 1 1 School Details 1 1 Vicious, Sick Injured and Dead Animals 7 10 License Investigations 11 2___ Warnings Issued for Animals at Large ,�,_ Stray Cattle and other Livestock details 5 4 Case Reports and other Public Complaints _ _5 1_, Routine Patrolling 166 52 __ Assigned Special Patrolling , 72 19 Confine or Pickup Biting Animals 4 2 Release Biting Animal from Quarantine ..__.2 1 Other Investigation of Bite Report � 7 1 Female Animal in Season and Dog Pack 1 2 Improper Address or False Calls Field Supervision TOTAL 20 97 ACD 3/68 6 Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION u::i. REPORT ENDING 12-31-70 FOR CITY OF LAFAYETTE ANIMALS HANDLED IN,FIELD ImiDounded Put to See13, Dead on Arrival Dogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3 90 Cats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 29 Rabbits, Otpossums, Racoons, etc . 4 Cow, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc 9 Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb. . . . . . 1 Skunks 31 ._...� 2 Pigeon, Chickens, Ducks, Birds 7 6 Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. 22 12_ Deer . . . . . 93 as TOTAL 803 77 435 DETAIL OF ACTIVITY Calls Manhours Police and Court Contacts 5 5 Veterinarian Contacts o2 14 School Details ._....4 .___.._4 Vicious, Sick Injured and Dead Animals 532 196 License Investigations 194 37 Warnings Issued for Animals at Large 44 8 Stray Cattle and other Livestock details 40 27 Case Reports and other Public Complaints 99 _ 27 Routine Patrolling 852 261 Assigned Special Patrolling 325 97 Confine or Pickup Biting Animals 165 �53 Release Biting Animal from Quarantine 106 27 Other Investigation of Bite Report 122 39 Female Animal in Season and Dog Pack 2 2 Improper Address or False Calls 25 7 Field Supervision co 22 TOTAL 2678 $26 ACD 3/68 7 Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION A1NU AREPORT ENDING 12-31-70 FOR CITY Or PINOLE MIMALS UU ..IF_ ImiDounded Put to Sleez Dead an Arrival Dogs 293 13 Cats . 204 422 Rabbits, Otpossums, Racoons, etc . 35 Cox, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc 3 _ Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb. . . . . . 1 Skunks . . . . . . 4U 22 -34 Pigeon, Chickens, Ducks, Birds 82 Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. . Deer . . . . . 7 TOTAL 673 . .:8.3 _�92 RETAIL OF,_IVITY Calls Manhgurs Police and Court Contacts 7 2 Veterinarian Contacts 3_ 2 _ School Details 22 5 Vicious, Sick Injured and Dead Animals _3„7597�, License Investigations 226 40 Warnings Issued for Animals at Large Z X14 Stray Cattle and other Livestock details _26 3_ Case Reports and other Public Complaints lam31 Routine Patrolling 1852— 4533 Assigned Special Patrolling 6.__16 151__ Confine or Pickup Biting Animals -92- _ 26 Release Biting Animal from Quarantine 65 14 Other Investigation of Bite Report 112 28 Female Animal in Season and Dog Pack _._.1-01 6 Improper Address or False Calls l Field Supervision bL 14 TOTAL 3 7 1- __898 ACD 3/68 8 Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION nl,:c lihL REPORT ENDING 12-31-70 gOR CITY OF RICIft-iOND ANIMALS HANDLED IN FIELD Impounded Put to S1eeD Dead on Arrival Dons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 cats . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 873 Rabbits, Owpossums, Racoons, etc . 5 5 Cow, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb. . . . 1 Skunks . 10 10 Pigeon, Chickens, Ducks, Birds X11 9 2 Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. 59 3 52 11 1 Deer 10 TOTAL 4743 601 1676 DETAIL OF ACTIVITY Calls Manhours Police and Court Contacts 81 62 Veterinarian Contacts 61 12 School Details 66 20 Vicious, Sick Injured and Dead Animals 2597 60,E License Investigations 17662 1__ Warnings Issued for Animals at Large 372 67 Stray Cattle and other Livestock details 12 , 5 Case Reports and other Public Complaints 5g6 103 Routine Patrolling 6711 1656 Assigned Special Patrolling 2576 603 Confine or Pickup Biting Animals 514 122 Release Biting Animal from Quarantine 420 80 Other Investigation of Bite Report 939 191 Female Animal in Season and Dog Pack 1100 33 Improper Address or False Calls 69 14 r Field Supervision 992 171 TOTAL 17612 3999 ACD 3/68 9 Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION r'.!I'U ' L REPORT ENDING -'TY FOR G1TY OF SAN PABLO ANIMALS HANDLED IN FIELD Impounded Put to Sleep Dead on A rival Dogs . . . 1.093 45 Cats . . . . 47Z 105 231 Rabbits, Olpossums, Racoons, etc 16 1 10 Cow, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc 1 1. Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb. . . . . . Skunks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Pigeon, Chickens, Ducks, Birds . . t 2 Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. . 10 1 7 Deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 TOTAL 1610 154 473 DETAIL OF ACTIVITY Calls Manhours Police and Court Contacts 134 43 Veterinarian Contacts 71 13 School Details 9 1.2 Vicious, Sick Injured and Dead Animals 323 187 License Investigations 653 106 Warnings Issued for Animals at Large 166 33 Stray Cattle and other Livestock details 4 3 Case Reports and other Public Complaints 171 35 ?routine Patrolling 2119 437 Assigned Special Patrolling 1008 206 Confine or Pickup Biting Animals 197 46 Release Biting Animal from Quarantine 138 27 Other Investigation of Bite Report 262 51 Female Animal in Season and Dog Pack 19 6 Improper Address or False Calls 1.6 3 Field Supervision 152 27 TOTAL, 5L32 1295 - ACD 295ACD 3/68 10 Contra Costa County • Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION hi.;X',L REPORT ENDING 12-31-70 FOP. TOTAL EASTERN PORTION OF COUNTY ANIM S'HANDLED AT CENTER AND FgOM FIELD IgpgMded Sold Redeemed P.T,tS. D.O�A•*; Dogs . . b 1670223 1004 2771 Cats .. O 203 7LL 398 5�_ 1L5 3343 Rabbits, possums, Racoons, etc 9 4 42 1 719 Cox, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc 12 51 Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb . . . . . 5 b 1 +,7 L1 Skunks . . . . . . . . . 719 E42 Pigeon, Chickens, Ducks, Birds 0 � 205 Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. 7 4 5 Deer . . . . . 196 10 TOTAL 32298_ 2077 23ti1 27502 745$ DETAIL OF ACTIVITY —Calls Msnhours Police and Court Contacts 543 183 Veterinarian Contacts 1525 381 School Details 35Z 1-24 Vicious, Sick, Injured and Dead Animals _86Q_ License Investigations 3480 635 License Citations Issued 1287 Warnings Issued for Animals at Large 1324 307 Citations Issued for Animals at Large 390 Stray Cattle and other Livestock details 717 567 Case Reports and other Public Complaints 2524 673 Routine Patrolling 13764 3617 Assigned Special Patrolling 6308 169..3` Confine or Pickup Biting Animals 2698 2487 , 886 Release Biting Animal from Quarantine 2672 2020 461 Other Investigation of Bite Report 2157 736 Female Animal in Season and Dog Pack 400 148 Improper Address or False Calls 111 35 Field Supervision 1358 401_ Training, Pickup Reports, Clean Truck, Etc. Lo"LO TOTAL 47678 18235 Put to Sleep ** Dead on Arrival ACD 1/68 11 • Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION REPORT ENDING12-31-70 FOR i•:AH11M CENTER ANIS HANDLED AT CE�d Immounded, S Redeemed P.T•S• D. .A.e; Dogs 394 1670 22 x_9627, 517 Cats 1457259. Rabbits, Ospossums, Racoons, etc 21 ~ Com, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc 3 � 51, � 7 Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb. . . . . . 1 1 ?, 7 1, Skunks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .�.._. .,.._._1_ ..r_,._.3. Pigeon, Chickens, Duok$, Birds . , 180 � 178 29 Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. 361c 7 Deer . 1:, _�._ .,_...1a. TOTAL r21:47 2 _ 231 2496216 ACTIVITY AT,CENTER (Officers and Kennglmen) Manhours Removing animals from night deposit 42, 5 Kennelman duty 4590 Office duty 518 Field Assignment, Receiving Details (Beginning of Shift) .. 36 Return to Center, dispose, etc. (During Shift) 1038 Complete reports, telephone, dispose, etc. (End of Shift) 1149 Staff meetings and training periods 9_26,,,_, County offices, picking up supplies, etc. �47�„ Truck servicing, delivering and picking up equipment 581 License Notices 161 Biters confined 211 3 Biters released 6521100_ Other investigation bite report 40 Miscellaneous public contact 71 (_C- erical. Suipervision and Emeraenc9 Stand y Officer) r rr� r+� rrr �rr.w r.Yf rr�rr1 ice Office Operation 11580 Standby at Night to handle emergency requests ,1111 *Put to sleep TOTAL 2325�5„_„ **Dead on Arrival ACD 1/68 12 Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION 'D EASTER114 Ab.'i!UJ%1 REPORT ENDING '2-j 1-70! FOR PORT..1011' OF COUNTY ANIMALS_gAND, DEED IN FIELD Im ound d Put to Sleep Dead on Arrival Dogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26617 ,92_._..,_ Cats . 1721 _ _786, - Rabbits. 3 lu 1 2 Cox, Bull, Steer, Horse. Mule, etc 611, 2 Skunks Sheep, Goat, Lamb. . . . . . 29 .�.. 2 Snks • • • . i i • . . • « . « • 1 3 2.. �.r•.� r r Pigeon, Chickens, Ducks, Birds . . ?- 44 Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. . 53 z �. _.,..�.� Deer • « • . « « « « « 121 14 TOTAL 5031 971 2037 DETAIL OF ACTIVITY Calls Manhours Police and Court Contacts 25 16 Veterinarian Contacts 210 $3.._ School Details X7.5 27 .._ Vicious, Sick Injured and. Dead Animals 2719 ._.__946._ License Investigations 1156 209_ Warnings Issued for Animals at Large _446 Stray Cattle and other Livestock details 474 390 Case Reports and other Public Complaints 724 _..240 ?routine Patrolling 7422 2056_ Assigned Special Patrolling 2028 _ 594 Confine or Pickup Biting Animals 695 220 Release Biting Animal from Quarantine 639 141 Other Investigation of Bite Report b05 25$ Female Animal in Season and Dog Pack ...149 50 Improper Address or False Calls 28 Field Supervision _ 9 230 TOTAL 18111 5570„ ACD 3/68 13 Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION REPORT ENDING 12-31-70 POA (:1'ii' OF BREM,:00D ANIMALS HANDLED IN FIELD Impounded Put to Sleep Dead on Arrival Dogs . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 125 1 Cats 0 108 2 Rabbits, O'possums, Racoons, etc . Cow, Bull, Steer. Horse, Mule, etc Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb. . Skunks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pigeon, Chickens, Ducks, Birds 2 Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. Deer . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL 277 126 45 DETAIL OF ACTIVITY Calls Manhours Police and Court Contacts 207 61 Veterinarian Contacts School Details ' 5 3 Vicious, Sick Injured and Dead Animals 145 51 License Investigations 33 7 Warnings Issued for Animals at Large 11 4 Stray Cattle and other Livestock details Case Reports and other Public Complaints 17 6 Routine Patrolling 121 37 Assigned Special Patrolling �37 12 Confine or Pickup Biting Animals �13 4 Release Biting Animal from Quarantine 12 4 Other Investigation of Bite Report 21 8 Female Animal in Season and Dog Pack 2 1 Improper Address or False Calls 1 1 Field Supervision 1z 8 TOTAL 645 207 ACD 3/68 14 Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION : .:.u. : REPORT ENDING 12- 1-70 FOR CITY OF CLAYTON ANIMALS HANDLED IN FIELD Impounded Put to Sleep Dead on Arrival Dogs . . . 20 2 Cats . . . . . . . . 19 1 14 Rabbits, Ospossums, Racoons. etc 11 11 Cow, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc 1 Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb. . . . . . Skunks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pigeon, Chickens, Ducks, Birds . . 1 1 Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. . 1 Deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 TOTAL 2 29 DETAIL OF ACTIVITY Calls Manhours Police and Court Contacts Veterinarian Contacts School Details 1 2 Vicious, Sick Injured and Dead Animals 28 10 License Investigations 6 2 Warnings Issued for Animals at Large , 3 2 Stray Cattle and other Livestock details 1 4 Case Reports and other Public Complaints 1 2 Routine Patrolling 80 11 Assigned Special Patrolling 14 3 Confine or Pickup Biting Animals 11 4 Release Biting Animal from Quarantine , 9 2 Other Investigation of Bite Report 12 3 Female Animal in Season and Dog Pack 2 1 Improper Address or False Calls Field Supervision 1 1 TOTAL 178 47 ACD 3/68 15 Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION REPORT ENDING 12-31-70 FOR CITY OF CONCORD ANIMALS HANDLED IN FIELD Impounded Put to Sleep Dead on Arr1vSJ Dogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 bd / Cats . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1582 454 72 ?rabbits, Olpossums, Racoons, etc . 175 14 14 Cover, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc 11 2 Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb. . . . . Skunks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1 Pigeon, Chickens, Ducks, Birds . . 6? 18 21 Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. . 44 „33 Deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 9 TOTAL 3926 555 1765 DETAIL OF ACTIVITY Calls Manhours Police and Court Contacts 5 �3 Veterinarian Contacts 550 128 School Details 131 4.1 Vicious, Sick Injured and Dead Animals 2356 706 License Investigations 935 173 Warnings Issued for Animals at Large398 109 Stray Cattle and other Livestock details 54 37 Case Reports and other Public Complaints 716 177 Routine Patrolling 2311 603 Assigned Special Patrolling 1734 455 Confine or Pickup Biting Animals 772 279 Release Biting Animal from Quarantine 520 131 Other Investigation of Bite Report 680 195 Female Animal in Season and Dog Pack 117 49 Improper Address or False Calls .__r.24.._ A. Field Supervision 201 53 TOTAL 11504 3117_ ACD 3/68 16 Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION 12-31-70 FOR CITY OF ENDING F' I--lAR.TINEZ ANIMALS HANDLED IN FIELD Im ounded Put to Sleep Dead on Arrival Dogs . . . . . . . . . . 552 33 -16 Cats4 12 17 Rabbits, Ofpossums, Racoons, etc 3 8 6 31 ~_ Cox, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc ' 8 2 Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb. 1 1 Skunks * 6 Pigeon, Chickens, Ducks, Birds 6 1 4 Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. 7 4 Deer 1L 14 TOTAL _ 915 172 312 DETAIL OF ACTIVITY Calls Manhours Police and Court Contacts _ 12 11 Veterinarian Contacts 82 20 School Details 21 6__ Vicious, Sick Injured and Dead Animals 625 183 License Investigations 21 ,, 3_ Warnings Issued for Animals at Large 123 20 Stray Cattle and other Livestock details 72_ Z.L._ Case Reports and other Public Complaints 120 34 Routine Patrolling 855 20 Assigned Special Patrolling 627 ]A8 Confine or Pickup Biting Animals 112 4,_ Release Biting Animal from Quarantine 31' . 4 Other Investigation of Bite Report 1$3 48 Female Animal in Season and Dog Pack 52 to Improper Address or False Calls 3 2 Field Supervision 5D 12 TOTAL 32L5 $55 ACD 3/68 17 Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION ►:`.::'•_': REPORT ENDING 12-31-70 FOR CITY OF PITTSBURG ANIMALS HANDLED IN FIELD Impounded Put to Sleet/ Dead on Arrival Dogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 15 Cats . . . . . . . . . . . 002 3340 Rabbits, Olpossums, Racoons, etc . _32 2 2 Cote, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc 2 2 Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb. . . . . . Skunks . . . . . . 3 3 Pigeon, Chickens, Ducks, Birds 5 1 4 Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. 5 1 3 Deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL 1403 413 405 DETAIL OF ACTIVITY Calls Manhours Police and Court Contacts 271 68 Veterinarian Contacts School Details , 33 12 Vicious, Sick Injured and Dead Animals 913 261 License Investigations 424 79 Warnings Issued for Animals at Large 120 26 Stray Cattle and other Livestock details 15 Case Reports and other Public Complaints 228 56 Routine Patrolling 936 227 Assigned Special Patrolling 415 113 Confine or Pickup Biting Animals 178 63 Release Biting Animal from Quarantine 133 32 Other Investigation of Bite Report 221 63 Female Animal in Season and Dog Pack 14 5 Improper Address or False Calls 17 4 Field Supervision 102 25 TOTAL 4020 1044 ACD 3/68 • 1$ Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL. CONTROL DIVISION REPORT ENDING 12--31-70 FOR CITY OF FLEASAIff HILL ANIMALS HANDLED IN FIELD Im ounded Put to Sleep Dead on Arrival, Dogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 603 -17 15� Cats . i21 80 260 Rabbits, O possums, Racoons, etc 52 h. 35 Cox, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc ! 1 Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb. . . 1 Skunks2 hi1 Pigeon, Cckens, Ducks, Birds 2 4 Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. . 2.3 S 1 Deer 2 5 TOTAL 1149 126 507 DETAIL OF ACTIVITY Calls Manhours Folice and Court Contacts 2 1 Veterinarian Contacts 201 47 School Details 30 10 Vicious, Sick Injured and Dead Animals §27 210_ License Investigations 326 57 Warnings Issued for Animals at Large 143 32 Stray Cattle and other Livestock details 35 19 Case Reports and other Public Complaints 230 56 Routine Patrolling 863 187 Assigned Special Patrolling 693 164 Confine or Pickup Biting Animals 243 $0 Release Biting Animal from Quarantine 185 40 Other Investigation of Bite Report 198 55 Female Animal in Season and Dog Pack 31 13 . Improper Address or False Calls 9 2 Field Supervision 115 3.2_ TOTAL 4001 1005 ACD 3/68 19 Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION ANi:UAL REPORT ENDING 12-31-70 FOR CITY OF WALNUT CREEi_ ANIMALS HANDLED IN FIELD Imipounded Put to sloop Dead on Arrival Dogs . . . . . 9 ) . IL 9 Cats . . ,794 150 _ 0 Rabbits, Opossums. Racoons. etc . 100 12 so Cox, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb. . . . . . Skunks . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 Pigeon, Chickens, Ducks. Birds . . _ 5 � a 3 Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. 32 2 1 Deer . . . . . . . . . . . 17 16 TOTAL 1952, , 19,1 1079 DETAIL OF ACTIVITY Calls Manhours Police and Court Contacts 12 21 Veterinarian Contacts 4$2 123 School Details 57 22_ Vicious, Sick Injured and Dead Animals 10 ,.34A License Investigations 36Z 70 Warninas Issued for Animals at Large 112 22 Stray Cattle and other Livestock details �4 20 Case Reports and other Public Complaints 417 99 Routine Patrolling 1088. 26& Assigned Special Patrolling 687 185 Confine or Pickup Biting Animals 01 12 Release Biting Animal from Quarantine 313 83 Other Investigation of Bite Report 122 2$ Female Animal in Season and Dog Pack 31 11 Improper Address or False Calls 8 ,3 Field Supervision 142 39_ TOTAL 5571 1594 ACD 3168 20 In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California Xarch 30 , 197. 2- In 972-In the Matter of Report of County Govornmont Operations Committee relating to Animal Control policies and procedures. Supervisor V. N. Boggoss having roported to the Board that tho County Gover=ort Operations Co.=ittao (:supervisor A. X. Dias and Suporvisor Bo,-,Goss ) had not with Mr. A. L. Soeloy, Agricultural Comissioner-Saalor of tloights and Neasuros, and Mr. C . C . Crill, Animal Control Director, to discuss bhe County -'Animal Control program; and having indicated that as a result of said meeting certain changes in animal control policios and . procedures are being implemented, which ohanges are stated in a Karch 29, 1971 rsomorendum issued by the Animal Control Division, and among which changes are provision for return of animals to the owner i-hon the owner is present with issuance of citations as required; and Supervisor Boggess having also referred to the proposal to establis.: a spaying clinic at tho Animal Control Center, and having indicated that such matter was being reviewed for presenta- tion as a policy itom in tho 1971-1972 budget; and Supervisor A. M. Dias having notod that the aforosaid items are significant in thoir operational impact and, on said basis, moved that all referrals portaining to animal control problems be removed as roferrals to the County Governmont Operations Committee, and said motion having been seconded by Supervisor Boggess, the vote on the motion was as follows; AYES Supervisors A. X. Dias, J. :. Morlarty, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J. P. Kenny. NOES: None. ABSENT; None, hereby certify that' the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered an the minutes of.said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of act Agricultural Comissioner, Supervisors Animal Control Director affixed this0th day of '"ch . 1971 County Administrator MarchW. T. PAASCH, Clark Mrs. Richard 14erri3.1 By r Deputy Clerk Elsio Pi YY 1 H 24 6/70 IOM CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Inter - Office Memo Date: March 23, 1971 To: County Government Operations Committee (Supervisors A. M. Dias and W. N. Boggess ) From: Clerk of the Board Subject: The Board today referred to you for study request of Mrs. Merrill, Moraga, for establishment of a low cost spaying',. clinic at the County Animal Control Genter. lk In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California March 23 19 7 In the Matter of Letter requesting Spaying clinic be established at County Animal Control Center. This Board having again received a letter from Mrs . Richard H. Merrill, 34 Woodford Drive, Moraga, California reiterating her suggestion that a low cost spaying clinic be established at the County Animal Control Center, said service thereby helping to control the animal population in the county; and On motion of Supervisor A. M. Dias , seconded by Supervisor J. E. Moriarty, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that said reuest is REFERRED to its County Government Operations Committee ?Supervisors Dias and W. N. Boggess ) for study. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote of the Board: AYES: Supervisors A. M. Dias , J. E. Moriarty, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J. P. Kenny. NOES: None . ABSENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. c c: Mrs . Merrill Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Board Committee Supervisors Agricultural Com. affixed this 23rd day of March , lq 71 Administrator y . W. T. PAASCH, Clerk By Deputy Clerk Lourette Kincaid H 24 8/70 10M 1V1rs. Richard H. Merrill 34 Woodford Drive Moraga, California �j��,:�. Board of Supervisors RECE Y 1 D. Administration Building 51971 Martinez, California W. T, PAAAQM CLERK^t3 OF A 91%IgOAt Dear Sirs ; nr� n .%Y ex Al After my recent telephone conversations with Supervisor James Moriarty, Mr. Seeley and the Contra Costa S.P. C. A. it was suggested unanimously that once again I write you in regard to a low cost spay clinic located on Animal Control Property. According to Mr. Seeley, the furnaces at the Control are to be replaced at a great cost to the taxpayers as they do not comply to anti-pollution standards. A spay clinic would reduce the number of unwanted litters and save the taxpayers money. Most important to me are the animals and reducing their needless suffering is my desire. A mobile home, void of carpets, could serve as a clinic and home for a young veterinarian from Davis. This is how the Royal S.P. C. A. in England works, where an animal is a treasured possession. In this country, unfortunately, all too many animals are neglected by their owners, abused by youngsters, or bought or stolen by so called dealers (Dog Nappers) and sold to labs for vivisection which is a fate worse than death. What in blazes is wrong in the U.S.A. ? In my opinion, spaying cats and dogs at low cost, and charging $15. 00 to $20. 00 for licensing unspayed females and the castration of males would cut down the animal population and in about three years after the opening of said clinic we would have fewer but wanted and well cared for pets. These fewer animals would be kept in their yards and homes and walked "on leash" thereby reducing the damage to neighbors plants and property and lessening the work load of the animal control officers. We have all become too selfish and content to keep our heads in the sand, not really wanting to know what is happening, or worse, not wanting to get involved. If we cannot show compassion for helpless animals I don't think there is much hope for us. Again, I'm pleading for your help. Very sincerely, 2 ftler w. f < / PHYLLIS MERRILL (Mrs. Richard H. Merrill) PM/rn SUBJECT : ANIMAL CONTROL "POUND" PRO• They do a very nasty job better than most counties. They pick up injured animals and take to vet for treatment (even at 2 a. m. ) then take to animal shelter where one out of ten is claimed. Whereas, other pounds take directly to shelter, toss into pen and let animal suffer for 72 hours, then put them to sleep, without ever being checked by a vet or helped in any way. None of the animals are sold for vivisection. Any person appearing too many times to pickup animals is reported to S.P. C. A. They do want to s6art a program to teach youngsters in the proper care of animals. (My slogan is "3 L's" "Love. Lock and Leash". They try to get people to board their animals when vacationing. (NOT leaving in care of neighbor. ) CON: Too many mistakes seem to be ocurring. Some officers seem over zealous (suggest that officers be better screened for their feeling for animal welfare). Luring animals off personal premises. Give more warnings - less pickups. Get more publicity for the good things done. Try harder to place animals in homes. Invest in at least three pet-mobiles. Not enough effort tieing made to license cats and a higher fee should be charged for unspayed femalea. Animals should be given strong sleeping pill before being put to sleep. In warm weather animals should be given water when in pick-up truck. Tranquilizing guns should be carried by all officers. CONCLUSION: Why can't a standard be set at State or Federal level where all pounds be operated on a humane clean standard. Periodic inspections and imposition of stiff fines and sentencing for "DEALERS". How about some "Laws for the Animals"? CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A. L. SEELEY I BRANCH OFFICES AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 100.37TH ST.. RICHMOND 94803 SEALER WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 161 JOHN GLENN DRIVE 21]•7060. EXT. 3233 K. E. DANIELSON BUCHANAN AIRPORT 633 WALNUT BLVO., BRENTWOOD 91319 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 94520 674.3318 ASSISTANT SEALER 682.7550 January 27, 1971 RECEIV� A NJ 2 7 1a71 Mrs• Richard Merrill CLERK. T.ARD OF SUPERVISORS VISORS 34 Woodford Drive NTRA COST (,O. Moraga, CA, 94556 By _ Deputy Dear Mrs. Merrill, REQ Establishment of spaying clinic at the Animal Control Center (Board Order of January 19, 1971) Your letter of January 11, 1971 to the Board of Supervisors has been referred to me for handling. This problem of surplus animals has been of real concern to us since we took over the Animal Control program twelve years ago. The subject has been discussed •numerous times and I am sorry to say that we have made very little progress. While the "establishment of spaying clinics at the Centers" is not impossible, there are some impressive obstacles. Let's talk about what might be done and what it takes to do itt Please come in to see me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely yours, Arthur L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner Sealer Weights & Measures ALS/ac cc: Clerk of the Board/ County Administrator S.P.C.A: g Attn: Mrs, Betty Lumsden S ti .z •' r In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California January 19 19�-- In the Matter of Letter requesting establishment of a spaying clinic at County Animal Control Cen ter. This Board on January 14, 1971 having received a letter from Mrs. Richard H. Merrill, 34 Woodford Drive, Moraga, California requesting that consideration be given to the establishment of a spaying clinic at the County Animal Control Center where this service could be done at cost thereby helping to control animal population in the county; and On motion of Supervisor J. E. Moriarty, seconded by Supervisor A. M. Dias, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that this matter is REFERRED to the County Agricultural Commissioner. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote of the Board: AYES: Supervisors K. M. Dias, J. E. Moriarty, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J. P. Kenny. NOES: None . ABSENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. c c: Mrs. Merrill Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Agricultural Commss.ione rSupervisors County Administrator affixed this _19th day of January , 19Ll County Government Operations f� W. T. PAASCH, Clerk Committee By Deputy Clerk Elsie go t H 24 8/70 IOM Mrs. Richard H. Merrill - j 34 Woodford Drive Moraga, California 94556 January 11, 1971 R,ECEIV�� Board of Supervisors Administration Building .!:1�''• 1 4 1971 Martinez, California W. T. PAA 8 C H CLERK ON A OF ST POVISCR$ Dear Sirs : �sy °i After my phone conversation with Supervisor James Moriarty it was suggested that I write you concerning the dog and cat situation in Contra Costa County. There is only one 10016 guarantee of unwanted pregnancies being prevented, and that is spaying females and castrating males. Unfortunately- a very small percentage of the general public will go to this expense. By selling a pint of their own blood they could cover all veterinary costs (which we all agree are too high for this service). A pet owner would not hesitate to give blood for a friend or relative in need. What greater friend could one have than his pet. Another method, I learned as a volunteer worker for the S.P. C.A. is chlorophyll tablets. Given to a female "in season", one tablet in the a. m. and one in the p.m. can and does eliminate odor and reduce the possibility of contact by a male. Owner must, of course, keep their female pet in the house or garageand under a watchful eye. This method worked 10076 on my female German Shepherd. These are plain people chlorophyll tablets purchased in any drug store. Naturally, I recommend spaying above anything else, but, for those who cannot afford it the chlorophyll method should be used. I would also like to find out how I and the SPCA can get a spaying clinic started in conjunction with Animal Control. Spaying would be done "at cost". Maybe-young vet students from Davis would be willing to help. I have had many calls from the local citizens offering help either by volunteer work or contribution of money. My utmost concern is for the animal, innocent, and helpless. Can any of you men with the power help me help them? (:G' : Sincerely, �CtLylZfiirl�L �/ PHYLLIS MERRILL •PLE E RESPOND TO: ` • COMMITTEES <-�' l.• ' DISTRICT OFFICE NATURAL RESOURCES AND 1393 CIVIC DRIVE WILDLIFE,CHAIRMAN WALNUT CREEK.CALIF.94595 ELECTIONS AND (415) 934.4550 :.,JOHN A. NEJEDLY REAPPORTIONMENT (� SACRAMENTO OFFICE _ - LOCAL OO VERNMENT STATE CAPITOL SEVENTH SENATORIAL DISTRICT WATER RESOURCES SACRAMENTO.CALIF.95614 _ CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (916) 445.6069 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE x t_j ' March 19, :-1971 . [RECEIVILIj I ',� X21971 James P. Kenny, Chairman W, T. P g A S C H Contra Costa Board of Supervisors r3LAA t edAq d OF SUPERVISORS Administration Building ON,AA OSTA CO. Martinez, Calif. 94553 U ' - ' . nepuw Dear Jim: May I respectfully support the recent communi- cation of Mrs. Phyllis Merrill concerning the develop- ment of a spaying and neutering clinic for our county. The responses of Mr. Seeley and his cooperation are certainly appreciated and I sincerely hope that implementation of this essential facility may be ex- pedited. truly yours, J n A. Nejedly L_____�enator, 7th District JAN:cjr ' t , r . •'. ..5-ECiIAL %e'i?t':::i. QiITI vJ RXIVIE..•: COIL-?TTEK P...F''ORT A meeting of the Specie Jaima-I Control Review Committee was held on Thursday, 3w-ie 61 1974; =st whish the rcco=endations o4 a'' sub-coai.ttees were presented and reviewed. The-following recommendations were approved by the Committee and Are submitted to t e +he Board of j+ervisors for review and appropriate action. f /Qj��0�p--• 1,- The Count,y should i.---:=--diately_ proceed to remodel the euthanasia chambers- ? to comply'with State law. udzes reveal that other methods •are too . costly rund/or impractical. (Co=ert. money has been appropriated.) 2. The Commi.ttes reco..:.•ends a leash law for dogs. Exceptions will be made I for working dogs, such as sheep dogs, and for dogs attending obedience classes. Obedience classes krill issue appropriate identification cards. This leash law would repeal t:,e "at large" definition se ich now exists , {' + in the Ordinance. : I 3. Ranchers should have prime responsibility for protecting their livestock. _ I Aniral Control tall respond only when practical or when an Animal Control { Ofobserves a ficer obsevedog harassing cattle, in ws.:ich case he should get outCF and shoot-the dog. 4. Suggestion forts w.111 be'nide avail-able to Animal..Coetrrol employees ' enabling them to express their concerns regarding policies and operational procedures. ' 5. A Lost and Found Card File should not be kept by Animal Control. Telephone Jf�t identification of an amiral'is inefficient and irpractical. Owmers will continue to be notified if the an-1 is identifiable by license, name : and address tan, etc. : 6. Livestock,• with the exception of cattle, should be held for sale by sealed If_Af bid after•being held the required amount of time. The 1=vostock is to be dispia;' d regularly on ^iis:rs::ay, and:sold by sealed bid. 9h'• 7. The holding period for unli sensed. aninal s s'nal.l..remain.at 72 hours. -This r ' • applies to dogs only. ' ! � S. County Ordinance should limit the naw:-er of cats and dogs per residence, 0 with t:1e ercaption of special licensed facilities. , '.g. The County should increase the availzb' .ty of low cast rabies clinics because of State requirazaeus re arding rabies vaccination prior to licer-sing. ' �97s•�7�; ' Low cost rabies clinics shczitd also be available in the area of .each Animal r � Control Center at least once a month, !,arch through December. 11•-211r76f 10. There should be a fiscal and calendar year licensing. prop aa. _,11. The dpi:license fee -howl d be increased to sir_ dollars (66). for unneuterad dogs, and three dollaxts ($3) for nestared dogs. ' `-12. License tags should be distributed at the rabies clinics. • i 1-/7-701 13. A door to-door•licensing program should be established if the program• ' would be self-supporting, ed;:cational and "soft-sell". Yum • 11: Ahimal•-Control should issue license tags. Section 3080u of the State j _zy-7H Agricultural Code reads "In..a:y county that does nos have an Animal Control Department, the county clera shall perform the functions : "- assigned to the county A 31 Control Departr::ant.11 , 130 The Committee recc=nds cat reoistratioa sraich could be M-ndled in the sand -=-icer as dog i .cen ing, jiu. a yea Of four dollars ($4) for un- ; neutered cats; and 6"Wo dollars N2) for neutered cats. The cat uould be ; afforded the same benefits 'Uat apply to the licensed dog. Cat registra- tion would be contingent upon a doo_-to-door licensing enforcement program. Reco:.re�rdations from the Boa~d-a a'_nten _4:izal SClinic =mi Spay Clic Study Cottee . are sub=ittled _`t7r the c$t tea strath-^ Drcb a= (item rcpart dated August 22, 19?3� , ' r aPP 16. If ^cat,regisaon is NOT' O enacted, the'uzly� cats"t should be held for ,• 3. '12 hours are those that are we=—!::g identification, appear well cared for, • appear oumed, and those cats caunpl.%%f in cat traps. ' s - 7_ �• 17. The County should establish a sel-suppo:tting County maintained low cost 1. 12.-17- 1. mk 7n_�a y a-�r•...=,. �.w e•1. !.7 spay and neuter clinic. i.:C Board O .este � ..O r, shc._ld nake 3 firm _ ,n l97s-�47 effort (vita a deadline)- to Leat ith private•veterinarians to try to develop a spay/neuter program ut,_;:.�zing the services of private veterin- i arians. •The agreeLznt with the veterinarians should be renewable yearly..- _ i Foe charges should be low enough i„a indicate a public sere-ce, but such- that they would insure the co-operating veterinarians a reasonable profit. j All this to continue .fnile =embers of a private group work to obtain funds to establish a low cost spay/naute' clinic as agreed to previously by the Board of Supervisors. .7f Vixen a dog is on his o�.•aer's property, but not under control (the owner'is '<o�� nearby., but not visible), a wax-.ring notice should be issued. If there is reason to believe t e animalhas caused a disturbance, is a problem dog, or kill become a problem, a citation -should besissued. _ /147-7 y 19. The lnizal Control Centers should ba open on S',andays. /97S If If the Centers are-rot open on S`,:rdays and holidays, these' . days should not be counted in the holdiig time,but the daily fee shall be ' -included in the impound charges. • 20. Establish an ordinance restricting the holding and keeping of exotic animals. le-.'f-?f Limits should be'placed on the keepizio of exotic animals. Ansimal. Control ' ' should be responsible for the•..enfo:ceLent of the ordinance. r2_ly_?y 21. The Board should consider the possibility of a 10-hour per day, 4-day work ,t " week shift. If approped, it is reco.y ended that adequate staffing be pro- vided to allow for i..'-proved coverage. --• 22. Thera should be no c%xanga in present proced,re that snizals mounded by t /o- law enforcement agencies s a1] be taken to the Animal Control Centers. This would apply to all police agezaies who impound anina- 1.s for whatever reason. The impound fee should be paid by tea owner of the f'ntrsl. The Co. itteo ; sees no practical alta.�ative. _ ie. 23. Improved communications between :mal Control and the public should b's par" of the licensing program.- 24. rogram.24. Publicity Uould be zost efyec;,ive it emphasized such areas as the advantages of a neutered pet, responsible pet care, functions of Animal Control and the citizen's respons :-:Ul .ty. I'L-47-74V '2$. An education program should be prx.dided to the general public and elementuary Fr! /9754174 s^hool children and one full time representative.-froa'Ar_imal Control should f3«+� carry'on the prod aa. 26. Jsniral Control should accept and screen a11 calls regardingwild anir..aZs and provide adtiiea, and should re. •and in emersencies. (Danger to-h=-an life, or if an anin-1 is s:ffering.) . 27, The cat trap use information Y2oa :.0..:► should state what Cat traps" are not t0 - �� be used for turappino wildlife and -nat w:ld3.ife accidentally caught will be I a responsibility of the citizen :sing k. trap. It is also the respoa- ' sibility of the citizen to release or dispose of the animal. By signing the^loan fo , the citizen accepts A- s responsibility. 28. Cities vanti.nn to provide night• de.osit cages au various locations within their city be responsible for buyer, Laintainia; and cleaning those caves, • and properly caring for 5'h -nirpls •coniined therein. AYi1m31 CiO:lt:Dl wild n-ake pickups during nor=al workingJ'.:rs. _ 29. r.�i^al Control should continue to respond on a high priority basis to calls _ regarding aninn', pac::a in areas E:e peopia ^ay be endangered. 2`Iq 30. Penalty fees should be revised as _a!?o::s: the second offense fee, $S; the 4-�+ - t'nird offense fee, $16; the fourth offense fee, $24. (Co=eat: there is no '�j penalty-ee for E::e first offense." j 31. I•;aterial of an educational natoixa dealing with the animal over-population � problem (a problem that t'ha County deals. with) be allowed to be displaced on County bulletin boards subject to the approval of each department head, • 32. The Count Department of A gricultu-•e shall train one Vertebrr-te Pest - !°" Controlman in the skill of predator control for the purpose of taking target; animals (coyrote) Wen theta is a proven depredation to livestock. This motion supports that redo=endation made by Mr. A. L. Seeley on April 25, 1973, to the Board of S:pe visors on the subject of Predatory Animal Control:, and Squirrel Eradication Prod�. 33. Present kennel supervision to prevent dog fights is'adequate. The only ! other possibility would be to provide one run per animal which is no,- practical. otpractical. 31,. The County Health Depa:tmemt request tie State health Department to uadi.zy /a-APIN the California A ,-; i st_ztive Code Title 2.7, Section 2606b(3) to e i !nate the isolation of biting dogs that have been properly vaccinated or, at ' least, give the local 'Health Department discretion as to whether or not such,. vaccinated dogs shall be routinely isolated. - I'Z:-IAM-784 35. The County Health Depa:trent should reimburse Animal Control -for rabies +� control activities. ' Awl- 36. Because it is a necessity that Ani-_-I Control Officers carry firear.-cs, !°•lam?1G the Committee redo=ends a psychological testing system and a one-year ft-Iq_?y tP ^^-� probationary period be instituted :.or Aunimal Control Officers and Kennelmn. It should further be required that Animal Control Officers . _ . . ! be adequately trained in the use of their firearms. 37. The use of County ve.:ucles for travel to and from the Animal. Control iz-2-4 Center by officers be discontinued in an effort tc offset increased i costs of the service. An exception would be Stade for on-call personnel.._ - 38. Tae•Cii1..1 Service Dopar Wemt•screen clerical applicants'as to their will- ingness to work for nim—a• Control, perhaas b-r a "box" to be checked on the application fora. The cartificatioµ list.will `men have.only pre- ! screened applicants. t j 410*10- 39. A system should be initiated so clerical personnel at the centers can o- ? • / easily determine h.•hat.t;pe of animals ore beim; ;:apt. It is suggested that.a chalk board list a-`-Is s sucv as dogs, cats, sheep, goats, horses, etc. Opposite the Ari=---3 Is type • 6uld be a. check mart after yes or no to indicate if this type of axizal.is.being held.. ��• /*0. No action should be taken to change .existing law Which pro ibits guide dogs : /a- `�J� bring trained from entering restaurants, bowling 'alleys, etc. A guide dog trainer was contacted and stated 4ha4,1z is not a:cessary for the yo-ng dog at'this period of train-n;; to be in such public places. . The matter of a 'toll free lithe should be referred to the County Administra+ . for t t office to answer in the same manner the„ they handled a recent similar coo Wrequest. t /o-aP• 42. Comply personnel sho•.hld kork *,nth t-:a Go,:rts to establish uniform fines- and . forfeitures for at-large and'-1 cease:v.iolations. •43. The County Animal Control O.din&ace should be amended-to allow cities to � /°rte contract hath Anil Control for increased services and for enforcement o. ? • - stricter local ra8•lations knish may be adopted by individual cities. 400011` . r� .;1,. The fol.los.-i:.g actions should be '..a:.en to impro•:a tato A.niL.•ai. Control public imam and the con.::..=j'.-y reletio-s aspect as a means of effec-� ng greater compliance with ar.,;..^,11 co:z.rol replations: a. roquest the County z,bj is Relations officer to develop a public • imfor=tion prouram to ;:crease pl.:blic un.darstandin of the Animal Control functi.oh; s b. provide for as on-going ca e.: relations training program for all Anarsal Control personnel; c. seek funding for a training program from County appropriations, CCCJ- grants•and/or from the State thro,4h legislation providing special prograas.in th;.s field statewide; and d. encourage the .League of Califo.=4a Cities to support legislation to. provide for ssch a training program.. /Z_2y_71f 1;,5. It is reco=.ended•that two addition- facilities, one in the Pittsburg � area and one in the Danville area, be constructed as a means of increasing R !✓4 the figld effectiveness of Aninal Corot o:. personnel and as an.improverment _ in service to a large portion of the Go•:ntyr population. oe Warren X.•Boggess, Chairman - Special A-11.;.u1 Control Review Committee Dated June•11, 1974 IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUBTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Reports ) on Referrals to the Board ) December 10, 1974 Administration and Finance } Committee. - The ommittee.The Board heretofore having made certain.referrals to its County Administration and Finance Committee (Supervisors A. M. Dias and E. A. Linscheid) ; and Said committee having reported and recommended as follows with respect to aforesaid referrals: Referral Date Item Recommendation 7-29-74 Organization, staffing and Refer to staff for continued salaries of the Municipal review in connection with pro- Courts. posals -for consolidation of the courts in the western portion of the county and in the central portion of the county. Remove from Administra- tion and Finance Committee. Is now in special committee (Supervisors Dias and Kenny) . 1-2-74 Proposal that Board of Deny request and review legis- Supervisors consider trans- lation which is expected to be ferring its responsibilities introduced in the 1975 session for County Department of to reorganize the responsi- Education to County Board of bilities of•the County Depart- Education. ment of Education. 3-25-74 State Ballot Proposition 5 Ballot proposition passed at (SCA) pertaining to use of the primary election of June _ motor vehicle fuel revenues 1974• Remove as committee for public mass transit referral pending staff recom- ' purposes. mendations with respect to implementation. 4-2-74 Contra Costa County Employees Committee has been advised that Retirement System comparative actuarial investigation of the statement of financial con- system is in progress and that dition for year ending receipt of actuarial report is December 31, 1974. scheduled for February 1975• Remove as committee referral pending receipt of said report. 4-23-74 Proposed alternate methods AB 3395, providing for use of of court reporting. electronic recording devices, failed of enactment during the 1974 session. Remove as commit- tee referral and reactivate if similar legislation is intro- duced in 1975: 5-7-74 Memorandum from Director Kemorandum pertained to immediate of HRA on certain aspects implementation of certain alco- of the countywide alcohol- holism proposals during the ism program. remainder of the 1973-1974 fiscal year. Required action was taken; remove as committee referral, Referral Date Item Recommendation 8-20-74 Appeal of Mrs. E. Aljets Committee has heretofore "recom— and Mr. J. Shera, deferred mended that county policy not retirees, for inclusion in allow for inclusion of deferred County Group Health Plan. retirees in the County Group Health Plan and after further review has not found that excep— tion action is warranted in the aforesaid cases; it therefore recommends denial of the appeals. 9-10-74 Request from certain school Arrangements 'are being made to 9-24-74- districts that the Office provide additional staff for the of County Counsel be given aforesaid purpose through the additional staff to assure use of CETA funds. Remove as continuation of its present committee referral. level of services to the school districts. 9-10-74 Proposal of Allied Fellow— Refer to the Office of County . ship Services offering Sheriff—Coroner for consideration their services to this for possible inclusion in budget county in establishing a requests for the 1975-1976 fiscal "half—way" house type year. Remove as committee program for ex—offenders. referral. 10-22-74 Proposed amendment to the Hearing on proposed ordinance Ordinance Code relating to continued to January 14, 1975• tree preservation and Remove as committee referral.- replacement. 11-6-74 Request that delegate Deny request until such time as agencies be authorized to Congress has adopted legislation appoint staff to approved providing assured funding of the positions without clearance Economic Opportunity Program. by central staff. 11-6-74 Letter from Contra Costa Acknowledge receipt and refer County Employees Association, request to Employee Relations Local 1, asserting that law Officer and Agricultural Com— requires meet and confer missioner—Sealer of Weights and responsibilities on certain Measures to see that legitimate recommendations of Special county meet and confer responsi— Animal Control Review bilities are properly discharged Committee. in implementation of recom— mendations pertaining to the animal control program. 11-12-74 Proposed amendments to the Ordinance revisions to be con— Public Health and License sidered by the Board on Fee Ordinance 74-1. December 17, 1974. Remove as committee referral. 11-19-74 Claim from Superintendent County Counsel advises that there of Mt. Diablo Unified are no statutory requirements School District for costs that county assume responsibility of legal services incurred for costs of outside counsel in a suit against the employed by "school district, and district. therefore recommends that claim .be denied. The Board having considered said committee report and determined the recommendations to be appropriate; NOW, THEREFORE, on motion of Supervisor A. M. Dias, seconded by Supervisor E. A. Linscheid, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED 'that the aforesaid recommendations of its County Administration and Finance .Com mittee are APPROVED. The foregoing order was passed by. the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, E.' A. Linscheid, J. E. -Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: Supervisor W. N. Boggess. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on December 10, 1974. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Supervisors affixed this 10th day of December, 1971 . J. R. OLSSON, 'CLERK By A- ::� Dorot4fy Lazttfrini Deputy Clerk cc: Mt. Diablo Municipal Court Delta Municipal Court Walnut Creek—Danville Niunicipa?. Court Richmond Municipal Court West Municipal Court Contra Costa County Bar Association County Superintendent of Schools County Board of Education . Contra Costa County Mayors' Conference Contra Costa County Transportation Advisory Committee County Supervisors Association of California Mrs. E. Aljets Mr. J. Shera Lafayette School District Oakley Union School District Mr. P. A. Dikon Contra Costa County Employees Association, Local. 1 Mr. J. Roscoe Mt. Diablo Unified School District County Counsel County Administrator Public Works Director Treasurer Retirement Administrator Director, Human Resources Agency Acting Personnel Director Auditor—Controller Sheriff—Coroner Acting Health Officer Agricultural Commissioner Planning Director Office of Economic Opportunity _ 0 2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Inter - Office Memo Date: November 6, 1974 To: Administration and Finance Committee (Supervisors A. M. Dias and E. A. Linscheid) From: Clerk of the Board, by mb Subject: The Board this day referred to you the matter of county obligation to meet and confer (with Contra Costa County Employees Association, Local No. 1) on certain of the Special Animal Control Review Committee recommendations before final action is taken by the Board. This matter was also referrred to the County Administrator. cc: County Administrator In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California November 6 19 74 In the Matter of Letter from Contra Costa County Employees Association, Local No. 1, with respect to Special Animal Control Review Committee Recommendations:: The Board having received an October 24, 1974 letter from Mr. Henry L. Clark, Business Manager, Contra Costa County Employees Association, Local No. 1, asserting that State Law and the County Employer-Employee Relations Ordinance require the County to meet and confer on certain of the Special Animal Control Review Committee recommendations before final action is taken by the Board; and On motion of Supervisor J. P. Kenny, seconded by Super- visor W. N. Boggess, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that this matter is REFERRED to its Administration and Finance Committee (Supervisors A. M. Dias and E. A. Linscheid) and the County Administrator. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES : Supervisors J. P. Kenny, W. N. Boggess , J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: Supervisors A. M. Dias , E. A. Linscheid. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc: C.C.C. Employees Assn. , Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Local No. 1 Supervisors Committee affixed this 6th day of November , 19 74 County Administrator Agricultural Commissioner J. R. OLSSON, Clerk County Counsel By �� Deputy Clerk Acting Personnel Director Mildred 0. Ballard H 24 5/74 -12,500 OCA YYY 0 e"Aa easier. e gypLO`lE4r P. O. BOX 222 - 2739 ALHAMBRA AVENUE - PHONE 228-1600 MARTINEZ. CALIFORNIA 94533 October 24, 1974 RECEIVED Mr. James Moriarty Chairman Board of Supervisors OCT A-"� 191.4 Contra Costa County Administration Building J. r.. O�::014 Martinez, California 94553 age ONTRD O TACO I�� B ..�. Dear Sir: This is to notify you that our Contra Costa County Employees Association, Local No. 1 , after reviewing the report of the Special Animal Control Review Committee, would like to bring to your attention the fact that there are at least three, if not more, recommendations contained in that report which fall under the meet and confer rights of our Union. Those areas are in regard to training of Officers in the use of firearms, psychological system of testing for Officers, the discontinuance of the use of County vehicles for travel to and from work by the Animal Control Officers, as well as the suggestion for a ten-hour, four-day work week. I am hereby notifying you that before the Board takes any final action in these areas that they must meet and confer with our Union on such mat- ters according to the State Law and your own County Employer-Employee Relations Ordinance. Thank you for consideration of this matter. Sincerely yours, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, LOCAL NO. 1 Henry . Clarke tAicrofiimed wit'n bccird order Business Manager - HLC/aw opeu/29/afl-cio cc: Ted Brasier, President, Animal Control Unit, Local No. i Morse D: Gregg, Vice-President, Animal Control Unit, Local No. T AGENDA I Cid-Ll��� for date) - A HE U CI1V FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RGANIZED 1941 e'rr"I i•`` ivy OFFICE: OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 2ND FLOOR. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING MARTINEZ. CALIFORNIA 94553 ARTHUR M WILL RECEIVED DI BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR J. E. h10R1ARTY, CHAIRMAN PHONE 228-3000 DISTRICT 3 W. N. BOGGESS. VICE CHAIRMAN DISTRICT 4 DEC17 �g14 J. P. KENNY. DISTRICT I A. M. DIAS. DISTRICT 2 E.A. LINSCHEID. DISTRICT 5 J. R. LSS(JN CLER F SUPERVI R COSTA For further information: er i7, 1974 Lary H. Dunten, Public Information Officer PRESS RMEASE - (415) 228-30008 Ext. 2221 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE LOW-COST COUNTY SPAY CLINIC TOPS LIST OF FIVE ANIMAL CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS APPROVED BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Five more animal control recommendations, including the budgeting for a county-operated low-cost spay and neuter clinic, have been formally approved by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. This brings to a total of 32 the number of proposals the board has adopted of the 45 originally set forth by its appointed "special animal control review committee. " Besides giving the spay clinic go-ahead, the board directed county staff to include in the proposed 1975-76 budget funds for: (1) more low-cost rabies clinics, ( 2) Sunday and holiday opening of the animal control centers, (3) a door-to-door dog licensing program and (4) an educational program for the general public and elementary school children. -more- Low-Cost Spay Clni.c Approved - 2 Supervisor Edmund A. Linscheid cautioned, however, that funding of the programs was not assured, because "they will have to be con- sidered along with other county priorities. " He and Supervisor Alfred M. Dias, chairman of, the board' s administration and finance committee, reported that their review 'of new cost estimates for the proposed spay clinic "determined that equipment costs are less than originally projected. " They suggested that the spay clinic be set up at the Martinez animal control center. Study of that program's costs would be analyzed before a similar clinic would be established at the Pinole animal control center, where site preparation and building con struction costs are estimated to be higher. Dias observed that the board will keep .the door open for alter- nate spay clinic proposals from private veterinarians until adoption of the county's next fiscal year budget. The 12 items remaining of the 45 original proposals were not rejected, he explained, but will be tabled for further staff study and board reconsideration. They include: a county dog leash law, an increase in the dog license fee, cat registration, sale of license tags at rabies clinics and animal control centers, a revision in penalty fees, a four-day work week for animal control employees, psychological testing of animal control officers, a toll-free number for the animal control center and construction of additional facilities in the Pittsburg and Danville areas. -30- � Y • w t, RE:0E EIVED C /0 1974 . I. o�ao�CWK AO Of WKWWO 466 Constitution Drive Danville , California 94526 � December 8, 1974 The Board. of Supervisors Contra Costa County Administration Building Post Office Box 911 Martinez, California 94553 Dear Sirs: This is a plea to you to establish a leash law. Our deep concern stems from harrowing personal experience. Our 12-year-old daughter was bitten on the thigh by an unknown German Shepherd. in the 700 block on E1 Cerro Boulevard in Danville, at 7:30 a.m. December 3. She was walking to her school bus stop when the dog attacked her without provocation. She was too frightened and hurt to notice if the dog had a collar and. tags or even to remem- ber the animal clearly enough to make a positive identifi- cation. Animal Control was notified. immed.iately and agreed to patrol the area. When we checked the Animal Control Center three days later, there were two Shepherds, neither of which our daughter could. identify. We felt id.entification was essential since we live in an area where roving bands of dogs have been observed. and. we are within a mile of the place where two dogs recently nearly killed. a baby donkey. In addition, in this neigh- borhood. there are numerous pets allowed to roam. For example , the same afternoon that our daughter inspected. the two Shepherds in the pound , we saw three Shepherds running free within five minutes of our house . Thus we felt identification of the animal was essential to d.eter- mine if it was wild or tame and had. its rabies shots. However, after emergency hospital examination and treatment , followed. the next day by consultation with our ped.iatrician who called County health authorities, we reached the conclu- sion that rabies shots for our daughter were not necessary, even without identification of the dog. The heavy slacks she was wearing at the time of he attack were not torn. They kept the wound slight (as dog bites go) and prevented a possible rabies infection. �w r The Board. of Supervisors December 8, 1974 The anguish we suffered. while arriving at this decision and. the pain and. fright our daughter suffered are immeasu- rable. However, now that we know she is out of danger, we have had. time to reflect on the outrage of the situation. What happens next time? What happens to someone else's child who gets a more severe injury? The San Ramon Valley was once a rural area and even now has fair claim to a "rural atmosphere" . But in reality, as you know, it is a fast-growing urban area with a popu- lation of more than 40,000. This calls for an enforceable leash law for the protection of everyone, including the pets themselves. We urge you to implement the recommendation of the Special Animal Control Review Committee now. Please don't delay this decision. Yours,, truly, M" M , (Mrs. ) Marillyn M. Cozine Ta.��e 4 44,L4. Ralph D. Cozine cc ; Animal Control Area newspapers I 0 In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California December 3 19 74 In the Matter of Complaint from Richmond Resident with Respect to Impoundment of His Dog. The Board on November 19, 1974 having referred to Mr. A. L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner, for report the complaint of Pair. Thomas F.. Butt concerning the circumstances under which his dog was impounded and the clerical operations at the Pinole Animal Control Center with respect thereto, and the request of Mr. Butt for a. refund of the 412 fee charged by said center; and Mr. Seeley in a November 25, 197-1 memorandum report having stated that the personnel at the Pinole Animal Control Center follo-red established procedures -pith respect to the aforesaid incident; and On motion of Supervisor '•T. N. Boggess, seconded by Suvervisor J. P . :fenny, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the request of Mr. Butt for refund of the '"12 impoundment penalty fee be DLfiTIED. IT IS P RTHE? ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to send a copy of said memorandum report to .111r. Butt. The foregoing order was passed by the follorhing vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, N. Boggess, E. -A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. c c: Mr. T. X. Butt Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Agricultural Commissioner Supervisors County, Administrator affixed this 3rd day of December, 19 74 J. R. O LSSON, Clerk BY Deputy Clerk ?i3 Penningt H 24,5/74 -12,S00 u ✓ DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Date: November 25, 1974 To: Board of Supervisors From: Arthur L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner — Sealer of Weights and Measures Subject: Animal Control Complaint of Thomas K. Butt, your Board Order of November 19, 1974 On November 19, 1974 your Board referred the complaint of Mr. Thomas K. Butt of 611 Western Drive, Richmond, California to me for a report. We made a detailed review of the circumstances under which his dog was impounded and about the clerical operations at the Pinole Animal Control Center and the fee charged. It should be noted that: 1. The personnel at the Pinole Animal Control Center followed established procedures in the incident involving the redemption of the dog belonging to Mr. Butt. Mr. Butt came to the Center looking for his dog at approximately 8:00 a.m. (the same time the Center opens for business) . The dog in question had been placed in a kennel from the night deposit with a copy of the record on the kennel door. The kennelman was still in the process of emptying and cleaning the night deposit and had not placed the remainder of the records in the file. Mr. Butt was requested to look at the dogs in the kennels and, if his dog was there, inform the clerk of the kennel number because she did not find the dog' s record in the impounded license dog files. (Owners are routinely requested to do this as collars and tags may have been lost or stolen. ) Mr. Butt returned to the office and reclaimed the dog. 2. Stray animals found in the night deposits are not considered under control of the owner •and it must be assumed that the animal was discovered "at large" and brought to the center by a citizen. 3. Records show that his dog had been "at large" and impounded on January 23, 1974 and July 31, 1974. ALS/ac RECEIVED cc: County Administrator ` NOV 2 51974 X. 1. P- 0MIO 1 � u :urvrsoRs C . 9 e u 7!73 (500) In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California November 19 19 74 In the Matter of Complaint from Richmond Resident with respect to Impoundment of His Dog. This Board having received a letter from Mr. Thomas K. Butt, 611 Western Drive, Richmond, California complaining about the circumstances under which his dog was impounded and about the clerical operations at the Pinole Animal Control Center with respect thereto, and requesting a refund of the $12 fee charged by said center; and On motion of Supervisor W. N. Boggess , seconded by Supervisor A. M. Dias , IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that this matter is REFERRED to the Agricultural Commissioner for report . The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES : Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias , W. N. Boggess , E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES : None. ABSENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. c c : Mr. T. K. Butt Witness my hand and the Seat of the Board of Agricultural Commissioner Supervisors County Administrator affixed this 19th day of November , 1974 �f J. R. OLSSON, Clerk By_ ` • `'�`� - C_ Deputy Clerk L. Kincaid H 24 5/74 -12,500 • • 'jtcWr cry„ interac�iv�e Resomm inc. caT p Owisivepmfes�smrticesqOW 12 November 1974 Nlt�:,A.__`*. ,.ve S Mr. James Moriarty, Chaiiman RECEIVED Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County NOV /3 1974 P.O. Box 911 Martinez, California 94553 J. 1L CUSON CLERK 60AW OF SUPERVISORS .g=: A CO Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board: This letter is both a complaint against the personnel at the Contra Costa Animal Control Facility and an appeal for refund of a penalty assessed by the Animal Control Facility. My dog was discovered by Animal Control personnel in their night depository this morning. There was no record of who piachd, the animal in the depository or why it was placed there. In the absence of proof or even a witness as to why the animal was taken into custody, it seems only right that the penalty fee of $12.00 should be returned to me in full. There is no reason to believe that the animal was "at large,, and in fact it is my position that the dog was inside of my fenced yard and could only have been removed by person(s) unknown and in vio- lation themselves of tresspass laws. I respectively request the Board of Supervisors to move to have the penalty repealed. I have a formal complaint about operations at the Animal Con- trol Center, and would appreciate an answer regarding ability of their personnel to properly perform adminstrative pro- cedures. Upon phoning the Animal Shelter this morning I was told that there was no record of a dog with tags to indicate my ownership. I went to the facility in person, however, and identified the dog. The personnel on duty could not locate the paperwork, and there seemed to be a great deal of confusion regarding the case. The paperwork had not been properly com- pleted and filed, and if I had not gone in person I might nev-er.- have located the dog. As a citizen and a taxpayer I have come to expect a higher level of performance from public employees. S ' erely, T omas K. Butt 39 washngW avemie, point rdYnor4caNbRiia 94801 tiel#v*415 236 74% I O w El VIC F< <� am « m g U WW ! to -W Zp olz - d. L U ULU f 0 W W C W r- c j O V _ V o ; o o r o c a W i d LU A U c t. WILLIAM : . ::; T Commissioner:I7an::Itlanzaz. C GRU =: -`,..:'.:v ; w �:s:�"California - 3ta-t6:'til g ST Y tY Ol tN CTURERS• REPRESENTATNE; P. 0. Box 898: . : . W'- • --�.. P. O. BOX i01 •r. I .Sacramento, - Ca:-:. 95804 LAM ETTE, CALIFORNIA.94549 '..1 ::_ . . .. - .. .., :.. 1. .. . :.:.,.: . (415) 283-2121'. ,. A.. . . s„d; ." Patrolman.:Charles. }3ieer Martinet Nov. .26 ;":.'f974��.:. :: ' �r GATE �. t':a: •- . . . . Dear Commissioner Lanza.. " %x:' .t .. .:.:.. - ...:....... Zr - _ . _ .. .. .. .'. .y ... .. .. :'. _ ... .. „: .y� yy -�' -*+ate '.�j7• 1 h a�.- . :.s a man1. who.::owns. a 'licensed dog i;hr:.t. .i:s:. never"..out; of:= in' ..rd: :_ -, : =.:. w•:=: ,,*:..except t on 'a::=leash : I cant:t liel but: be r� - .. ti`:'.-`'.r:�-L•rolmari , _, ::::;::,;:_; ..: :.. . ..:.......:...:. . .... - ,. Charles::Bieer:;venose patience apparently rc:�c?'ed :tiie.-bre=Icing : ':r y . .. s. . ; �; point,: resulting. in leis .being c:ia.i'' ed .:•ri.th mimle;ne1.a: -cruelty ; N. �o animals ..for ,'shooting aneighbor dad w�licli:.,�;�s.: d�:mr_�,in�.-nis..:. . . •;.: ::.,;:'s I:: : ,.-: :.,property.; . :one who .weekly goes :out to inow nils; lawn; pus:ri ng `the,;_::< `. _. ;` ::"`; : +� '�. mower -with- one:Land acid eprrying n shovel in 'the-:other 'i' order-:to;; .';=> �f� " 'clean up.'offerings 'left by net;- iborliooc. ii:ogs,. I :c nnc�-t:. 6.6ndone-.tYie;:: :.-:• „ .,.. y.: y � " ' F `., extreme measure;:taken :by r:.1troliri;iil .Biee ; but,:�i�.orougzly Understanu ..::.::: :the frustrations .that lea to his :7-:ction. . - _ . :,, . .::,; ,�.'. .. - X%� : kl ;: . ;. How man times.: does :a man neve +:o ::4e1: a rie iibor::tci Yee his i1e's :'::r:-:: ..,,-,:;r _;.T� i�.: Y . :..- _ 11 �''F�I : tructive: et .under: control. .ow_:,often 'i.... ie";es: ec.�•ecl:;to::,:a��`�eol y. •:, r :. P. :.. ..:.,... P.. _ . i. :, : ,.;. F. . . to vro er. :constituted count authorities tri t% i, ca.Ue :t}ie= ii;;:> -': i�"r; :, ::.W..1.:.. . 2 „...-...... C n S r }�` ta3- doll' i T`: ,b ._:..;:::;:,,:r inial o trop Yel$e is doll el =site ort:;;: efore; talon . . , - _ . :. :;. . • matters into.'..his own hands? a. �:: . . _ ::, . . ;,. . . :. s. :dy , I. _ . ,. . _- '.::iiv: :.:+: .... :.I:• do. not..:lrnow Patrolman Bieer. nd all I kn t.'..of ,t� e.:`c.:..�e` _ . -, 'j ' ',.;j. -..' r•.` R.� e .',: . . ..:•:� .. ..�. .. ::.'::`r:: w r n ii Oak ::°:n r b ?i` is ;;,t., r., i ==. is hat I ead. i t o 1 d T i une o ov':; y yt mi:n tYie' ¢.. C .. . ,. . :.. . , .. ,,. : .,,.T b ne- co t: :�o be r� curat I :f Ll1 : ,in -iv' r~ n :wli U j^,;_,; .,;, ri. u ac un_ c e, eel e .i c iota, 1. o ou�,nt = . . : ... - . *to be a on...char es are not Y::trolrian Reer_ ;:=tiut rattler' tr'ie owner4.: :':"= :' :::�:?>=Y= '`r of the do -and'.-Ilie Contra Costa Count �uttioril, :§-:-t��h6-: faded to ::: :: > �"; `'= <`':_-:`= .- 1. C- . . y r . . r �:.:- ,. .: afford. Mr:. Bieer`m.the protection ",o which �e .::rl�s entitled. urelg. "':'r: '§° .:;;-;, ; ;�;€ <.,. after the :receipt ,unconscionable: t :s i-ncrease..,perpetr ted :upon.' all.:- f t ;of us the "County can afford 'to. render:. taxi s :sim le,,service., . >: _: -sr--: :;:_,r,wA." •.; .. .. _ I:urge ,a 'the '.:California 'iinhwe . Patr.o r. C, ,•; ;: '; :`: : ::::;:: g 4 Y. 1 supPo t.Yetrolman n,..rles �_1.::.:: '"' Bieer _to' thle fullest. f . . . . -,.. .. . .. .. . ..is - . .. - -. ., . .': ° `< '+-'i,•: .. 'n' re :;:,: S* , 1 Y `: . ,._ _. . . _ = .. :.. .. .. .. • . .... — ::l,i . .. ,�L� �•-.,.,��- --.�rt.,.. .. . "' `­';� , " *.( 'i � .. .- - i . n.' . . „ r'.. ., .- . C v li�.m ­I.,r-. .. .. .: it ru e , . . . .; . �,.I�”�.., -,'.-`.",�, . �i . . ... . I � . _ .. I - . .. . . - w ­: . .E . . .-E - .E "7, :.: . .., . i"......'.I.. P. . . . :�. : .. . . . ........ ...... .........: �. .. .. ..., .. — . . � — ....�.% - . . .''. .. . .. .­ . . ­ .: ....-,. ,...' t ; . . . .., ... . ­,­..� a: Ir. . . .. � ,: . . .I. ._ � .., 7 lf�.�:� ...��'.. ... -­', . ,.- . . ­ � .. . , '..... .r . . ... .,... _ M a.,.. - •' :-.. _ .. • ..•: � %:.. NOV 2 -1974 ��:;:�': �< +.. . i-. .. :.cc:.: Ca t. 'P.. 1. Ilatoures: - Crib Martinez,.;.: :_:,_�_;- . .- :;• ;.;.. .. - :_. .: :- . . . _ . .: .: ntra' Costa. Count Board of: Su ervisors `:.. -.,. �.:� olssoN "` -•:,: �... , �. . w,, Y P ARD OF SUPERVISORS E`-"'r3;: ::::i .'. -... .. ..,.,,. ......._,_.. .. :. .. . , . • .•. t ,. :," ...,x - . .,.-.. . .. .. r.. .t «� .. , ._ ._. 1.,.,.. ..... -... C... .. .. p�• ... .. • ... i1.V.•'.' .. ... ._. ... .. .. . . .. ... .. .- 4.. ,:, • .. . .. ...,... .r'. :.....:.. . t, ... .. ., r .. . . . . .. .. .. - ... . a! _ ` . .a .. X f :}. _ .. . , . [. .. .. .- .�If . . , ' . - r: ..:`. .. .,`: ., .. . .. ....'.. ." .. ..• ... tool ' ` '•. .,. t'. Y . ..e,. . Sd ..A .rF.a•..-..r... s• ......,.. .,, ?�' ..� ., ...,: Y,. .. N Y ..r.., .. .. .. . .. �I-� .. - .. . . _ .. . ..-:: .- . .. .,. ;'- ��1 ......- ... . - .. ..:.�..:..: ,.-,:-_._..�i��'�.. . . 3t� ; :: .: . . tA. ..,.� 3� �., :.-...::. ", - --'-"- --- , .,'-.-,: .,�'...­­:, f`i. .. . : . _.. . .-. . . .., ... . - . ....... . - ..I.. . . ... .. � . - .. � I.::1: . :. ........­... .. .:�:..1.?....;: -1 . " . ��.-.,.-.':%,,.::,.­­.- .. ... . . . , � . ... .._s :. '. .. . '. 11 .- ... -I... 11 %'* --6-'�,--l'?,- .'.�:�.';,- .. .. . .. . �_.. .., .-,.:7i�..�.. ,�. ._ .. . . .Z.. .., - - __�4:...- ., _ . . . . . .. .. . . . �. .. . . .. .... . - . ,.:....:.: . � ...:'.1 . , .. . . . . ­....-.­:�.,......, . . . ." - . I ,.1�1%157 2.11. . . . . .­. __.... 11rfAT.. )......._7. . M. , ... . A ...:,:�. N .:,« ..:,- �,­': ,::., �:,:::' . .. ­...� -:,... - - - . ..: . . .. -i-.. .. ..:,:... .....•y a,i...K.,..... ,...:. y �..: -1 �_ .. �-, ;.. .: ..�. , - �:­,� .-,e..i.�_.. 4 _. . r ;.-��.t�l:.:��...... -_,._ ....:2 m....':.... '.-.,.,. -- . .. . . . ,-,-. ­ ­.. , , -, , ..... .:;......'n . :....._ . ..... . ­ . , : . . . .p . . : s' . :, . .-..- -T . ...'' _ . . ..s. , j: ,. --vmFi%, -�.,�.i I . . .1 ... . . .. �-� -.!i, '. .. . : - �� .,. :�.. .. . . ..., . .... ...l . . . . .. -0. .� 01 . . ::.,`�`i­� . .. . -.L . m, .��_. .� ,: �:­,� ... ... . s. , z. ....---,- _" - . ..;.­ .. . . .. . .. . . . I-: . . . . .�� ::, - ­�IC:,'.-:�j,.-.- . � .�:1,� ... - ­ , - ;. � , -� ...- a . ... . . .. . ".... . . . . ; .: ., ::,. ... . : ­. : - .: .,..;... . . • 11-3 Y :.:: .. - ...:'i �.� � . , . . .. . .:.,1.I , �..t.- - -t. :.,:.-..,.� . . . . 1. . .. .. . .. .., .: .. _:... _.: m-:. ... _.: :� . . . . . . 'I. . . :: . .." W '� .. .. .. .. ­­ 1. ..-.,..-._...!..r.. .­.� . Z". .. . .:. ! ..' . . : .:,_:..� ::_% : ' e:.:.- : �,z. "...t.. .. ..:7 .�iu..;.Cli�..:'�.�'...,. vl� — .. _. -- _. — -, - _ _ . . . . . - .� r. . F.... . .. . . — . . .� I..,. ::-,; ;:a — — -.- , - _ .. ....L .., ,,% .. . . .. . - __�� : .. :- .. : : . .. . . .. . - . . . .t .. .�: . . . .� .� -�ii"' -, ., . . .. . . ..%:..: .. .. . . — . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. .; . .•..: . ..." , ­.t� .. - .� -o' . ._ . .. . . . I :. _­:... : . ... 1. .. :. . : :... : " ", . . .. . .. .'.. . . I . . . . . . . . .. : .:­ '.�'..` .� �,.,.,:!._-...� . . . . .. . . . ... .. . . . . : .::i.. . ... . .. '. _ . In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California October 28 19 7J4- In the Matter of Report of Agricultural Commissioner regarding Alleged Harrassment of Martinez Resident. The Board on October 8, 1974 having referred to the Agricultural Commissioner for report the matter of. alleged harrassment of Mrs. Caroline Logie, Martinez, by personnel in the County Animal Control Division pertaining to a stray dog in her possession; and The Agricultural Commissioner having submitted a memorandum report with respect to the aforesaid complaint; On motion of Supervisor J. P. Kenny, seconded by Supervisor A. M. Dias, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that receipt of said report is ACKNOWLEDGED. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M.• Dias, E. A. Linscheid, W. N. Boggess. NOES: None. ABSENT: Supervisor J. E. Moriarty. 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc : Mrs. Caroline Logie Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Agricultural Com s s i oner Supervisors County Administrator affixed this 28th day of October ' 19 74 J. R. O LSSON, Clerk B)� Deputy Cleric :fay ne M. Neiffeld H 24`5/74 - 12,500 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE / CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Date: October 22, 1974 To: Board of Supervisors Attention: Arthur G. Will, County Administrator Arthur L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner-SealeNC ra Costa County From: EIVED �• of Weights and Measures Subject: Alleged harassment of Mrs. Caroline Logie by animAC T 2 X57` control personnel (Board referral of 10/$/74) Ofif c2 of Cnim: Administrator On October $, 1974 your Board referred the complairt of Mrs. Caroline Logie, 2140 Deerwood Drive, Martinez, to me for report. We have carefully reviewed the records and checked with our staff and this is what we find. 1. It is believed that Mrs. Logie came to the Martinez Center on September 25, 1974 to report that she had found a stray Brittany Spaniel. 2. She refused to turn the dog over to the staff Qwhen she learned that to claim the dog after the w stray period if the owner did not show up, she would have to pay the impound and board fees. U . 3. One of the staff wrote down her car license number and an officer was subsequently sent to her home to request that she turn over the dog. . : 4. When she again refused to surrender the dog, there was apparently some discussion to the effect m that she could be prosecuted if she didn't give up the dog and she called the Martinez Police Department. 5. While she did not talk to me, as reported in the newspapers, she did talk to our Animal Control Director Mr. Crill. She was informed of the requirements of the County Ordinance, the need of a central location for the claiming of animals, etc. , and Mr. Crill reports that his remarks made little favorable impression. 6. An officer was sent to her home on September 26, 1974 to see if she still had the dog, and when it was determined that she did, the matter was turned over to the District Attorney's office for what- ever action they deemed appropriate. 7,'73 (500) ✓v+til Q..t.,o`�v�M a-c1l w�P U �D'Z;-7 tl Board of Supervisors —2— October 22, 1974 7. As far as we know the dog has not come into our .possession, and we consider the matter closed. Conclusions 1. We believe that it is in the best interest of stray animals and the best possible way for people to find their lost animals if people can have central locations for the holding of strays. If each citizen holds onto strays and tries to locate each animal's owner, it creates confusion and many problems, which I believe the County Ordinance was designed to prevent. 2. Mrs. Logie was not harassed. However, because of the problems that she has had with her dogs being unlicensed and at large since early in 1972 through the middle of 1973, she might feel that our latest contacts add up to harassment. ALS/nw cc: Clerk of the Board _ -I &EPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE• l s CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Date: October 22, 1974 To: Board of Supervisors ,Attention: Arthur G. Will, County Administrator From: Arthur L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner-Sealer '. of Weights and Measures Subject: Alleged harassment of Mrs. Caroline Logie by animal control personnel (Board referral of 10/$/710 On October $, 1974. your Board referred the complaint of Mrs. Caroline Logie, 214.0 Deerwood Drive, Martinez, to me for report. We have carefully reviewed the records and checked with our staff and this is what we find. Q 1. It is believed that Mrs. Logie came to the o Martinez Center on September 25, 1974 to report W tet- > •$ that she had found a stray Brittany Spaniel. > N Q 2. She refused to turn the dog over to the staff W cU OOU when she learned that to claim the dog after th t— amal stray period if the owner did not show up, she `.J o ~m would have to pay the impound and board fees. W Y UJ 3 . One of the staff wrote down her car license number and an officer was subsequently sent to her home to request that she turn over the dog. 4. When she again refused to surrender the dog, there was apparently some discussion to the effect that she could be prosecuted if she didn't give up the dog and she called the Martinez Police Department. 5. While she did not talk to me, as reported in the newspapers, she did talk to our Animal Control Director Mr. Crill. She was informed of the requirements of the County Ordinance, the need of a central location for the claiming of animals, etc. , and Mr. Crill reports that his remarks made little favorable impression. 6. An officer was sent to her home on September 26, 1974 to see if she still had the dog, and when it was determined that she did, the matter was turned over to the District Attorney's office for what- ever action they deemed appropriate. FOR YOUR INFORMATION 7!73 (500) Board of Supervisors -2- October 22, 1974 7. As far as we know the dog has not come into our .possession, and we consider the matter closed. Conclusions 1. We believe that it is in the best interest of stray animals and the best possible way for people to find their lost animals if people can have central locations for the holding of strays. If each citizen holds onto strays and tries to locate each animal's owner, it creates confusion and many problems, which I believe the County Ordinance was designed to prevent. 2. Mrs. Logie was not harassed. However, because of the problems that she has had with her dogs being unlicensed and at large since early in 1972 through the middle of 1973, she might feel that our latest contacts add up to harassment. ALS/nw �- c: Clerk of the Board _r ' t • i IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Progress Report of Administration and Finance ) Committee on Recommendations of ) October 28, 1974 the Special Animal Control Review ) Committee. ) ) The Board on September 30, 1974 having referred to its Administration and Finance Committee (Supervisors A. M. Dias and E. A. Linscheid ) the recommendations of the Special Animal Control Review Committee with respect to its appraisal of the animal con- trol program in Contra Costa County; and The Board on October 15, 1974 having approved the request of the Administration and Finance Committee to continue its study of the remaining 35 recommendations of the Special Animal Control Review Committee for an additional two weeks; and The Board Committee having this day submitted a progress report on said matter recommending that the following 17 items, which were included in said Review Committee report, (a copy of which was placed on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Board on June 11 , 1974) be promptly implemented : 4, 6 (Ordinance Code amend- ment may be required) , 7, 8 (County Plannin Director to review for report), 16, 18, 20 (new ordinance required, 22, 23, 24, 28, 31 , 34 (possible interpretation of State Health Department regulations needed), 39, 42, 43, and 44; and The Board Committee having further recommended that the appropriate county departments be directed to take the necessary action to carry out the aforesaid recommendations (including prepara- tion of proposed Ordinance Code amendments or new Ordinance Code provisions ) and that progress reports regarding these matters be submitted to the County Administrator for review and report; and Supervisor Dias, on behalf of the Administration and Finance Committee, having requested additional time to report on the 18 remaining recommendations of the Special Animal Control Review Committee which require significant costs, further staff analysis or are long-range policy matters; On motion of Supervisor Dias, seconded by Supervisor Linscheid, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid recommenda- tions and request are APPROVED. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote : AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, E. A. Linscheid, W. N. Boggess . NOES: None . ABSENT: Supervisor J. E. Moriarty. cc : Board Committee CERTIFIED COPY Supervisor W. N. Boggess I certify that this is a full, true & correct copy of Agricultural Commissioner the original d0CAme.t :+hick is on file in my office, COU27t COUYIB@1 and that it ivaa pas-:ed .0 adop.c•d b the Board of County Supervisors c:' cr, tri Costa Cculity. California. on County Administrator the date shown. ATTEST: J. 1 . OLSSO\, County Director of Planning Clerk &ex-officio Clerk of said Board of Seperrisam by Deputy Clerk. County Clerk Acting County Health Officer ---- on � W Public Information Officer THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JAMES P. KENNY. RICHMOND JAMES E.MORIARTY IST DISTRICT CHAIRMAN ALFRED M.DIAS.SAN PABLO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY WARREN N. BOGGESS 2ND DISTRICT VICE CHAIRMAN JAMES E. MORIARTY. LAFAYETTE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING. ROOM 103 JAMES R.OLSSON, COUNTY CLERK 3RD DISTRICT AND EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD WARREN N. BOGGESS. CONCORD P.O. BOX 911 MRS. GERALDINE RUSSELL 4TH DISTRICT CHIEF CLERK EDMUND A. LINSCHEtD, PITTSBURG MARTINEZ. CALIFORNIA 94553 PHONE 228.3000 STH DISTRICT EXTENSION 2971 RECEIVED October 28, 1974 GCT,2? 1974 REPORT J. R. OLSSON OF CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CO TRA COSTA CO. ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE COMMITT B -------—••— •••- • -----..De ON RECONMENDATIONS OF SPECIAL ANIMAL CONTROL REVIEW COMMITTEE On October 15, 1974 the Administration and Finance Committee submitted a report to the Board regarding recommendations of the Special Animal Control Review Committee. That report recommended that ten of the 45 items in the Review Committee report be acknowledged as having been accomplished, The Administration and Finance Committee requested an additional two weeks for continued study of the remaining 35 recommendations of the Review Committee. Based on intensive study of the remaining items, the following 17 items have been determined to provide improved public service, entail little or no additional costs and are recommended for prompt implementation pending completion of necessary action by appropriate county staff: Items 4, 6 (Ordinance Code amendment may be required), 7, 8 (County Planning Director to review for report), 163, 18 20 (new ordinance required), 22, 23, 24, 28, 31, 34 (possible interpretation of State Health Department regulations needed), 39, 42, 43, and 44. The recommended actions identified above will require implementation action by certain county departments, including discussions with outside governmental agencies and community groups and preparation of proposed Ordinance Code amendments or new Ordinance Code provisions. The Committee further recommends that such county staff be directed to take necessary action to carry out recommendations identified above and that progress reports regarding these matters, as necessary, be submitted to the County Administrator for his review and report as may be appropriate to the Board. 2. Of the total 45 items initially recommended by the Special Animal Control Committee, 18 items remain for study and report by the Committee. Each of the 18 items will require significant additional costs, further staff analysis or are long range policy matters. It is anticipated that the Committee will make a report on this subject shortly. A. LINSCHEID «t t✓1 . . Sugerv' or tri I Supervisor, District V r r In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California October 8 , i9 74 In the Matter of Alleged Harassment by Animal Control Officers. Supervisor A. M. Dias having advised the Board that he had received numerous telephone calls concerning the alleged harassment of a Martinez woman, Mrs. Caroline Logie, by personnel from the Contra Costa County Animal Control Division with respect to a stray dog in her possession; On motion of Supervisor Dias, seconded by Supervisor J: P. Kenny, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that said matter is REFERRED to the Agricultural Commissioner (Animal Control Division) .for report to the Board. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote of the Board: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc: Agricultural Commissioner Witness my hand and the Seat of the Board of County Administrator Supervisors cff;xed this 8th day of October , 19 Z /01-110 J. R. OLSSON, Clerk By Deputy Clerk H 24 s/ia -12,500 Doro y La ini In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California September 17 , 1974 In the Matter of Letter from Pinole resident with respect to policy on handguns in Animal Control Division, County Agricultural Department. A letter having been received from Mr. H. D. Byrne, 2432 LaCanada Court, Pinole, California requesting clarification of a response he received (copy of an August 6, 1974 Board order) in connection with an inquiry concerning policies on handguns in the Animal Control Division, County Agricultural Department, and further requesting the Agricultural Commissioner to furnish the information; and On motion of Supervisor J. P. Kenny, seconded by Super- visor E. A. Linscheid, IT IS ORDERED that, by copy of this order, Mr. Byrne is hereby advised that the Board of Supervisors will not instruct the Agricultural Commissioner to respond to his requests; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is referred to County Counsel. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: Supervisor A. M. Dias. 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of cc: Mr. H. D. Byrne Supervisors Agricultural Commissioner affixed this 17th day of September, 19 74 County Counsel County Administrator J. R. OLSSON, Clerk By Deputy Clerk N. Ing aham H 24 5/74 -12,500 1�-- V/ August 30, 1974 RECEIVE D Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors SEps-- 1974 Administration Building Martinez, California _ J. R. OISSON CLgRK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TRA r t0. Dear Honorable Supervisors: On August 19, I wrote a letter to the Board requesting handgun infor- mation from Mr. Seely. I received a copy of a letter dated August 6 which referred to three letters Mr. Francis X. Kamienski submitted to the Board. I have no idea how to interpret the letter or what it means. I wrote a letter to the Board and expected a response. I do not consider the material I received from the Clerk to be a response to my inquiry. I now request that my letter be given proper attention and responded to, I wish to know if Mr. Seely will furnish the infor- oration I requested. I look forward to a response. Sincerely, H. D. j 2432 Lacanada Court Pinole, California ' 94564 757 '74- _j D,3zJ� ' t ; z fs# REC69W.D AUG Z 7 1974 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COUNTY COl_INSEL CLERK'S OFFICE Inter- Office Memo Date: August 27, 1974? To: .founty Counsel From: lark of the Board By Vera Nelson, Deputy Clerk Subject: _ The attached three letters request the same information as 1 that denied to Mr. Kamienski by August 6, 1974 order of the Board (copy attached). . In view. of the fact that the form letters appear to' have ! . been written by -Mr. K.amienski and transmitted in envelopes addressed by him, would you recommend that each such request l received in this manner be taken to the Board. for denial or may we simply. mail each of the "letter writers" a copjof the Au--ust th order, or have you another suggestion as to disposition. vn Attachments Cr Cc- r •75' COUNSEL RECEIVED E ZCWTA E D ,,.:L'�iiY, CALIF. CLc v 8V150R5 O_B ._._ ....De. August 30, 1974 RECEIVED Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors SEP,,--- 1514 Administration Building Martinez, California J. R. OLSSa11 CLE K BOARD OF SUPERVISog g TRA t Co. Dear Honorable Supervisors: 0n August 19, I wrote a letter to the Board requesting handgun, infor- mation from Mr. Seely. I received a copy of a letter dated August 6 which referred to three letters Mr. Francis X. Kaatienski submitted to the Board. I have no idea how to interpret the letter or what it means. I wrote a letter to the Board and expected a response. I do not j consider the material I received from the Clerk to be a response to my inquiry. I now request that my letter be given proper attention and responded to. I wish to know if Mr. Seely will furnish the infor- mation I requested. I look forward to a response. Sincerely, b� H. D. Byrne 2432 LaCanada Court Pinole, California 94564 REC�IVFD AUG Z 7 1974 CONTRA-COSTA COUNTY CouHrr CauvseL CLERK'S OFFICE - Inter- Office Memo Date: August 27:2 1974 To: ounty Counsel From:4. 1ark of the Board By Vera Nelson, Deputy Clerk Subject: _.. . _ The attached three letters request the same information as - that denied to Mr. Kamienski by August 6, 1974. order of the Board (copy attached). . In view. of the fact that the form letters appear to' have been written by 'Mr. Kamienski and transmitted in envelopes ' addressed by him, would you recommend that each such request received in this manner be taken to the Board for denial or may we -sJE ch of the "letter writers" a CORI of the August 6th or r, or have you another suggestion as to disposition. vn Attachments VEDMI CO CC:'+li CCS7: ;JNTY, CALIF. A U J 914 J. R. MSSO r cue o: SUPERVISo:zs N COSTA CO. Sv.. ...........DaPVry �' Y/14- IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Report of the ) Administration and Finance Committee ) on Referrals Dealt with by the Final ) September 3 , 1974 Budget Recommendations. ) This Board on August 26, 1974. having adopted the Final Budget for fiscal year 1974-1975, as recommended by its Administration and Finance Committee (Supervisors A. M. Dias and E. A. Linscheid) ; and The Administration and Finance Committee having submitted a report this day with respect to a considerable number of items which were referred to it for review in connection with the proposed budget deliberations , and which were dealt with by Final Budget recommendations , to wit : REFERRAL DATE ITEM 2-5-74 Matter of proposed revenue sharing allocations for animal spay clinic and Mt. Diablo State Park; :;3-19-74 Request by County Auditor-Controller for appropriation adjustment in the amount of $226,000 to adjust -Superior and Municipal Courtappropriations for outside attorneys fees to cover projected expenditures for balance of 1973-74 fiscal year; 4-9-74 Request from People Pledged for Community Progress that County Revenue Sharing Funds be added to local funding which would be sufficient to continue services of counseling low-income families to improve their housing conditions; "6-5-74 Report of Solid Waste Management Policy Committee on formation of a comprehensive plan, and request for allocation of $55,000 in budget for fiscal year 1974-75; 6-5-74 Consideration of appropriation adjustment request from Acting County Sheriff-Coroner for the purchase of off- road motorcycle equipment ; 6-11-74 Letter and related material from Pre-school Coordinating 'Council , Inc . , Pittsburg, requesting financial assistance f,-nm the county for continuance of its child development services program for fiscal year 1974-75; and memo from Family and Children' s Services Advisory Committee supporting said, request ; 6-1$-74 Letter from Attorney Brian D. Thiessen as related to the Office of Public Defender; .6-24-74 Request from Traffic Commission, City of Lafayette, for appropriation of $500 ,000 of 1974-1975 City-County Thoroughfare Funds for extension of Glorietta Boulevard ; REFERRAL DATE ITEM 6-24-74 Request from Contra Costa County Heart Association, Walnut Creek, for funding a special "Cardio-Alert" Program from federal revenue sharing funds ($33,605) ; . 7-2-74 /Request from the Contra Costa Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals that monies appropriated in fiscal year 1973-1974 for purpose of bringing County Animal Control facilities in compliance with requirements of state law be reappropriated for fiscal year 1974-1975; 7-9-74 Change in cost estimate for establishment of a County Animal Spay Clinic; * 7-2-74 County funding of Richmond Youth Services Program for review and consideration as to financing and program alternatives; 7-9-74 Proposed Human Resources System for Contra Costa County; 7-23-74 Letter from Contra Costa County Coordinating Council advising that several organizations in the council have indicated an interest in applying this year for General Revenue Sharing funds, and requesting that each organization be allowed to present its proposal; 7-23-74 Letter from Contra Costa County Mayors ' Conference urging inclusion in the county budget of $500, 000 in City-County Thoroughfare Funds; 7-23-74 Request from County Superintendent of Schools for levy of taxes for special education programs; 7-29-74 Letter from the President, National Inconvenienced Sportsmen's Association, seeking financial assistance; 8-6-74 Letter from Richard Holmes , Mayor, City of Concord, commenting on the need of a public relations person and additional personnel in the Animal Control Division; 8-13-74 Request of Moraga "chool District that legal services continue to be p»ovided by County Counsel with no restrictions ; ( *Funds included in Final. Budget) Supervisor -Dias , Chairman of the committee, having suggested that the report be deferred for one week in order to allow the individual Board members to review same; and Members of the Board having discussed the matter, and it having been determined that inasmuch as the budget has already been adopted, removal of the -above-listed items as committee referrals was simply routine; NOW, THEREFORE, on motion of Supervisor Dias , seconded by Supervisor Linscheid, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that each of the above-stated items is REMO'vED as a referral to the Administration and Finance Committee as recommended . The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES : Supervisors J . P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: Supervisor W. N. Boggess. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the - Seal of the 'Board of Supervisors affixed this 3rd day of September, 1974 . J. R. OLSSON, CLERK By L. Kincaid, Deputy cc: Board Members Agricultural Commissioner Contra Costa County Recreation . and Natural Resources Commission County Administrator County Auditor-Controller People Pledged for Community Progress Director, Human Resources Agency Solid Waste Management Policy Committee c/o Supervisor Dias Public Works Director (Environmental Control) Director of Planning Acting County health Officer County Sheriff-Coroner District Attorney Pre-School Coordinating Council, Inc. Family and Children's Services Advisory Committee County Counsel Attorney B. D . Thiessen Public Defender City of Lafayette Contra Costa County Heart Association Contra Costa Society foi the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Probation Officer Contra Costa County Coordinating Council Economic Opportunity Program Director Contra Costa County Mayors ' Conference County Superintendent of Schools National Inconvenienced Sportsmen's Association Mayor, City of Concord Moraga School District CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Inter- Office Memo Date: July 2, 1974 To: Administration and Finance Committee (Supervisors A. M. Dias and E. A. Linscheid) From: Clerk of the Board by L. Kincaid, Deputy Subject: The Board today referred to you the request from The Contra Costa Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals that monies appropriated in FY 1973-74 for purpose of bringing County Animal Control facilities in compliance with requirements of state law be reappropriated for FY 1974-75; request also referred to County Administrator. 4 lk attachments cc : Administrator In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California July 2 19 LI ._ In the Matter of Letter from The - Contra Costa Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals . A letter dated June 24 , 1974 having been received from Mr. George Bradford, Jr. , President, The Contra Costa Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals , 1622 Santa Clara Street, Richmond, California requesting that monies appropriated in fiscal year 1973-1974 for the purpose of bringing County Animal Control Center facilities in compliance with requirements of the law be reappropriated for the fiscal year 1974-1975; and On motion of Supervisor W. N. Boggess , seconded by Supervisor A. M. Dias , IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that aforesaid request is REFERRED to its Administration and Finance Committee (Supervisor Dias and Supervisor E. A. Linscheid) and the County Administrator. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote : AYES : Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias , W. N. Boggess , E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES : None. ABSENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc : Board Committee Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Mr. Bradford, Jr. Supervisors axed this 2nd da of July , 19 74 Agricultural Commissioner Y County Administrator _ J. R. OLSSON, Clerk BY - Deputy Clerk L. Kincaid H 24 5/74 -12,500 THE CONTRA COSTA SOCIETY for the PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS 1622 Santa Clara Street Richmond, California Phone: 525-0566 June 24, 1974 R E C 1 V E D J '� i�lv 19 74 J. CLE O COOSTUPE I RS Board of Su-oervi sons g ... ..M ............. . .... . e u ty- Contra Costa County . artinez, California 94553 %entlemen: AOLDI A, JULY 2, 1974 - AVI AL COMT1 0L The Board of Directors of this society request that the Board of Supervisors give assurance to this society that the county will continue to remodel the decompression chambers, in use by the county Animal Control Centers, to comply frith Penal Codes 597v and 597x,. ffe also request that present budget allocations be continued in the budget allocations for the fiscal year 1974-1975, and that additional budget appropriations be allocated, if necessary, to meet State requirements. It is our understanding that the county, as of June 249 1974, has complied with all requirements with the exception that "Penal Code 597w.) (e) Any dog or cat not covered by Section 597v shall be placed in an individual container or compartment of the high-altitude chamber, except dogs or cats from the same litter and their parents may be placed in the same container or comDartrsent". Additional manpower may be needed to meet this requirement. Your consideration of our request is appreciated. If we are in error that the county has not complied to all areas with State requirements as outlined above, we wish to be so advised. -Respectfully, oe �e Z"4 e if George Bradford, Jr. :'?ESIjDEUf cc: State Sealer of Weights and easures ?. E. Danielson, Contra Costa County, gent. of Agriculture 4 V AtL tz r 4 r,. IL IdIf CtL rct q, t 164t�ti + V "- tJ {�, h: •/ t J Q ` 04.5 ` �y.7�,ce-ottc.�r If 79( t�2u�:yT �`c��• ! L U• { l FOR YOUR INFORMATION 0 0 In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California August 13 19 74 In the Matter of Proposal of the Contra Costa Veterinary Medical Association for Animal Population Control. Supervisor W. N. Boggess having stated that in connection with the July 23, 1974 hearing on the recommenda- tions of the Special Animal Control Review Committee, George E. Eberhart, D.V.M. , President, Contra Costa Veterinary Medical Association, had submitted to him a written proposal of the said association for animal population control, and a paper entitled "Results of an Animal Population Survey: Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California, 1970" by Robert Schneider, D.V.M. ,M.S. and Michael L. Vaida, M.A. ,- _Ph.D; and Supervisor Boggess having recommended that the material supplied by Doctor Eberhart be furnished to Mr. A. L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner, and Mr. Nick- Calicura, Chairman, Animal Review Control Committeets Sub- Committee on Population Control, with the suggestion that Mr. Seeley and Mr. Calicura meet with Doctor Eberhart to study the proposal of the Veterinary Association and have available for the Board at its September 30, 1974 continued hearing a suggested program for low-cost spay and neutering; On motion of Supervisor W. N. Boggess, seconded by Supervisor A . M. Dias, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendation of Supervisor Boggess is APPROVED. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, W. N. Boggess, E. A . Linsche id, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: None* 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc : Mr. Calicura Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Mr. Seeley Supervisors County Counsel affixed this 13th day of August -J 19 74 Acting County Administrator J. R. OLSSON, Clerk BY - ftal /62Deputy Clerk Arline Patten H 24 5/74 - 12,500 CONTRA COSTA VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION ri t x.!'!'31 :� i..s''`•,."1'+. �..LJ. 5,.. )G-A-R.-'°�"% l �... ��,�.K- 111 As a prudent and benevolent profess4.on, our Doctors of Veterinary :•iedicire in Constra Costa County have delivered competent, acceptable veterinary medical services to our citizens for many years. Every doctor in our yssociation has donated many hours of free service each year to deserving needy persons. We will continue to deliver veterinary medical services to those citizens who truly deserve such treatment, and are truly indigent. A plan for determining the validity of such need in each applicant's case is under study by our Association. Such low cost or free services would thereby become available to people who are actually in need of medical attention for their pet, as opposed to donating service to citizens who can afford services to their pet. This plan may be similar to the Alameda MviA sponsored Animal Care Foundation headquartered in Berkeley. lie, therefore, withdraw the reduced sterilization schedule previously submitted to these committee's of the County Government, and plan to emphasize our efforts on continuing education with the objective of continuing to improve the medical and surgical services we deliver to the Contra Costa County citizens. We believe the citizens want, and deserve competent medical treatment for their pets by Doctors of Veterinary Medicine. The position we have taken before bears repetition: 1. No surgical sterilization clinic will have any significant effect upon controlling animal oper-population as compared with today's situation. 2. A taxpayer-subsidized sterilization clinic should not be developed unless the people of this county support it by ba110 vote. 3. The most effective measures involving animal population still invol-ve enforcement of the pet control laws, such as confining the pcit to the owner's property, or on a leash. This protects the p.t and citizens from bodily ham., and property damage. 4. Regardless of whatever tack the Count; should follow, our Assoc:?ation will still give counsel and aid in promoting veterinary medical services consistent with acceptable and prudent methods. CEV E D George Eberhart, D.V.M. President G / 1974 J. R. OLSSON CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS N2TRAST O. C ----- Q i -- y F�J mea.. ...... _-...,... .. ....v, ... .. ,...,+rw r r • V^ no uj 1 IS 1HEItt , A SOLUTIO, To QVERPOLATIQN _W CVMA- PR -REPRINT-- MAY 1974 - in by ROBERT ALEXANDEROM Is Thi A. Director Manager Cleveland Animal Protective League Solution ft pd OVerylopulatlM have so few life pleasures that they at least deserve to engage in sex. -f. Some parents believe that sexuality in humans can be taught by letting their chil- .Laws and Enforcement dren watch reproduction and birth by pet Are the Answers animals in their household. This is probably the smallest of the five groups. 5 Some families think it is fun to have The key to pet overpopulation control is the owner. He alone is puppies and kittens.They have a naive attitude in a position to exercise the intimate control that is necessary about the consequences. to prevent his pet from mating. According to this author, Our experience at the Cleveland Animal Pro- we must have strong laws and universal enforcement to motivate tective League prompts us to place our faith in owners to confine their pets and prevent unwanted births. better animal control legislation and more ef- fective enforcement of laws. By better legisla- T 1S WELL KNOWN that we do have a pet most of unwanted births. However, agree- tion, we mean expanding jurisdictions and es- overpopulation problem in Northeastern ment as to how to achieve this responsibility tablishing universal enforcement of the licens- Ohio. It is endemic and has been of that pro- is not so easily reached. ing law for owners who do not comply,or who do portion for the last 20 or 30 years. Some persons interested in controlling pet allow their pets to run loose. The problem stems from the affluency we populations are convinced that public educa- Licensing not only provides funds, it also have enjoyed -since World War II. It seems tion is a key to resolving the problem. I would permits identification of roaming pets. This likely to continue, since many families now agree that public education can help some pet enables authority to fix the responsibility, take owning a dog or cat for granted. ' owners develop a greater sense of responsibil- level a penalty, and collect the fine. Unfortunately,many owners also take it for ity. We are developing educational programs We believe that leveling fines is one of the granted that pets, especially dogs, have the at the Cleveland Animal Protective League best means to educate animal owners. A cita- right to roam freely in their neighborhood.Our aimed at both adults and school children hop- tion program supported by the League in 1973 city and some of the suburbs that surround it ing to achieve this end. brought positive results.We found that persons have a lot of roving dogs.This brings the usual We now have a classroom in our League who were forced to pay$18 fines after their pets health and safety problems and the pet over- building and conduct classes for adult groups were chased home by our wardens,usually kept population problems that occur when dogs run when they present themselves for such educa- their dog at home where he belonged.Further, about in packs. tion. A rationale and methods for controlling after four or five persons on a block received We seem to have more than our share of the breeding is included in the discussion. citations, we found the neighborhood remains Shepherd type animal running at large. We We have a full-time teacher who works suprisingly free of roving animals. are discovering that many of the guard dogs closely with area elementary schools to educate One can see an interesting parallel in our that are used to protect filling stations and children about controlling pet breeding. The methods for controlling use of the family au- other small businesses at night are being re- benefits of this,of course,are many years away. tomobile. When the deadline for a new set of leased to roam about until they are needed for We will soon begin publishing a newspaper for indentification tags arrives, very rarely must duty in the evening. elementary children to use in their classrooms authorities stop a car which does not have In our area, enforcement of the state law is which will include information about pet over- new plates. Those owners who do fail to dis- paid for by the county dog and kennel fund. population problems. We believe this may, in play new tags are promptly cited and usually As you might expect, we are underfinanced. time, help our cause. fined. Because of this, other owners "re- One of the greater problems we face in trying We have an ongoing public relations pro- member"to obey the law. to get owners to confine their animals is hav- gram which is helping to spread the gospel of We are convinced that if every dog were ing to work with a small staff. We have onlv responsible pet ownership.Last year we had 87 icensed, and every errant owner cited and 13 deputies to service a county which has 1.8 public service announcements in our local nade to pay by our courts, there would be no million persons. electronic and print media. et overpopulation problem. Much of the My experience as Director-Manager of one We know we must do these things if we are hrust of our educative programs advances of the larger Animal Protective Leagues in to make any progress toward reducing the his theme. We believe such restrictions are Ohio has convinced me that we must now numbers of pets which we are forced to de- lecessary and believe that the public needs to take steps to make owners responsible for stroy each year. Yet, we do not feel that pub- earn why they are necessary. controlling their pet animals. We are con- lic education will ever significantly reduce The veterinary profession can, and should, vinced that surgical sterilization cannot sig- the overpopulation of pets. dd its voice to those who are asking public nificantly affect the problem. At this writing Efforts to get owners to surgically sterilize fficials to enact better animal control legisla- there are no contraceptives available, and we pets in our area have met with little success. tion.We can do this as individual citizens and, may be several years away from such a solu- We seem to be eternally frustrated by five pre- ore formally, by resolutions coming from tion. The key, then, has to be the owners, who vailing attitudes advanced by the public today. ur local, state, regional and national organi- alone are in a position to exercise the inti- 1. There are owners who simply do not give tions. You may also add your voice through mate control which can subvert their pets'im- a damn about their pets breeding habits. embership in local humane and animal con- pulses to breed. 2. Some pet owners think altering their pet rol organizations. We are in a position to It is easy, of course, to get agreement that is morally wrong. rve as opinion leaders in such groups,and it "responsible ownership" would eliminate 3. Frequently,we are told that dogs and cats 's time that we accept this opportunity. 0 By H. DON MAHAN� IS Thmvw . Executive Director , Southern California VMA Solution to Pte: v OverpopulatiM f J p An Inexpensive Contraceptive veterinarians in California worked a full Is the Only Solution week of eight-hour days doing nothing except spays and neutering, the domestic pet popula- tion would still continue to rise. Despite our every effort to get this informa- tion to the people, the hue and cry for public Experience in Southern California with diverse attempts to control pet spay clinics continued without abatement. overpopulation brought one inescapable conclusion:The solution depends Subsequently, the SCVMA cooperated in on development of an inexpensive contraceptive. Here is a review of the other programs to help alleviate the over- SCVMA pet population control programs and a rationale for public population program. Two of these will suffice funded research to discover an inexpensive animal contraceptive. to point up the problem we face when we sug- Love Unlimited THE SCVMA HAs had a diverse collection o great citizenship. Rarely can you encounter Love Unlimited is a responsible organization experiences on the subject of pet popula- someone to debate such statements. Such in Southern California which wanted to foster tion control. We believe we have learned from utterances are deemed both proper and safe, a sterilization program for certain animal these experiences, and we are hopeful that the whether made privately or publicly. While owners who needed assistance. Members of knowledge we have gained will guide our these statements will protect the speaker SCVMA agreed to spay and neuter animals at future program decisions. against criticism, they are so impractical, and no charge for owners referred to by Love Un- When historians record this decade of vet- impossible, that they cannot defuse the pet limited. The organization engaged in massive erinary medicine, the most certainly will give population explosion. publicity. Thousands of calls were received by some space to the controversial subject of gov- The SCVMA believes that there is suffi- the LU switchboard. Many of the owners who eminent subsidized spay and neuter clinics, cient evidence to support our contention that called were adamantly against surgery. In- and the profession's response. Historians' spay clinics, massive public education, en- stead, they wanted other veterinary services, critiques may show that, at least for a time, forcement, etc. will fail to resolve the pet i.e., vaccinations, examinations, etc., etc. This the profession was indifferent and unrespon- overpopulation problem. Our experiences lead pilot program operated for one year, with 170 sive. Indifferent if it fails to recognize the us to believe that there is only one solution - veterinary hospitals cooperating in Los seriousness of the problem, and unresponsive an effective and inexpensive chemical con- Angeles and Orange Counties. Only 3300 if it fails to act with the energy and sciential traceptive. Furthermore, we believe that cer- animals were handled, and LU became very skills available. tain of the other concerned and interested disappointed and frustrated. LU requested There is in reality a most serious prob- groups share our opinion in this regard. Some that the program be discontinued for lack of lem deserving the national veterinary are beginning to support our stand. public interest in surgery sterilization. LU, community's attention. I believe there is I will cite a few examples which will point originally very pro on this sterilization prog- ample evidence in support of this persuasion. up the futility of"public education" as a solu- ram is now convinced that spaying and neut- Unimpeachable documents testify in the tion. The examples are gleaned from efforts ering, even when free, is rendered ineffective loudest statistics that we as a nation are by the SCVMA to "educate" the public to as- by public indifference toward meeting the backing ourselves into a deplorable comer sume responsibility in preventing births of pet overpopulation problem. where the spiraling birth of domestic pets is unwanted pets. threatening our standards of public health, In October, 1971 the SCVMA published a Los Angeles SPCA and raising concern from some of our scien- recommendation and position paper on "The SCVMA has always urged that animals tists that our limited food supply is being con- Role of Veterinary Medicine in Animal Popu- being released from animal shelters be spayed sumed in a most wasteful and socially un- lation Control." In this widely distributed or neutered. Our group offered a program to responsible manner. paper, we fixed the responsibility for action SPCA that animals adopted from the shelters Many of the SCVMA programs were in- on the pet-owning public and on elected offi- of that organizations would be spayed and/or itiated in all good faith, but becuase we had cials and we supported the argument with neutered at no charge by members of the not yet gained knowledge from our experi- facts. However, we might as well have tossed SCVMA. In eight months, with 1100 plus ence, planning for these programs was made our words to the wind. The problem of pet animals released, only 18 animals qualifying in a climate of naiveness. Early in our experi- overpopulation remained in the minds of the for this free surgery have been presented to ence we evangelized such responsible solu- public as a problem that belonged to the vet- veterinarians for service. SPCA is frustrated tions as"owner responsibility,""public educa- erinary profession. and convinced that the public will not submit tion," and "more rigid enforcement." All of In this position paper, we also published animals for surgical sterilization. The prog- these suggested solutions are statements of figures which revealed that if all practicing ram continues, but without enthusiasm. Our Current Conviction ABOUT THE AUTHOR The ultimate answer to controlling the H. Don Mahan directs a staff of five full time and animal population will be found in the two part-time employees of the Southern Califor- laboratory. This is the stand which our as- nia VMA. The SCVMA has been intimately in- volved in researching,developing and adminis- sociation is now taking. It is our firm belief tering local pet population control programs, that this problem will not be brought under control until we have a safe, effective and in- expensive contraceptive. Toward accomplish- tive and inexpensive contraceptive will reduce ing this, SCVMA in 1972 contributed $7000 their patient market.Again I raise the question to research in reproduction. to veterinarians,"Why are you not supporting You may say, "What can $7000 buy in re- research for this product?" search?"and your question is well taken. But With the continued failure of"public educa- this gets us to another point where we feel that tion,""leash law enforcement,"etc.to solve the government has been irresponsible.The$7000 problem, why are animal control leaders hold- which SCVMA contributed to finding a safe, ing back efforts towards research?Would such effective and inexpensive contraceptive is ex- a product signal reduction on growth of new actly $7000 more than any city or county animai shelters? Will this product—the ulti- contributed-it's exactly $7000 more than the mate solution to the over-population problem— state of California contributed.If only 1 percent have a negative effect upon shelter budgets? of the animal control budget in California was Why are they not pleading with elected officals given to research,we could have this product in for research funding? two years of less.Perhaps this is too simple and Do humane leaders want a solution?Are they efficient for our elected officials to understand. concerned that the elimination of the homeless There is currently some very exciting and ownerless pet will adversely affect their research being conducted in laboratories. Re- appeal?Where is their support for responsible searchers,all without adequate staff,time and and effective research? money have developed some promising infor- The pet food industry has profited more from mation.They have opened the door to the mys- the care of the American pet than has any other teries of reproduction, and they are ready to business in the history of this country.From my walk through that door if they can find the pass. background in marketing, I am the first to That pass is money. agree that if you can make a profit on However, the research for a chemical con- 60,000,000 mouths to feed,you can make a gre- traceptive for domestic pets is being done in ater profit if you can double your consumers. some unoccupied corner of a lab, by a re- But don't pet food manufacturers realize that searcher who uses his coffeebreak to probe for unless they help achieve some balance, and answers. I tell you that nowhere is properly unite in an effort to bring the pet population financed research being made.I now call upon under control,they may be the victims of harsh the veterinary profession to use its prestigious and unrealistic legislation? Where have they and forceful influence to gain the kind of full been in supporting research? time and fully financed research needed and The elected official is also deserving of criti- now being demanded, cism for his willingness to find and easy way Do the various communities of interest work- out-regardless if the easy way is going to solve ing on pet overpopulation really want an effec- anything. But I have found the average office tive and inexpensive contraceptive? Would holder to be a victim of a credibility vacuum. they welcome an early marketing or a con- Due to self interest on the part of leaders of the traceptive that would be the ultimate and final above groups,factual information has not been solution to this deplorable problem? given our legislators. How about the veterinary profession? Why I wish I were able to say today what everyone has the veterinary profession been reluctant-to wants to hear. I wish I were able to set forth a say the least-to encourage an energetic re- program that would solve the pet overpopula- search program. One of my greatest obstacles tion problem.But I cannot,My association has encountered with political leaders when I press tried them all, and feel they won't work. for support for research is the statement,"Your The only answer lies waiting in the research own veterinarians say that this chemical con- lab. How soon can we have this ultimate solu- traceptive is 10-15 years down the road."I per- tion? How soon do the pet population control sonally blush from statements made by vet- groups—including veterinarians—want it?It's erinarians indicating their fear that an effec- really that simple. 0 - ' OALONZO EDMISTON, JR., VMD is Thwo Director solution to Pot..", Emergency Animal Clinic Overpopulation- San Diego. California Cost Analysis of A Sterilization Clinic Can a reduced-cost spay clinic be successful? Here are results of a trial proiect conducted by the Emergency Animal Clinic, a refer- ral facility established in San Diego by 75 partner veterinarians. THE EMERGEtvcY Animal Clinic partnership CAT CASTRATION SURGERY COST was asked to pilot a project for a reduce Administration ....... $ 2. """""""' 2.85PRESURGICAL EXAMINATION cost sterilization clinic by the San Diego Coun- Surgery ................. 3.62 g y '''''''''''' Checking Pet into Hospital- ty Veterinary Medical Association. We began Drugs and Disposable Items .......... 4.00 Temperature, Weight, History by making appointments for male and female Fixed Overhead .. .._ 4.89 Veterinarian Salary-7.5 minutes x $0.13: $0.975 dog and cat sterilizations on June 1, 1972 Total ................... 15.36 Assistant's Salary-7.5 minutes x $0.04: $0.30 and we discontinued the program on February SURGICAL PREPARATION 28, 1973. During that time, 1,046 procedures were successfully performed. Tables accompanying this article show, in Veterinarian's Salary-Surital Administration 3 minutes x $0.13: $0.39 The partnership incurred a loss of exactly detail, the average totals for expense items Assistant's Salary-Endotracheal Intubation,Surgical $3,975,95. This article is a detailed analysis that were involved in each of the cost clipping and scrubbing. 10 minutes x $0.04:$0.40 of our expenses and the manner in which we categories listed above. sustained the loss. At the end of the nine-month period, the SURGERY COST The average time required for each type of partnership decided to discontinue the project, Average Hysterectomy Time on a Dog 34 minutes procedure was: 34 minutes for a dog hysterec- due to the economic loss it produced and be- Surgeon's Salary $0.13/minute x 34 minutes: $4.42'- Assistant's Salary $0.04/minute x 34 minutes: $1.36 tomy; 11.1 minutes for a dog castration; 23.2 cause of the apparent reality that it was im- Average Surgery Time for Dog Castration 11.1 min. minutes for a cat hysterectomy and 8.9 mi- possible to make a significant contribution to Surgeon's Salary 11.1 x $0.13: $1.43 nutes for a cat castration. Average costs were the reduction of the animal population Assistant's Salary 11.1 x $0.04: $0.44 as follows: through a sterilization clinic. Average Time for Cat Hysterectomy .. 23.2 minutes DOG HYSTERECTOMY But the story does not end there. Subse- Surgeon's Salary 23.2 x $0.13: $3.106 quently, the County of San Diego decided to Assistant's Salary 23.2 x $0.04: $0.928 Administration ......................$ 2.85 offer contracts to private veterinary facilities Average Time for Cat Castration....... 8.9 minutes Surgery ....... .................... 9.45 Surgeon's Salary 8.9 x $0.13: $1.16 in San Diego County, to refer clients to local Drugs and Disposable Items .......... 7.68 facilities if the sterilization would be per- Fixed Overhead ..................... 4•89 formed at reduced rates. A 23 POST SURGICAL TIME Total Approximately...... 24.96 ppimatel y Re-exam, suture removal, and tape removal veterinary clinics are now taking part in the Veterinarian Time 10 minutes x $0.13: $1.30 sterilization project. Assistant's Time 10 minutes x $0.04: $0.40 DOG CASTRATION It is significant that this program does not Administration ......................$ 2.85 discriminate on the basis of income level.As a ADMINISTRATION result, the program has reduced veterinary Surgery ............................. 4.33 1. initial Appointment Time $0.50 Drugs and Disposable Items .......... 7.68 surgical income in general. The wide public- Answering the phone, making the appointment, Fixed Overhead ..................... 4.89 ity given to the program by the San Diego sending out necessary letter and information. Total 19.75 County veterinarian's office has caused many 2. Stamp, Envelope and Information Material $0.15 clients to seek the reduced cost program and 3. Checking Pet Out $0.30 to avoid the local veterinarian. Release pet from hospital next morning CAT HYSTERECTOMY 7.5 minute x 0.04(Assistant's Time) Average Assistant's pay 52.50:hour or Administration ......................$ 2.85 0.04 minutes Surgery ............................. 7.78 Storage of Records $0.50 Drugs and Disposable Items .......... 7.68 5. Cleaning Instruments and Resterilizing Pack Fixed Overhead ..................... 4.89 $0.04 Assistant time x 35 minutes: $1.40 Total ................... 23.20 TOTAL ................................... $2.85 z Nut nYCr :" re mpii < v< =u. FfR terectomy. i ation 125 125Qr T � J 777 FIXED;OVERHEAp.EXPENSES_ ANSWERING SERVICE (3) $50 00 TOTAL+MONTHLY COST $1,958.88 HYSTERECTOMY PACK= Figured on a caseload of 400 animals per month,this 3 corripiete.standard packs equals$4:89'per case (Each,pack`includes the following items:) p 1 Spay,Hook-2 Allis Tissue Forceps-2 Straight (1)Straight g t Lme De reciation Mosquito Hemostats.-1 Angiotribe,-4,Carmalt (2)Base Cost Hemostats="2'Oschne :._ r Forceps-1 Needle Holder- (3)Cost pea`Monih 1 Pair Surgical Scissors 2 Towel Clamps-1 Plain Tissue Thumb Forcep-1'#F3 Blade Handle-(follow- J in ,included on pages 5.&6):2#F10 Taper Needles- 9 DRUGS.AND.DISPOSABlE ITEMS- 2 #E4 Cutting..Needles=1`46 Cutting Needles- 45cm(18")0 Suprylon-Y2 doz.3x3 Gauze Sponges- Surital 5 gm........'.$j.4'0, ,. 125cc/$3.40 1 cc-.022 1 doz. 2x2 Gauze Sponges-24"x33" Drape Mate- ;' rial w/hole'h"x4',(lap sheet)-Inner wrap 2 dispos 10cC.272 Scrub Brushes:..:....$4.80/Doz. able 13"x17"Hand Towels-Outer Wrap 18"x16'/2" 1 scrub brush, $0.40 - Drape Material=1.5 meter (18" 0 Suprylon-3.0 3 Rolls of Wet Proof Tape per animal (a , 2.35- meter(36")Lyophil 1 roll is used for 7 animals', its use cost 0.33 ANESTHETIC MACHINE (1)36 mos. Autoclave Tape $0:99' Tape Remover: r can $2:50. (2) $1:350.00 P p,e, ;.(3)$37.50 ANESTHETIC Surital .:5gm. $3.40 Halothane machine with Bird Respirator OXYGEN K cylinder $8:25 Oxygen Cylinder-approx'11x3 hrs.-$8:25 one cylinder lasts.100 hours ,. 1/2 hr. of Oxygen cost $.041 _ Thirty minutes surgery time $0.041 SURGERY LAMPS - (1)36 mos. (2) $300:00' SUTURE MATERIAL _ (3) $8.33 $11.25175 meters Suprylon 1.5 meters(18"): $0.22%1.5 meters SURGERY TABLE (1)36 mos- $22.83/100 meters.Lyophil (2) $400.00 3 O,meters(36'}:$0.6813.0 meters ; - (3) $11.11 DRAPING MATERIAL SURGERY STOOLS(2) (1)36 mos. Fort Dodge Disposables 130 yards cost $31.20 (2) $89.20 1 yard cost $ 0.24 (3) $2.47, Innerwrap.13' x 17" CAGE FLOOR 10 smaN $24,'" (i)120 mos: Outerwrap i8"x 16Yz"drape material t )(sma[1-$36):: (2}$1;0 mos' Approximately 2 yds.,per pack . " . $ 0.48 large0-00 (3) $10.50 NEEDLES, of total value of (3) $1,433.00 2 #F10 taper needle @2.90/Doz. @$.24 x 2: $0.48. RENT 1% : ( 2 #E4 cutting needle @2.90/Doz.@$.24 x 2: $0.48 the property per month p y ) No. 15 Stainless:Steel Blade.., $0.20/Blade Gown worn by surgeon; $0.68/Use CARDIAMP (1).36 mos. (2) $148.00 The gown cost$1.88.The gown is (3) $4.11 worn approximately 3 times. It is _ sterilized after each time it is worn. _ELECTRIC CLIPPERS (1)B mos. Penstrep. $5.951100cc: $0.059/cc (2) $41.97 Approximately 2cc peranimal: $0.118 (3) $7.00 Atropine Sulfate "' $0.045/cc ELECTRIC CLIPPER BLADES"' , (3) $5.00 Acepromazine $0.12/cc sharpening of blades after 20 uses (3) $1.25 4 Four(20)Gauge Needles @.045 x 4: $0.18 4 Four Syringes(disposable) @.03 x 4: $0.120 - VACUUM CLEANER per use (3) $.06 Endotracheal Tubes @ 3.85� . MAINTENANCE (3) $50.00 based on 10 uses $0.38/per use Fluothane . 125ce/420 minutes : $0.298cc/minute INSURANCE-Liability/Property Damage (3) $39.30 125cc/S23.00 $0.1921cc PROPERTY TAX (3) $200.00 Average Surgeon's Time 30 minutes 0.298c6. x.30 minutes : 8.940cc ACCOUNTING SERVICES (3) $36.00 8 940ce'x 0.192 $1.72 Thermometers cost $0.90 WATER BILL (3) $10.00 100 uses $0.009 per.use SDG&E (3) $35.00 Surgeon's Gloves $0.39 Gauze Sponges 3x3'10 per surgical pack 50.14 OFFICE FURNITURE (1)60 mos. Gauze Sponges 2"x2"25 per surgical pack $0.073 (2) $145.45 Disposable surgical mask and cap $0.15 (3) S2.42 Baralyme z $1.75 Is There A Solution to Pet by DAVID M. DRENAN, DVM Overpopulation Chairman, Ohio Task Force, Overpopulation of Pet Animals Ohio's Approach to • Pet Overpopulation Programs A study of pet overpopulation problems in Ohio revealed a pressing need for veterinarians to participate in seeking solutions to the problem. Here is the plan developed by a Task Force of the Ohio VMA after an exhaustive study ofstatewide animal control programs. TEF VETERINARY PROFESSION in Ohio became Action Committee." veterinarians have compatible goals—the acutely aware in late 1972 that it had to This was the first of several steps we were t health and welfare of animals. face up to two major problems. take in a program which has proved of great Our next step was to create a Task Force of The first was the general lack of knowledge benefit to those who want to find realistic solu- Ohio veterinarians to determine whether there within our profession about the goals and tions to Ohio's pet overpopulation problems. existed an overpopulation ofdogs and cats,and modes of actions of humane organizations and Leadership of the Ohio Veterinary Medical if so, what the profession could contribute to animal control agencies.This directly led to our Association had no doubt that we as a profes- help resolve it. Thirteen veterinarians were lack of knowledge concerning the horrible sion had a defensible position in this problem. named to the committee. waste of animal life occurring in animal shel- We also learned that we dared not underesti- One of the problems that surfaced durin ters over the state of Ohio. mate the problem and,as some groups advised, their study was the emergence of local interest Second,we were starting to see much misin- ignore it until it would go away. The pet over- in a bill introduced by Senator Birch Bayh of formation about veterinarians' attitudes to- population problem is real, its ramifications Indiana which would provide federal funds to ward the pet overpopulation problem in na- are greater than we think,and"solutions"are train lay personnel to perform surgical spayin tional and local media.It was painfully obvious going to be offered by humane groups and and neutering. In April, 1973 we issued back- that concerned members of humane associa- politicians with or without the input of practic- ground material to veterinarians in Ohio and tions,and the public they were trying to win to ing veterinarians. urged that they write letters to the editor of their causes, did not understand the attitudes Before taking any action, we first contacted their local newspaper to ask for a more rational and missions of practicing veterinarians. persons who are knowledgeable in public rela- view of this unrealistic solution. The letters This barrage of misinformation in the media tions.This was the single most important step were printed, and they did successfully com- was giving the profession a severe black eye. taken in our entire program. At that time we municate the fact that proper surgical sterili- Damaging articles appeared in Reader's Digest, were prepared to react negatively to the public- zation requires a trained veterinarian.The let- The National Observer,Saturday Review, Wall ity. We were actually anxious to launch a ters also informed readers that more realistic Street Journal, Congressional Record, several "counter attack"against groups who were try- approaches existed. dog and cat magazines, a Sixty Minutes ing to involve veterinarians in unrealistic and Finally, the letters made a direct appeal for program on one of the TV networks, and in unfeasible solutions to the pet overpopulation all readers to inform themselves on this impor- stacks of local newspapers. problem.We now believe such a reaction would tant issue rather than allowing misinformec The first problem, veterinarians' lack of have been a grave error. judgements to be made. knowledge, is not defensible, but it is explain- Instead, we followed the advice of a person In our next step we again used the media.We able. We all recognize that veterinarians, as experienced in public relations.In this case,the announced formation of the Task Force to study medical scientists, historically have been advice was free because it came from a friend o pet overpopulation.In the story we released,we parochial and isolated in their specialized en- our profession. This nominal price tag in no deavors within the profession. Regardless, it way diminished the value of the advice. He counseled that resistance to their programs was quite obvious that we,as a profession,had might bring intensified efforts to carry through to become more aware of and involved with those organizations concerned with the welfare what had been started. He advocated that,in- of animals. Consequently,our first step was to stead, we come forth with positive programs appoint a committee to make a study and estab- and suggestions.He suggested approaching the lish guidelines for the relationship of vet- organizations in a spirit of cooperation. This made sense because,after all,humane organi- erinarians with humane organizations. It was rations, animal control groups and practicing called the "Humane Organizations Study and Qr ;� c3�iZ�:nQ biriris 1'Y1 an pUP �� y •35 C4 u� d 0�']IA, 1, nunsOf ocnt of the Fruoir"EN' ,o rated a committee u: 13 ani that �re.�botn evwy rpula th40 star writ.* ai?T i1}tio is uvc_P ? day is it really rain cas t see d� s a-td s^ram Des ted by � cats. however statists Ltu ���; q { � nd dQP? $WifL first su, PRENr11, Joaa a hap:�Mlinb in �F.. animal ?�o:pitai THOU Slach a;e Olti;a ares a. "t- aad. .unvrant� liSB sad now •Iyl,madge. said tits coatm: t,t. to':fit Ile, nai -cat Associ3- tc dee:moe p take a tee ..,ill a gossible PoPula' humane 0to pn is > wrere ali the extent what caa bit to -i .!PCC tion ex lu,ion and Perhaps" PRESS RELEASES, containing factual print and electronic media. They were used information about the Ohio VMA studies, and did help to balance against some of the plans and programs, were made available to misinformation previously seen by readers. set forth the purpose of the committee and known that for psychological or other reasons a notice to all Ohio veterinarians in July, 1973 noted that"after we know the extent of the pet large number of people do not want their pets asking them to actively cooperate with local overpopulation problem, the OVMA will look neutered even at a greatly reduced fee. humane societies and dog wardens. We did,of for ways to solve it."At the time,we specifically Further, logistics and available personnel are course,want veterinarians to participate in re- mentioned the possibility of seeking a chemical not sufficient to make a significant impact on sponsible ways to provide the leadership so means to control unwanted pregnancies in pets. animal population growth through neutering. realistic attitudes and solutions might We also noted that veterinarians have done The actual output through breeders,strays,pet considerable research in animal fertility, and shops, dog pounds and humane societies is Symposium on Pet Overpopulation we might be able to draw on their findings to counter-productive to any neutering effort. The Symposium on Pet Overpopulation was prevent reproduction in dogs and cats.We also In spite of the empirical evidence to the con- held at the Fawcett Center For Tomorrow,Ohio noted that we would soon propose a symposium trary, some pet population control organiza- State University, Columbus,Ohio October 28, type meeting between members of the commit- tions were beating the drums for subsidized 1973.It was sponsored by the Ohio Veterinary tee and representatives of humane organiza- spay clinics in Ohio. They were citing,as suc- Medical Association in conjunction with the tions in Ohio. cessful operations,clinics in other parts of the College of Veterinary Medicine. This symposium was held October 28,1973 at country which have proved utter failures. Approximately 150 persons attended and Ohio State University. We were able to publi- Thus,it was obvious that some of the organiza- heard 20 papers. Represented were 54 groups cize this extensively in Ohio media.Two press tions and the public needed more information which are involved in some program aimed at announcements preceded the meeting and the about the limitations of subsidized spay clinics. resolving pet overpopulation. (Please see list symposium itself was covered by newspapers The Task Force also developed a four-step elsewhere on this page.) and radio and television stations.The proceed- platform to be used as a guideline for prat- One point of agreement was that there is a ings were also digested and made available to titioners to follow in participating in pet popu- problem of overpopulation of dogs and cats.In the media. lation control efforts. It is surprising, and gratifying, that vet- Ohio, forty-three shelter organizations re- It o ported handling 280,000 animals last year.Of eril. Public education in the res narians can approach the media with factual pet ownership, particularly in relationship to information and communicate it to the public. this number, 86 percent (240,000) were de- information controlling reproduction. stroyed—a disturbing statistic. Our news releases were used and they did 2. Better enforcement of existing animal have a positive effect on our pet over- control laws,extension of present laws to cover The cost of handling this number of animals population program. cats, and additional laws where indicated. �s of major concern. Estimated costs of operat- The Ohio Task Force found and reported General goals here include efforts to get mor fro shelter facilities in the United States range some disturbing facts about pet overpopula- state funds for use in animal control programs. From $100stray million to opu million per year. tion. Statistics and data gathered revealed: 3. Veterinarians should encourage othe The stray animal population creates many to roto in supporting public health problems.The capability of these 1. An estimated 13 million dogs and cats are groupspporting research to develo animals to carry diseases transmittable to man put to death annually because of uncontrolled effective sterility or antifertility drugs. Thi breeding. Further, it seems like! that eutha- and the litter in the streets created by these Y should include a concerted effort to raise publi animals is of grave concern. In the city of Col- nasia will continue to be a partial solution and private funds for this research. umbus last year, there were 5,000 dog bites for the overpopulation problem for a long 4.Veterinarians should stand firm that sur time.This will prevail despite the fact that it is gical sterilization programs are to be don investigated. Packs of animals in schoolyards cruel, wasteful and expensive. under the control and auspices of the veteri are l great hazard. 2. Spaying and neutering clinics have been nary profession, within the scope of the sta All these problems add effect n a tremendous tried in several parts of the country operating practice act. Responsible pet owners must cost to the public.The effect on agriculture i animals sa in in different ways. All have limitations which protected against any possibility that the qual the state of Ohio by these stray animals is also indicate that surgical intervention can only be ity of surgical services would be compromised a small part of the solution to the problem.It is We followed this initial release with a maile ORGANIZATIONS A ENDING OHIO SYMPOSIUM ON PEIWERPOPULATION OSU, College of Veterinary Medicine Northeastern Ohio Dog Services. Inc. Ohio Federated Humane Society United Animal Defenders. Inc. Ohio Dog Owners Association Michigan Department of Agriculture County Commissioners Association of Ohio Humane Society of Logan County American Humane Association Humane Society of Greater Akron basis.Theseprogramsrunthegamutfromgood American Veterinary Medical Association Huron County Humane Society to bad to none at all.In a survey by the Ameri- United Humanitarians, Inc. Athens County Humane Society can Humane Association, 27 percent of all Ohio Dog Breeders Association Hamilton County S.P.C.A counties reporting in the United States,I2per- Ohio State University Reproduction Expert Deputy Dog Warden (Columbiana County) cent had no animal control laws.Another prob- Institute For The Study of Animal Problems Jefferson County Humane Society lem is the lack of funds to adequately enforce (Humane Society of the United States) Animal Welfare League animal control laws in some counties. Many Ohio Dog Wardens Association Illinois V.M.A. municipalities have leash laws in effect. The Ohio Municipal League Richland County Dog Warden problem with most of these laws is that the Ohio Department of Health Wood County Humane Society police department has to enforce them. Ob- Ohio Department of Agriculture Citizens for Low Cost Spay & Neuter viously,most law enforcement agencies do not Friends of Animals Humane Organization - S & A Committee care to be dog catchers. Cat Welfare Animal Charity of Ohio There is some hope for cooperative ventures Pet Food Institute of America Delaware Society of Delaware County in metropolitan areas between county commis- OF:io House of Representatives Humane Society of the United States sioners, municipal government and humane Columbus City Council Ashland County Humane Society societies.Such has been the case in Columbus, Ohio Veterinary Medical Association Norwalk Kennel Club Ohio.There,an Animal Control Board has been Cincinnati Committee for City Wide Spays Huron County Dog Wardens in operation for a year.This arrangement has New Humane Movement for Animals Cat Welfare Association provided for better funding and enforcement. Montgomery County Humane Society Michigan Board of Veterinary Examiners Cats are not included in Ohio Animal Control Humane Association of Warren County Meigs County Humane Society Laws.Yet,it is recognized that stray cats are a Ohio County Dog Wardens Association Humane Society of Hancock County big problem. It is also realized that there is Dog Warden & Deputy (Alexandria. Ohio) Student Chapter. A.V.M.A. extreme difficulty in getting bills involving 17 Ohio Practicing Veterinarians animals passed by legislative bodies. There was general agreement by the par- ticipants that sterilization of pet animals plays an important role in the question of overpopula- tion. Non-surgical sterilization,it was agreed, of major consequence.The loss of sheep produc- organizations,animal control officials,pet food sterilization,tion in certain areas of the state of Ohio is and supply companies, legislative bodies, holds the greatest hope would less e , directly related to predatory action by stray breeding organizations, community organiza- pensive and hopefully more widely utilized- dogs.This can also be applied to the losses that tions, concerned citizens and the veterinary The primary methods being investigated haveoccurred in poultry flocks.They also act as profession to start alleviating this problem. in- volve mechanical,chemical and immunological disease carriers by mechanically carrying or- Throughout the presentations and the dis- means of birth control.The biggest problem to ganisms from farm to farm. There is also the cussions there was a general consensus that the date has been the lack of funds and, conse- cost of indemnification for animal losses. Sev- solutions to the problem lay in four general quently, protocols for the intensification and eral counties reported paying out anywhere categories. 1. Better public education. 2. Im- diversification of this research. It was evident from$2000 to$3000 per year in animal claims. proved animal control.3.Increased research for that very few organizations involved in the There was practically unanimous agreement nonsurgical sterilization. 4. Surgical steriliza- question of overpopulation have contributed as to the causes of pet overpopulation. First of tion programs. any substantial amount of money toward re- all, we are dealing with a sociological problem It was brought out that there is a need for search. The greatest amount of funding and that is the result of aflluency of this country. more education in public schools and intensive support is coming from the veterinary profes- The problem is created by people,not animals. educational programs directed to all pet own- sion. The American Humane Association is It is created by uninformed people, irresponsi- ble pet owners and irresponsible breeders.This ers.There must be efforts made to make all the sponsoring one project. Several commercial leads to widespread abandonment, indiscrimi- media aware of the problem. These efforts companies have research projects. nate breeding and overzealous production by should be directed toward responsible humane Surgical sterilization is the only means of PUPPY mills. Further evidence of owner irres- ownership,education about present leash laws, rendering an animal permanently sterile at ponsibility is the fact that only 50 percent of the the improvement of animal control,the disad- this time. The veterinary profession recom- dogs are licensed in some counties of Ohio,and vantages of surplus and indiscriminate breed- mends only ovariohysterectomy and orchiec- it is estimated that only half of the 34 million ing, and the medical advantages of surgical tomy as an acceptable means of surgical sterili- dogs in the United States are licensed. When sterilization.There must be an appeal for addi- zation.This is a procedure that should be per- this is tied in with the tremendous reproductive tional funds to support this public education formed only by professional trained vet- potential of animals, it is easy to see why a Program as well as funds to support research for erinarians following established procedures. problem exists. non-surgical means of sterilization. There were two points of view presented at There was general agreement that it would It was apparent that there is a smorgasbord the Symposium as to the emphasis to be placed take a concerted team effort involving humane of animal control on both a state and national on surgical sterilization in the overall solution Ohio's Answer for the Pet Overpopulation Problem to pet overpopulation. 1.It was accepted by all Ultimately,after many months of hard work, 2. :animal Control. Our task force commit- participants as being at least a part of the solu- our Ohio Association has an ongoing program tee is now a viable,ongoing group.It will make tion.2.Some individuals and organizations felt for involving our members in pet overpopula- further studies of animal control laws and their major emphasis should be placed in the area of tion control efforts.Basically,here is the formal funding.It will seek ways and means to cooper- surgical sterilization,although there was a dif- program we are prepared to implement June 1. ate with animal control groups and humane ference of opinion as to how this should be ac- organizations to stimulate legislation. complished. The advocates of major surgical 1. Public Education. We are urging prac- 3 & 4. Research for Anti-Fertility Drugs, sterilization programs all had in common that titioners to intensify their efforts to educate and Surgical Sterilization.We have combined these programs would be reduced-fee or low- individual clients about responsible pet owner- our program for research for anti-fertility cost programs open to the general public,either ship,and to seize every opportunity to improve drugs with our surgical sterilization program. using private veterinary facilities or govern- our public relations exposure in this subject Our local associations have agreed to offer mental or publicly subsidized clinics. area. We are urging practitioners to use the low-cost surgical sterilizations to families with A majority of the participants did not favor AVMA public relations packet which deals low incomes. The veterinarian will receive no this emphasis on surgical sterilization for a with the surplus dog and cat problem. We have fee for his surgery. The local association will variety of reasons.Some of these reasons were: also developed a 46-page television communi- pick a screening agency or agencies from There is no verified evidence that any surgical cations program for distribution to Ohio sta- among the humane organizations or animal sterilization program has significantly reduced tions and Ohio practitioners. This was de- control organizations which are advocating the overpopulation problem in an area where it veloped by the OVMA,the Ohio State Univer- sterilization programs in their area.The local has been tried.The number of animals already sity College of Veterinary Medicine,The Ohio association will handle all news releases con- being surgically sterilized in private veteri- Department of Agriculture, and Ohio Depart- cerning the program, review all applications nary hospitals, plus the number of animals ment of Public Health.In this,we offer appear- for surgery,audit handling of funds,and solicit euthanized, which is a permanent form of arses by resource veterinarians and informa- and determine the number of surgical steriliza- sterilization,has not significantly reduced the tion toward answering the questions about pet tions being offered by the local association,and problem. There is no demographic evidence ownership in Ohio today. set up a rotational schedule. either physically or financially that these prog- In this outline,we suggest themes and supply The pet owner will be expected to donate$20 rams would be successful.There is the question factual information which TV program direc- for the surgery, and this will go to the Ohio of obsolescence of public facilities once non- tors may wish to explore and use in their public Animal Health Foundation,earmarked for re- surgical means of sterilization are developed. service boardcasts. These include such search to find anti-fertility drugs. The pubic has not responded well to surgical thought-provokers as, "Is Pet Ownership Be- We believe our program will provide some sterilization programs. In fact, it appears that coming a Luxury?"; Insurance for Your Dog"; realistic steps forward in helping to resolve the the people who financially need the programs "The Cost of Hospitalization for Your Pet." pet overpopulation program in Ohio. It pro- the most for their animals consitute the lowest To air the dog and cat overpopulation ques- vides a framework for cooperation with percent of users. tion, we suggest titles such as "Pet humane and animal control groups, which We believe the symposium helped create un- Overpopulation-A People Problem, Not a Pet want to help resolve this disturbing social prob- derstanding between the veterinary profession Problem"; 'Birth Control for Fido"; "Why Are lem. We have found there are many sincere and the groups who have been leading the way We Killing 13 Million Dogs and Cats?" and individuals in humane and animal control Or- in pet overpopulation control programs.We are "Cruelty to Animals - Are We Guilty?" ganizations. If the profession will develop a now experiencing a more compatible relation- We offer two subjects which will air the is- realistic and sensible approach for vet- ship with some of the leaders of groups active in sues that surround keeping exotic pets.These erinarians to participate, we will win many this field. are: "Why Not Exotic Pets?" and"I Have This valuable allies to our cause. Our next significant contribution to our plat- Unusual Pet." If there is any one lesson to be learned from form was announced in February, 1974 when We also offer speakers on Food animals, but our experience in Ohio, it is this: Practicing we mailed news releases to introduce formation have not developed themes for this broad sub- veterinarians must individually and collec- of the Ohio Animal Health Foundation. ject area. tively become involved with humane and ani- Through this non-profit organization, we will Our TV program packet includes a list of mal shelter organizations. In our studies we formalize our humane efforts, including our veterinarians who are available to program di- learned that when veterinarians were either current plans for contributions to pet overpopu- rectors who may wish to consider broadcasts.A members,advisors or on the board of directors lation problems. In our news release to the biographic sketch of each resource veterinarian of humane organizations or animal control media, we outlined present and future aims of is included, so program directors may know agencies,the groups were much more responsi- the foundation. These included notice that one something of his qualifications.The kit also has ble in their statements and acts. • of the early programs will be an attack on the a breakdown of 69 television program oppor- overpopulation of dogs and cats. This was to tunities in Ohio. In presenting these, we in- include a program for surgical neutering of pets cluded such data as the address, telephone owned by persons who have low incomes.It was number,person(s)to contact,time,format and also announced that the foundation would seek themes and the talent involved in the show.We more effective and longer lasting solutions,in- believe this directory will enable some OVMA cluding a method for chemical control of birth members to act in lining up local TV participa- rates of dogs and cats. tion for some of our resource veterinarians. Results of an Animal Population Survey: Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, Californis, 1970 by Robert Schneider, DVM, MS and Michael L. Vaida, MA, PhD From the Animal Neoplasm Registry, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, California 95616. Supported by contract NIH 69-87 within the Virus Cancer Program, National Cancer Institute and NIH grant CA-14916 from the National Cancer Institute. The Authors wish to thank the numerous persons of the California Department of Public Health, Berkeley, who took part in the doing of the survey under the direction of the senior author. Thanks also to Davian Wing and Theresa Pratt for technical assistance in preparation of the manuscript. 2 Summary Methodology, age, sex, breed and reproductive data are presented for dogs and cats from an animal population survey done in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California. The population data was as of December 31 , 1970, the reproduction data for all of 1970. There were 32,049 households initially selected. Interviews were obtained on 27,076 households or 86.9% of usable ones. This represents a 5.0% sample of all households in the area. The dog and cat populations were estimated as 224,815 dogs and 151,176 cats. There was 1 dog for every 7.3 persons; 1 cat for 10.8 persons. Almost half of the households owned at least 1 dog or 1 cat. The age distribution indicated that growth in the population had peaked in 1968, with subsequent declines in puppies entering households in 1969 and 1970. The data also indicated that 47.8% of female dogs and 64.6% of female cats were neutered. The highest reproducing age for both dogs and cats was the 1-3 year old group to which 62.9% of dog and 74.4% of cat litters were born. In these age groups, there were 0.4 litters per non-neutered female dog, while with cats there were 1 .6 litters. Entire female dogs of all ages averaged 0.2 litters each, those of cats, 0.9 litters each. r 3 As part of the needs of the Alameda-Contra Costa Counties Animal Neoplasm Registry, periodic surveys are made of the numbers and demographic character- istics of the animal population in the area covered by the Registry (3) . Reliable and accurate animal population data are not readily available for most parts of the country and in view of the increased concern with animal population growth such data are vitally needed. This paper presents various demographic and reproductive characteristics found in the latest survey. Subsequent publications will discuss other aspects of the survey and of a follow-up survey made one year later to collect data on animal survival . Methods The survey was a random one designed to achieve at least a 5% final sampling of households in the 2 counties. Respondents were chosen from the 4 telephone books of the area. Selection of households was made in a randomly predetermined pattern from each telephone book page. The number to be selected on each page was calculated by estimating the total numbers of households in each book exclusive of businesses. Adjustments were made for estimates of the proportions of households expected not to have telephones, not to be listed and to have more than 1 listing. The latter data was available from a prior survey. Some of the pros and cons for use of this method for an animal population survey will be discussed later. The interview schedule was 6 pages in length. In addition to descriptive data on all animals and birds owned by any household member during 1970, data also was collected and coded on dog and cat reproductivity, veterinary use and the human household and its members. A follow-up survey conducted 1 year later collected data on animal loss and reasons for loss. Through coding of the census tract location of the household, the survey was related 4 to the 1970 human census done in April (7) . To minimize bias from possible selection of excess households from higher socioeconomic areas, all estimates were done independently by census tract and then totaled. Standard deviations were calculated using the method described by Cochran (1) for ratio estimates. The dog and cat population was estimated as of December 31 , 1970. Productivity data was for the entire year. The survey was done by mail and telephone in the spring and summer of 1971 . At least 2 mailings were made to each respondent; mailings commenced in January. Where data was incomplete on receipt of the filled-out interview, telephone calls were made to get the missing data. In addition, telephone calls were systematically made starting in late April to all households that could be reached for which a completed interview had not been received. To avoid inconsistencies relative to members of litters born in a household but not to be kept, members were not considered owned as individual animals unless 3 months of age or older. Puppies and kittens entering house- holds were considered from any age. Results There were 32,049 households initially selected (Table 1 ) . Interviews were obtained on 27,076 or 86.9% of the useable households. Of that number, 46.7% were completed by mail , 23.5% by mail and telephone, and 29.8% by telephone only. Reasons for noncompletion of interviews and.numbers are given (Table 2). The 27,076 households represent 5.0% of the households residing in the two counties. Table 3 indicates population estimates for dogs, cats and persons. The combined density ratio of persons to dogs was 7.3 persons per dog, with 6.0 and 8.2 persons per dog in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, respectively, • i 5 indicating as many as 2 persons per dog difference in these adjacent counties. The overall person to cat ratio was 10.3, with 9.0 and 12.0 persons per cat for the same counties, indicating as many as 3 persons per cat difference between the counties. At least 1 dog or i cat was found in 46.9% of house- holds in the 2 counties on December 31 , 1970 (Table 4) . There had been 49.7% of the households owning at least 1 dog or 1 cat at any time during the year. At least 1 dog was owned by 35.81 of the households and 1 cat by 21 .3% of the households on December 31 , 1970. The estimated age distribution of the dog and cat populations is shown (Table 5) . There appears to have been a decrease in the growth rate of the animal population starting in 1969 as judged by the numbers present in the under 1 year, 1 year and 2 years of age categories . For both species there was a slight excess of males compared to females (Table 6) . However, as shown in Table 7, the excess of males was only present in the early years of life. By approximately 4 or 5 years of age, an excess of females became apparent in both species and this excess widened throughout the rest of the lifespans of both species . It was also found that 47.8% of female dogs and 64.6% of female cats were neutered (Table 6) . Neutering patterns by age for female dogs indicated increased proportions neutered with increased age until about 6 years of age, with subsequent plateauing between 6 and 10 years, then additional increases (Table 8) . With female cats, there was marked increase in proportions neutered until 6 years of age with stabilization of neutering at approximately 90% of the female population for the rest of the lifespan of cats. There were 7.4% male dogs and 51 .8% male cats neutered in the population (Table 6) . Age patterns indicated a gradual increase in the proportion of male dogs neutered throughout their lifespan, while with male cats, there 0 6 was immediate marked increases in the proportions neutered until after 10 years of age, at least 90g of the cat male population was neutered (Table 3) . Purebred-crossbred comparisons for dogs indicated almost as many pure- breds in the population as crossbreds (Table 9) . However, only 53.1% of purebreds were indicated as American Kennel Club (AKC) registered. Purebred breed distributions for dogs (Table 10) were approximately as would be expected as judged by purebred AKC registration in 1970. Crossbred designates, however, in general do not appear to correlate with purebreds as closely as one would expect. This probably is due to more dominant expression of certain breeds in crossbred situations and the tendency to group certain crossbreds in one group (i .e., most spaniels as cocker crosses and many terrier types as fox terrier crosses) . Cat breed distributions (Table 11) indicated that a high proportion of purebred cats were Siamese. With over 80% of purebreds being of that breed, they comprised 11 .3% of all cats. As noted in Table 11 , however, about 3/4 of all cats are of nondescript variety classified by the owner as domestic shorthair, longhair or mixed. Dog reproductivity data (Table 12) indicated that there were 0.2 litters per non-neutered female dog; litters averaged 5.4 puppies each. Productivity was concentrated in the 1-3 year ages with 62.9% of litters produced by female dogs in that age group. With cats (Table 13) , there dere 0.9 litters produced by each entire female; litters averaged 4.1 kittens each. litter productivity was also concentrated in the 1-3 year ages with 74.4' of litters produced by queens in that age group. In the high productivity 1-3 year ages, there were 0.4 litters per non-neutered female dog compared to 1 .6 litters per entire cat. 7 Discussion There is need for the consistent and accurate collection of data to evaluate pet animal population changes as may be occurring in various parts of the country. Methodology should be developed to gather such data. It is too costly and time consuming to utilize the traditional method of sample selection and interview in standard metropolitan statistical areas. This involves resident location by census tract and block designations, followed by personal interviews. In addition, rural and most semirural areas are not designated by census tracts. An alternate method of selection which could be used in all parts of the country is the one utilized here, that of identification of households through local telephone books. An advantage of this method of selection was the immediate identification of the house- hold by name, mailing address and telephone number. Thus, mail and telephone interviewing was feasible for the entire sample. It has been shown that mail and telephone interviews can be as accurate as personal interviews at a fraction of the cost of the latter (5) . As indicated (Table 1 ), one can very accurately estimate the number of households which are present in an area and then accurately achieve the sample size desired. The estimates in Table 1 were calculated before any data became available from the 1970 human census and agreement is seen to be very close between household number estimates and the numbers found by the 1970 human census. Table 14 indicated the proportions -of households expected not to have a telephone, expectea not to be listed and expected to have more than 1 listing. These were the results of a sampling of house- holds (100 each dog, cat and nonpet-owning) which participated in the 1965 population survey done in Alameda County (4) . Table 14 also indicated that there does not appear to be significant differences in these telephone 8 listing characteristics for either owners or non-owners of dogs and cats, hence this aspect of telephone ownership can be ignored. However, although listing characteristics do not appear to vary, there is the possibility that bias could be present in selection of a sample from tele- phone books relative to socioeconomic level and telephone ownership. In other words, the higher the socioeconomic level , the more probability of having a telephone and of having a pet also. Hence one would tend to overestimate the population by this method. To minimize this possibility of an overestimate bias in this study, population estimates were calculated by census tract and then totaled. If the population estimates were only based on the proportion interviewed regardless of census tract, then dog numbers would have been increased 6.6% and cat numbers 8.8%. These proportions of overestimate are not large considering the turnover rates of dogs and cats in a population. As an added precaution in this study, the 4 estimates (total , age, sex and breed distributions) were independently calculated. The differences for dogs in the 4 estimates averaged 57, with a maximum difference between any 2 estimates being 99 dogs. For cats, the average difference was 15 cats with a maximum difference of 28. Calculations on a census tract basis also allow the computation of standard deviations for population estimates. Standard deviations for the total dog and cat population estimates were t 2217 for dogs and ± 2242 for cats. The larger standard deviation for cats relative to estimated population size is due to the larger variability of numbers of owned cats per household. Average number of dogs per owning household was 1 .2, whereas for cats it was 1 .4. The average number of dogs owned in multiple dog-owning households was 2.2 dogs; the average number in multiple cat-owning households was 2.5 cats. One disadvantage of this survey procedure was that if an identified household had moved, it had to be located. Under the traditional approach, 9 raving identified only the residence location, one would interview whomever was the occupant. Losses would be limited only to those residences that were unoccupied at the time of interview. The vacancy rate at the time of the 1970 human census in April was 3.6% for the 2 counties combined. Re- spondents that could not be located in the survey were equal to 7.5% of the total (Table 2) , an extra loss of 3.9%. The loss of this group was not taken into consideration in calculations because it was found for the group that had moved and were found, that dog and cat ownership characteristics did not vary sufficiently from the non-moved to warrant adjustment. The ratio of persons to dogs and cats (Table 3) indicated that even in areas which are close to each other, there can be wide variation in this ratio. Thus, the application of ratios from one area to another is not very accurate in estimating the numbers of dogs and cats in the second area. Data from the 1965 survey had shown even wider variations for person/dog ratios within 3 divisions of Alameda County (4). The use of ratios of numbers of dogs and cats to single family dwellings as previously suggested (2) resulted in closer agreement within the 2 counties (Table 15) . The age distribution within the first 3 categories (under 1 year of age through 2 years) indicated a slowdown in the population growth rates, particularly of dogs (Table 5) . Because of losses that occur each year of life, especially during the early years, it is expected that a growing animal population will show an inverse relationship between age and numbers in each group. As indicated especially for the dog population (Table 5), numbers were about the same for the first 3 age groups. This indicated that starting in 1969, there was a marked decrease in owned dogs entering the population as puppies. The current concern with the need for animal popu- lation control may be directly related to this phenomenon. 10 An excess of males of both dogs and cats was expected (Table 6) , however, the change to excess females after 4 or 5 years of age was not expected (Table 7) . The continued better survival of female dogs and cats tends to parallel what occurs in man. The reasons should be investigated, since it would be important to know whether better survival in the female dog and cat is due to human related factors or innate factors. This survival does not appear to be related to neutering since as indicated in Table 8, for cats, the proportions neutered were high in each age group for both males and females. Table 6 indicates a surprising high proportion of female dogs and cats were neutered (almost I/2 and 2/3, respectively) . Proportions neutered by age (Table 8) show definite differences between the 2 species. The rapid increase with age of the proportions neutered in cats to approximately 90%' and maintenance of this level can clearly be related to the prolificness of the species. As noted (Table 13) , 92.5% of cat litters were born to females 6 years of age or under. Concentration was in the 1-3 years of age range where approximately 1 .6 litters were born per non-neutered female. This is in marked contrast to the bitch where in these high producing ages, litter production was less than 1/4 that of the cat rate per female (Table 12) . It is also apparent from Table 8 that the owner must exert some control over the dog's breeding habits since by 6 years of age, only about 60,10 were neutered compared to 90% for the female cat. On the basis of the neutering and reproductive data in our survey, it would appear that neutering clinics are not going to contribute very much to the animal control problem. A companion paper(6) will discuss this more fully. In summary, data is presented which indicates some interesting aspects of the dynamics of a dog and cat population. It is hoped that others will 17 Larry out such surveys so that a better understanding of the inter- relationship of such factors as age, sex, breed and reproductivity can be achieved for pet animal populations. References 1 . Cochran, W. G.: Sampling Techniques. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. , New York, 1953. 2. Dorn, C. R.: Veterinary Medical Services: Utilization by Dog and Cat Owners. J.A.V.M.A. 156 (Feb. 1 , 1970) :321-327. 3. Dorn, C. R., Taylor, D. 0. N. , Frye, F. L., and Hibbard, H. H.: Survey of Animal Neoplasms in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California. I. Methodology and Description of Cases. J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 40 (Feb. 1968):295-305. 4. Dorn, C: R., Terbrusch, F. G., and Hibbard; H. H.: Zoographic and Demographic Analysis of Dog and Cat Ownership in Alameda County, California State Department of Public Health, Berkeley, California, 1967. 6. Hockstim, J. R.: Alternatives to Personal Interviewing. Human Population Laboratory, State Department of Public Health, Series A, No. 4, May, 1963. 6. Schneider, R., and Vaida, M.: The Dog Population Control Problem: r Some Observations on Data from Surveys in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California. In preparation 7. U. S. Bureau of the Census: Census of Population and Housing: 1970 Census Tracts, Final Report PHC(1 )-189, San Francisco-Oakland, Calif. SMSA. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., April , 1972. Table 1 : Estimated and Actual Numbers of Households Selected . Households Combined Alameda Contra Costa Total in area: Estimated * 538,888 360,326 178,562 Actual ** 538,044 365,093 172,951 Selected for interview: Estimated t 32,334 21 ,620 10,714 Chosen 32,049 20,771 11 ,278 * Estimated from the number of telephone listings adjusted for the proportion which were businesses, and the proportion of households expected not to have telephones, expected not to be listed and expected to have more than 1 listing (Table 14) . ** Occupied housing units as reported in the 1970 U. S. Bureau of the Census: Census of Population and Housing: 1970 Census Tracts Final Report. PHC (1 )-189 San Francisco-Oakland, Calif. SMSA, U.S. Government Printing Office, -Washington D.C., April, 1972. t Based on a 6% sample of the estimated numbers of household. Table 2: Disposition of Chosen Households as to Completion of Interviews. Households Combined Alameda Contra Costa Total initially selected 32,049 20,771 11 ,278 Excluded: Oversampling * 732 66 666 Businesses 123 91 32 Duplication 23 11 12 Left area prior to 1970 12 7 5. Total excluded 890 175 715 Total included 31 ,159 20,596 10,563 Noncompletion of interview: Could not locate 2,347 1 ,808 539 Refused 931 657 274 Probable refusals 654 466 188 Other reasons 151 116 35 Total noncompletions 4,083 3,047 1 ,036 Total completed interviews 27,076 17,549 9,527 % completed interviews 86.9 85.2 90.2 * Due to the listing of certain overlapping areas in 2 telephoo:-- books. Table 3: Plumbers and Ratios of Dogs, Cats and Persons Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, , 1970. Category Combined Alameda Contra Costa Plumbers: Dogs 224,815 131 ,329 93,486 Cats 151 ,176 89,138 62,038 Persons 1 ,631 ,573 1 ,073,184 558,389 Ratios: Persons/Dog 7.3 8,2 6.0 Persons/Cat 10.8 12.0 9.0 Table 4: Proportions of Households in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties Owning Dogs or Cats, December, 1970. Ownership Combined Alameda Contra Costa No dogs or cats 53.1 58.0 44-.1 Dog(s) only 25.6 23.3 29.9 Cat(s) only 11 .1 10.7 11 .8 Both 10.2 8.0 14.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table 5: Age Distribution of Dogs and. Cats, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, December, 1970. Dogs Cats Age Number Percent Number Percent <1 28,421 12.6 28,718 19.0 1 27,747 12.3 22,616 15.0 2 28,711 12.8 19,704 13.0 3 25,792 11 .5 17,003 11 .3 4 23,394 10.4 12,129 8.0 5 18,746 8.3 9,338 6.2 6 13,875 6.2 6,998 4.6 7 12,414 5.5 6,659 4.4 8 10,143 4.5 5,870 3.9 9 7,290 3.2 3,435 2.3 10 7,833 3.5 3,671 2.4 11 5,099 2.3 2,485 1 .6 12 4,271 1 .9 2,485 IS 13 3,421 1 .5 2,088 1 .4 14 2,253 1 .0 1 ,875 1 .2 15 1 ,357 .6 1 ,157 .8 16 644 .3 763 .5 17 353 .2 704 .5 18 146 .1 324 .2 >18 79 .0 373 .3 Unknown 2,776 1 .2 2,781 1 .8 Total 224,815 99.9 151 ,176 100.0 Table 6: Sex and tleutering Distributions of Dogs and Cats, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, December 1970. Dogs Cats Percent of Percent within Percent of Percent with4 Sex Numbers total male or female Numbers total male or femal Female 109,451 48.7 72,859 48.2 Neutered 52,293 47.8 47,027 64.6 Entire 57,036 52.1 25,734 35.3 Unknown 122 .1 98 .1 MaIe 113,623 50.5 77,260 51 .1 Neutered 8,421 7.4 40,025 51 .8 Entire 104,362 91 .9 37,147 48.1 Unknown 840 .7 88 .1 Unknown sex 1 ,741 .8 1 ,057 .7 Total 224,815 100.0 ------ 151 ,176 100.0 ------ Table 7: Male/Female Ratios by Age for Dogs and Cats, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California, 1970. Dog Cat Age (yrs.) Observed Expected * Observed Expected. * <1 1 .21 1 .28 1 .22 1 .40 1 1 .20 1 .17 1 .29 1 .23 2 1 .15 1 .10 1 .13 1 .13 3 1 .06 1 .04 1 .20 1 .05 4 .94 1 .00 1 .04 .99 5 1 .07 .97 .91 .94 6 .95 .94 .87 .91 7 .98 .91 .99 .87 8 .93 .89 .76 .84 9 .75 .87 .77 .82 10 .72 .86 .82 .80 11 .94 .84 .88 .78 12 .84 .83 .84 .76 13 .70 .81 .74 .74 14 .95 .80 .75 .73 15 .78 .79 .61 .71 >15 .78 .78 .64 .70 Total 1 .04 ---- 1 .05 ---- * Expected fitted data, calculated using the Least Square's Method. Table 8: Proportion Neutered by Age in the Dog and Cat Populations, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, December 1970. . % of Females Neutered % of Males Neutered- Age (yrs.) Dogs Cats Dogs Cats <1 20.0 22.7 2.5 19.0 1 33.3 49.3 4.5 39.6 2 38.0 61 .7 5.5 43.4 3 47.4 70.1 6.9 54.7 4 50.1 75.7 6.8 65.3 5 55.8 79.8 8.8 70.3 6 61 .1 89.0 9.6 81 .4 7 57.0 88.0 9.0 80.7 3 61 .7 87.7 10.8 84.0 9 62.1 91 .9 16.1 86.4 10 62.9 89.8 11 .5 84.3 11 68.2 98.4 11 .1 90.6 12 71 .1 97.0 15.4 93.8 13 70.8 88.8 18.1 86.7 14 67.7 96.9 16.1 90.5 15 77.4 89.1 26.7 91 .9 >15 76.6 91 .3 31 .2 90.4 Total 47.8 64.6 7.4 51 .8 Ta ble 9: Purebred-Crossbred Distribution of Dogs and Cats, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, December, 1970. Category Numbers Percent Dog: Purebred 104,886 46.7 Crossbred 118,745 52.8 Unknown 1 ,184 .5 Total 224,815 100.0 Cat: Purebred 21 ,697 14.4 Crossbred 14,422 9.5 Domestics 114,522 75.8 Unknown 535 .4 Total 151,176 100.1 * Includes domestic shorthair, domestic longhair and nondescript mixed categories. Table 10: Distribution of the Principal Dog Breeds, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, December 1970. Purebred Crossbred Breed Number Order Number Order Poodle, all sizes 29,673 1 11 ,943 3 German Shepherd Dog 13,573 2 13,651 1 Dachshund 7,908 3 4,411 7 Chihuahua 4,935 4 5,838 5 Labrador Retriever 3,643 5 4,893 6 Beagle 2,953 6 3,891 8 German Shorthair Pointer 2,406 7 453 20 Cocker Spaniel 2,352 8 13,303 2 Pekinese 2,186 9 2,738 11 Doberman Pinscher 1 ,995 10 637 17 Fox Terrier 1 ,962 11 9,639 4 Sheltie 1 ,842 12 1 ,094 14 Collie 1 ,808 13 3,501 9 Pomeranian 1 ,728 14 1 ,285 13 Brittany Spaniel 1 ,473 15 386 23 Basset Hound 1 ,327 16 221 35 Boston Bu.11 1 ,290 17 298 28 Boxer 1 ,241 18 566 19 Keeshound 1 ,053 19 437 22 Minature Schnauzer 992 20 146 41 Other breeds 18,546 -- 14,842 -- i1i xed -- -- 24,333 -- Total 104,886 -- 118,745 -- Table 11 : Uistribution of the Principal Cat Breeds, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, December, 1970. Breed Numbers Purebred 21 ,697 Siamese 17,136 Persian 2,387 Manx 1 ,024 Burmese 500 Russian Blue 192 Other breeds 458 Crossbred 14,422 Siamese 7,322 Persian 5,264 Manx 1 ,107 Burmese 253 Russian Blue 125 Other breeds 351 Domestics and Mixed 114,522 Domestic shorthair 67,016 Domestic longhair 38,949 Mixed 8,557 Unknown 535 Total 151 ,176 Table IL: Litter Numbers Relative to Entire Female Dogs by Age, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, 1970. Number of Number of Litters per Age (yrs.) Entire Females Litters Produced Entire Female <1 10,271 * 238 .02 1 8,286 2,429 .29 2 8,256 3,191 .39 3 6,554 2,477 .38 4 5,998 1 ,691 .28 5 3,960 976 .25 6 2,765 714 .26 7 2,683 452 .17 8 2,010 238 .12 9 1 ,578 119 .08 >9 4,467 263 .06 Unknown 208 95 --- Total 57,036 12,883 .23 * This croup reflects an age distribution of 1 -11 months on December 31 , 1970, hence, many were under reproductive age. Table 13: Litter Numbers Relative to Entire Female Cats by Age, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, 1970. Number of Number of Litters per Age (yrs. ) Entire Females Litters Produced Entire Females <1 9,970 * 834 .08 1 4,998 7,508 1 .50 2 3,536 6,011 1 .70 3 2,310 3,656 1 .58 4 1 ,449 1 ,816 1 .25 5 988 883 .89 6 410 638 1 .56 7 403 442 1 .10 U 408 442 1 .08 9 156 123 .79 >9 626 295 .47 Unknown 480 439 --- Total 25,734 23,087 .90 * This group reflects an age distribution of 1-11 months on December 31 , 1970, hence, many were under reproductive age. Table 14: Distribution of Telephone Listings of a Sample of Households. Category as to listing in the Nonpet- Dog- Cat- telephone book Combined owning owning owning Listed ** 74.7 72.0 75.0 77.0 2 or more listings 4.3 4.0 6.0 3.0 Not listed 25.3 28.0 25.0 23.0 No telephone 7.3 9.0 5.0 8.0 Unlisted number 18.0 19.0 20.0 15.0 * Chosen at random from the 1965 Alameda County Survey, 100 each category. ** If households listed in the subsequent year's telephone book are included, these figures become 77.3, 75.0, 79.0 and 78.0%, respectively. Table 15: Ratios of Animals to Single Family Dwellings and all Dwelling Units in Alameda- and Contra Costa Counties, California, 1970. Category Combined Alameda Contra Costa Single family Dwelling Units: to Dogs 1 .6 1 .8 1 .5 to Cats 2.4 2.6 2.2 All Dwelling Units: to Dogs 2.4 2.8 1 .8 to Cats 3.6 4.0 2.8 r In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California July 29 19 In the Matter of Report from County Agricultural Commissioner regarding animal control citation complaint . The Board on July 9, 1974 having referred to the County Agricultural Commissioner for report a letter from Mr. William L. Stone, 2510 Ridge, Road, San Pablo, California expressing the opinion that he was treated unfairly with regard to a citation issued by a County Animal Control Officer for a dog at large with an expired license; and The County Agricultural Commissioner having submitted to the Board a memorandum report dated July 17 , 1974 in response to the aforesaid matter; and On motion of Supervisor W. N. Boggess, seconded by Supervisor J. P. Kenny, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that receipt of said report is ACKNOWLEDGED and the Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of same to Mr. Stone. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote : AYES : Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias , W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES : None. ABSENT: None. 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc• Mr. Stone Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Agricultural Commissioner Supervisors County Counsel affixed this a_ g�_day of .Till y County Administrator J. R. OLSSON, Clerk By Deputy Clerk H 24 5/74 - 12,500 L. Kincaid DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURl„f�i�' � CONTRA COSTA COUNTY �3 Date: July 17, 1974 To: Board of Supervisors Attention: J. P. McBrien RECEIVED Fro m• •. L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner-Sealer of Weights and Measures JUL 181974 Subject: Letter from Mr. William L. Stone, 2510 Ridge Ro d, San Pablo, regarding a citation issued by Anima I R. OLSSON BOARD OF SUPEWISOR4 Control (your Board Order dated July 9, 1974) 2o rR COS' cc. B We have reviewed the above subject matter with our staff members, checked our records and have spoken to Mr. Stone's neighbor, Mr. Williams. Mr. Stone's letter states that "the prosecutor from the District Attorney's office and the judge seemed to ignor anything Royce or I said regarding Officer Moore's statements being untrue; therefore, I feel that we were dealt with unjustly." COMIENTS: 1. When Mr. Stone and his son, Royce, appeared in court, I feel certain that all statements were carefully considered. It has been my experience that if there is any doubt, the defendant (the son) would have been given the benefit and the case would have been dismissed. 2. I spoke to Mr. Williams (the neighbor), who had just paid a $50 fine for violating the Animal Control Ordinance, and he said that he could not swear under oath that he was a witness to Mr. Stone's dog being on Mr. Stone's property at all times; "all times" referring to the time that Officer Moore was present. 3 . I asked Mr. Williams to please give me an opinion as to Officer Moore's attitude and he stated that "Officer Moore acted like a gentleman." 4. I am not in possession of any information that would indicate that Mr. Stone was "unduly harassed by Officer Moore", as stated in his letter. In fact, I would leave out the word "unduly" and state that I do not see any evidence that would indicate any harassment, unless Mr. Stone meant that his son was given a court citation instead of a warning. 5. It would appear that this was not the first time that our Animal Control staff have had to contact Mr. Stone regarding an Animal Control violation. Our office records show: 7/73 (500) t ' P Board of Supervisors -2- July 17, 1974 Attention: J. P. McBrien a. A dog belonging to the Stones bit a young- ster when the dog escaped from its pen March 31, 1970. b. A letter was sent to the Stones on November 30, 1972 reporting an allegation their dog continued to be in violation of the ordinance. c. An officer personally visited the Stones on December 91 1972, and explained the ordinance and the continuing violations. ALS/nw cc- Clerk of the Board i i i i i • 1 3 In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California July 9 1914 In the Matter of Letter from a San Pablo Resident Regarding an Animal Control Citation and Subsequent Court Action. The Board having received a June 27, 1974 letter from Mr. William L . Stone, 2510 Ridge Road, San Pablo, California 94806 expressing the opinion that he was treated unfairly with regard to a citation issued by a County Animal Control Officer for a dog at large with an expired license; On motion of Supervisor J. P. Kenny, seconded by Supervisor W. N. Boggess, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid letter is REFERRED to the Agricultural Commissioner for report. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: Supervisor A. M. Dias. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes or said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of cc: Air. William Stone Supervisors Agricultural Commissioner affixed this 9th day of July , 197l�,� County Counsel J. R. OLSSON, Clerk County Administrator �� By � �.o, l/ /i Deputy Clerk -• 1��a -i2soo Arline Patten 2510 Ridge Road San Pablo, CA 94806 June 27, 1974 Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 100 - 37th Street Richmond, CA 94805 Gentlemen: I wish to bring to your attention the manner in which I was unduly harassed by Officer Donald Moore of the Contra Costa County Animal Control Center. On April 28, 1974, Officer Moore issued my son, Royce L. Stone, of 2510 Ridge Road, San Pablo, a citation for having a dog at large with an expired license. On May 20, 1974, Royce appeared in court and pleaded guilty to the expired license charge and innocent to the dog at large charge because the dog was under my supervision at the time. On June 7, 1974, Royce and I returned to court. At that time, Officer..-Moore took the stand and swore under oath that I opened the door when he rang the doorbell. However, my wife opened the door; and I came into the house while she was talking to Officer Moore. Royce Stone and Russell Devine of Hanford, California, were witnesses. Officer Moore also swore that the dog was down the street from the house, which is untrue. The dog, in fact, was on my property. H. L. Williams, 2432 Ridge Road, and I were witnesses to the dog's presence on my property at all times. The prosecutor from the District Attorney's Office and the judge seemed to ignore anything Royce or I said regarding Officer Moore's statements being untrue; therefore, I feel that we were dealt, with unjustly. Very truly yours, C ED J U L 3 1974 William L. Stone U4 I R. OLSSOM CLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA CQSTA CO. B _Deputy In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California July 29 19 In the Matter of Request of Mrs. Kathleen Darcy for Partial Refund of Dog Impoundment Fees. The Board on July 9, 1974 having referred to the Agricultural Commissioner for recommendation the request of Mrs. Kathleen Darcy for partial refund of dog impoundment fees; and Mr. A. L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner, in a memorandum dated July 17, 1974 having stated that the circumstances surrounding the request had been carefully checked, that there was no evidence of fault on the part of county staff members, and that he recommends against any refund to Mrs. Darcy. On motion of Supervisor W. N. Boggess, seconded by Super- visor J. P. Kenny, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommenda- tion of the Agricultural Commissioner is approved. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the dote aforesaid. cc: Mrs. Darcy Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Agricultural Commissioner Supervisors County Administrator affixed this 29th-day of July 19 JA_ J. R. OLSSON, Clerk BY �== 5�s.� / _ Deputy Clerk D. Harkness H 24 5/74 -12,500 ' *DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY j Date: July 17, 1974 To: Board of Supervisors Attention: J. P. McBrien From: 4� A. L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner-Sealer of Weights UJ' . and Measures Subject: Request of Mrs. Kathleen Darcy for refund of impound fees (Board Order of July 9, 1974) On June 29, 1974 Mrs. Kathleen Darcy, 1764 Clinton Drive, Concord 9 .521, requested a refund of a portion of the fees paid by her for the impoundment of her dog. Your Board referred her letter to me for a recommendation. We have carefully checked on the circumstances surrounding this request and believe: 1. That Mrs. Darcy's question about seeing all the dogs was mis- understood, as the staff has no reluctance to pointing out the location of the sick animal section. In addition, there are Visitor Instructions forms (copy attached) on the front counter available to everyone and signs on the doors as to each section. 2. The comment by one of the clerks to the effect that "they . said signs were there and they assumed people could read" was made by one of our clerks. The clerk informed us that as soon as it was said, and the lady had turned away, she knew the statement had come out wrong. The clerk feels badly, and we offer our sincere apology. 3. That the county should not "plea bargain" or accept a lesser amount for strays, rather than "putting them to sleep." Such a procedure would cause serious, time- consuming problems, as the staff is routinely offered lesser amounts. 4. Refunding over-charges, etc., is certainly a practice in good government in those instances where the county is clearly at fault. Recommendation As there was no -evidence of fault on the part of the county staff as to the proper fees, we strongly recommend against any refund to Mrs. Darcy. RECEIVED ALS/nw atta hment Clerk � of the Board JUL 181974 a.c. �c1dr7�.�c.�- I R. OLSSON 7/73 (500) CL RK B RD OF SU7ErVISORS - RA conA 40. B . 7. ..D,.pty CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 0 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION VISITORS INSTRUCTIONS To see pets for adoption or look for your lost pet please: I. Follow the yellow line to the kennels. 2. Inquire at the desk if your dog is licensed and you don't see it. 3. Inquire at the desk if you do not find your pet — it may be in the sick animal section, at a Veterinary Hospital, or at the Pinole (Martinez) Center. 4. Inform the clerk of the cage number of the animal you wish to purchase or redeem. 5. Do not put fingers in cage or handle animals. ACC 6/73 1M In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California July 9 19 74 In the Matter of Request of Mrs. Kathleen Darcy for Refund 'of. Impoundment Fees. The Board having received a June 29, 1974 letter from Mrs. Kathleen Darcy, 1765 Clinton Drive, Concord, California 94521 requesting a refund of a portion of the fees paid by her for the impoundment of her dog at the County Animal Control Center; On motion of Supervisor J. P. Kenny, seconded by Super- visor W. N. Boggess, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid letter is REFERRED to the Agricultural Commissioner for recommendation. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: Supervisor A. M. Dias. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc: Mrs. Darcy Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Agricultumal Commissioner Supervisors Cou.,nttyyy Administrator affiixed this gth day of July , 19 Cir / Cdiz�...atQ— L� J. R. OLSSON, Clerk BYTT - �, Deputy Clerk H 24 5/74 - 12,500 Arline Patten - is . _ • , may, Y i��as c n / �S Co [tlt,cWt.94s21 RECENT ,JL f 1974 I R. OLSSON CLE 00 O� SUAERV " / COSIA /� � �•Cad • �-�-�,�.► (G �� — ��•'-.C�- ': �'"'�'%.mac..--!���'y�.�l�"'"C. �~�'� �-� .X',7 i s✓ � • ./7"�� e�-�-� _'ice.. - ^c-t ,..%+���y�'j(-;SS O .._._ cr�-` o�-•sem-L -''�'"-�''`"`-- A /f f� L.i�+/,Gr��•�s/ ✓- ��-� c�-n /,j. cam' .E- Concord Community Forum 0 July 19, 1974 RECEIVED JUl,3 1974 J. R. Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors CLE OA " TURRYI Administration Building Martinez, California Gentlemen: The Concord Community Forum is grateful for your assistance in arranging the appearance of Mr. Art Seeley at our recent Neighborhood Forum. Mr. Seeley was in every conceivable way courteous, cooperative and responsive to the questions asked of him. He is effective as a public speaker and did a great deal to promote a positive feeling toward the Department of Animal Control. Mr. Seeley has offered his assistance in future undertakings by the Concord Community Forum, and we of the Forum look forward to working with him to improve citizen attitudes toward local government. Sincerely, Patricia Howlett Director, Concord Community Forum cc: Mr. Art Seeley Contra Costa Times Concord Transcript C. FOR YOUR NFORN-AT10- N CONCORD CIVIC CENTER 1950 PARKSIDE CONCORD CALIFORNIA 94520 TELEPHONE 682-6600 a - IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA July 16, 1974 In the Matter of Request ) for Animal Control Personnel ) to Attend Concord Community ) Forum Meeting. ) Supervisor W. N. Boggess having previously advised the Board that he had received a copy of a June 11, 1974 letter from Mrs. Pat Howlett, Director, Concord Community Forum, addressed to Mr. A. L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner, requesting that Mr. Seeley or a member of his staff appear at a neighborhood forum to discuss animal control, and that it was his understanding that said request had been declined; and The Board on June 24, 1974 having requested Mr. Seeley to report to the Board with respect to the policy of the Animal Control Division of the Department of Agriculture concerning the provision of animal control personnel as guest speakers; and Mr. Seeley on July 9, 1.974 having submitted to the Board a written report in response to aforesaid request advising that he f• felt that attendance at meetings of this type would be an outstanding way of getting citizens to better understand and appreciate• his department' s animal control activities and that response was very favorable to a trial information and public relations program at certain schools several years ago, but that because of lack of sufficient supervisory personnel, his department has had to decline requests for speakers or participants in forums and that his depart- ment had included an additional Animal Control supervisory position in its 1974-1975 budget request; and Supervisor Boggess having advised this day that members of the Concord Community Forum are still desirous of having a representa- tive from the Animal Control Division attend .said Forum; NOW, THEREFORE, on motion of Supervisor Boggess, seconded . by Supervisor J. P. Kenny, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the Agricultural Commissioner-Sealer of Weights and Measures, or a member of his staff, is DIRECTED to attend the meeting of the Concord Community Forum at Clayton Valley Elementary School, 4255 Clayton Road, Concord, California on July 16, 1974 at 7 :30 p.m. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, E. A. Linscheid, W. N. Boggess. NOES: None. ABSENT: Supervisors A. M. Dias and J. E. Moriarty. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc: Agricultural Commissioner Witness- my hand and the Seal County Administrator of the Board of Supervisors affixed this 16th day of July, 1974 J. R. OLSSON, CLERK By N. Ing ham, Deputy Clerk OEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURIO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Date: July 8, 1971- To: Board of Supervisors Attention: J. P. McBrien, County Administrator From: . ' L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner - Sealer of Weights and Measures Su ' ct: Request for Animal Control Personnel to attend Concord Community Forum Meetings (Your Board referral of June 24, 1974) The June 11, 1974 request from Mrs. Pat Howlett, Director, Concord Community Forum, to have someone from this department appear at a neighborhood forum to discuss animal control is a request of the type which we certainly hate to turn down. We believe meetings of this type (homeowners' associations, service clubs, schoolroom classes) would be an outstanding way of getting citizens to better understand and appreciate the department' s animal control activities. A couple of years ago we carried out a trial information and public relations program at certain schools and the response from school officials and the children was tremendous. We felt then, and we feel now, that this type of public relations program is a most important tool in helping our citizens become more law abiding when it comes to animal control rules and regulations. We are, and have been, experiencing problems because of a lack of sufficient supervisory personnel and, therefore, have had to decline requests from the types of organizations mentioned above until such time as we feel we can release our supervisors, or director, for such speaking engagements. For this reason we have again included in our budget the request for an additional Animal Control supervisory position, and our request for this position is appearing as a policy matter in the proposed 1971 /75 budget. We hope to discuss this matter in more detail with your Board' s Administration and Finance Committee when this policy matter is considered. ALS/ac cc: Clerk of the Board RECEIVED u. �. �' �����• JUL 9 1974 1. R. OLS.SON VARO OF SUPERVISORS NTPA CQSTA,CO. B . De u 7/73 (500) !�. 4 Concord Comm unity Forum June 26, 1974 _ RECEIVED J. R. OLSZON CLERK BOARD OF SUPEP.VISORS N RA STA CO. Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors B Dau County Administration Building Martinez, CA. Gentlemen: The Concord Community Forum has requested assistance from the County Department of Animal Control in the staffing of a Neighborhood Forum, to be held in Concord on July 16, 1974. I have enclosed a copy of the letter addressed to Mr. Art Seeley, which formalized this request. Our request was answered by a phone call to Ed Schilling at Concord City Hall , in which Mr. Seeley stated that his department does not have adequate staff to participate in this neighborhood forum and other similar citizen meetings. The Community Forum Steering Committee feels strongly that our request for help in improving citizen attitudes toward, and increasing cooperation with local governmental agencies is reason- able, and we will be grateful for any help you can give us in providing an animal control spokesman for this Forum. Very truly yours, f Pat Howlett Director , ' '• , PH:jb Enc: Letter to Mr. Seeley ��`" 2t✓ -1 7� e CONCORD CIVIC CENTER 1950 PARKSIDE CONCORD CALIFORNIA 94520 TELEPHONE 682-6600 l • - �I . Concord � J Community forum June II , 1974 Mr. Art Seeley 161 John Glenn Drive Concord, Ca. 94520 Dear Mr. Seeley: The Concord Community Forum is a, broad-based citizen's organization dedicated to increasing community knowledge of and participation in local government. In its efforts to bridge the gap between residents and City Hall , the Forum Steering Committee has planned a neighborhood forum in cooperation with a local active homeowner association. One of the areas of concern identified by that association was animal control . Concord's Administrative Assistant, Ed Schilling, was directed by the Steering Committee to request that the Animal Control Department send a representative to discuss animal control with the citizens at that neighborhood forum. We were told that the department does not provide such a service to citizens. The Forum Steering Committee is in sympathy with your department's need for additional personnel to provide guest speakers upon request. We do feet , however, that our request for representation' is more than a public relations request. We are attempting to bring governmental agencies into closer contact with the people they serve, and animal control has, in this instance, been singled out as a pressing concern. Citizens are entitled to answers from responsible representatives of their tax-supported departments. Let me assure you that the neighborhood forum is not meant to be a meeting to discredit or criticize, but a gathering to foster direct communication between citizens and their governmental agencies. It is the sincere hope of the Concord Community Forum Steering Commit- tee that you will make a representative of your department available to our Neighborhood Forum on July 16. Please contact Ed Schilling at Concord City Hall for confirmation. Very truly yours, Pat Howlett, Director PH:rkl CONCORD CIVIC CENTER 1950 PARKSIDE CONCORD CALIFORNIA 94520 TELEPHONE 682-6600 dIP dt In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California June 24 , 19 74 In the Matter of Request for Animal Control Personnel to Attend Concord Community Forum Meeting. Supervisor W. N. Boggess having advised the Board that he had received a copy of a June ll, 1974 letter from Mrs. Pat Howlett, Director, Concord Community Forum, addressed to Mr. A. L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner, requesting that Mr. Seeley or a member of his staff appear at a neighborhood forum to discuss animal control; and Supervisor Boggess having recommended that Mr. Seeley be requested to report to the Board with respect to the policy of the Animal Control Division of the Department of Agriculture concerning the provision of animal control personnel as guest speakers ; and On motion of Supervisor Boggess, seconded by Super- visor J. P. Kenny, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid recommendation is approved. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES : Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias , W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc: Mrs. Pat Howlett Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of • Agricultural Commissioner supervisors County Administrator affixed this 24th day of J ,n , 19 _7 J. R. OLSSON, Clerk By Deputy Clerk Aulene B. os ph H 24 5/74 - 12,500 Concord � rVEDCommunity Forum x C' JUN 4 1974 J. R. OM.70N DOM Ur bUftRVISORS June 11 , 1974 WN c TA CO. B Mr. Art Seeley 161 John Glenn Drive Concord, Ca. 94520 ! ` Dear Mr. Seeley: The Concord Community Forum is a, broad-based citizen's organization dedicated to increasing community knowledge of and participation in local government. In its efforts to bridge the gap between residents and City Hall , the Forum Steering Committee has planned a neighborhood forum in cooperation with a local active homeowner association. One of the areas of concern identified by that association was animal control . Concord.'s. Administrative Assistant, Ed Schilling, was directed by the Steering Committee to request that the Animal Control Department send a representative to discuss animal control with the citizens at that neighborhood forum. We were told that the department does not provide such a service to citizens. The Forum Steering Committee is in sympathy with your department's need for additional personnel to provide guest speakers upon request. We do feel , however, that our request for representation' is more than a public relations request. We are attempting to bring governmental agencies into closer contact with the people they serve, and animal control has, in this instance, been singled out as a pressing concern. Citizens are entitled to answers from responsible representatives of their tax-supported departments. Let me assure you that the neighborhood forum is not meant to be a meeting to discredit or criticize, but a gathering to foster direct communication between citizens and their governmental agencies. It is the sincere hope of the Concord Community Forum Steering Commit- tee that you will make a representative of your department available to our Neighborhood Forum on July 16. Please contact Ed Schilling at Concord City Hall for confirmation. Very truly yours, Pat Howlett, Director PH:rkl cc: Supervisor Warren Boggess CONCORD CIVIC CENTER 1950 PARKSIDE CONCORD CALIFORNIA 94520 TELEPHONE 682.6600 Z NTRA COSTA COUNIf DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE A. L. SEELEY COMMI � - AGRICULTURAL CONNISSIONER 161 JOHN GLENN DRIVE SEALER WEIGHTS AND MEASURES A� =^ • BUCHANAN AIRPORT K. E. DANIELSON Z; x CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 94520 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER - •• <1 682-7550 ASSISTANT SEALER sra`couKt'i J BRANCH OFFICES 100-57TH ST.. RICHMOND 94803 1420 HIGHWAY 4, BRENTWOOD 94313 237.7060. EXT. 3233 674.7316 July 5, 1974 RE-7 C.!1 t!r E D Mrs. Eleanor Kerlinger AUL g ],_i 1 333 Abbott Lane Alamo, California 91+507 c Bo' of suPERv RS o COST Dear Mrs. Kerlinger: By pLdy Your letter to the Board of Supervisors dated June 6, 1974 has been referred to me for reply. Almost all areas of the county (except the City of Antioch) are patrolled intermittently, usually by request. We feel that the patrol level of service could be more desirable, but as most government agencies, we must operate within the budget set for the services we perform. Our Animal Control Division does routinely mail literature, but this involves usually only the cases where we ask for compliance with the law, as in the "problem" animal area. We have distributed literature in the dog license renewal mailings and have informed the public, as needed, through news releases, etc. Ou literature is also furnished to the new residents of the county by the Welcome Wagon Association. Another distribution which we have considered and plan to utilize more often is requesting that such agencies as the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and other utilities include animal control information of interest with the mailing of their bills. We hope to be able to act on this in the near future. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely yours, Arthur L: Seeley Agricultural Commissioner Sealer Weights & Measures ALS/nw ,-,_.,cc: Clerk of the Board ,t3o�,rC �� auJ a W4,-n J S 4tejo /L..." In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa . County, State of California June 18 19 74 In the Matter of Letter from Alamo resident requesting distribution of literature on County Animal Control ordinances. A letter dated June 6, 19�4 having been received from Mrs. Eleanor Kerlinger, 333 Abbott Lane, Alamo, California, 94507, suggesting that literature relating to County Animal Control ordinances be mailed to residents in the unincorporated areas of the county; On motion of Supervisor J. P. Kenny, seconded by Supervisor A. M. Dias , IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid suggestion is REFERRED to the County Agricultural Commissioner. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote : AYES: Supervisors J. P . Kenny, A. M. Dias, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc • Mrs . Kerlinger Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of County Agricultural Supervisors Commissioner affixed this 18th day of June , 19 74 County Clerk J. R. OLSSON, Clerk County Administrator r;By i„ , Deputy Clerk - .iC.ct, Charleen K. Travers H 24 5/74 -12,500 June b, 1974 Alamo, Calif. To: County Board of Supervisors Dear Sirs, This letter pertains to Animal Control in un- incorporated areas. I am led to believe that these areas cannot be patrolled regularly because of the expense and because that Department is not staffed to do this. Would it be possible then to FREQUEN'T'LY mail some literature to dog owners in un-incorporated areas reminding them of County Ordinances? RE C E I V E D Yours truly, ssN 7 1974 ✓�� £ . f J.L °L'`'O" Mrs. Eleanor Kerli er gp OOSSUP 15085 333 Abbott Lane a .. Alamo, Calif. 94507 • �:��s 7r.Gc1 Y si � May 30, 1974 LREIVE' 1074 Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County OLSsoN Administration Building O, SUPERV SO.;COSTA CO.Martinez, Ca. p Gentlemen: I am enclosing a copy of a notice received from the Department of Agriculture, and a copy of my reply. I am aware of the problems that arise when land that was formerly agricultural becomes residential. Having lived here for over 25 years, I would prefer to have the area remain "agricultural", but I don 't wish to revert to the Old West. The County seems to be protecting the gun-toting cattle baron against the "settlers ". If this is to be the policy, pros- pective purchasers of homes in Ygnacio Valley should be advised in advance that they should notp}1an on keeping any pets less restricted or more potentially harmful than goldfish. Yours very truly, Carmelitaa Pillsbury �A 66 FOR YOUR 1� FOPOT!Or.: P EIVED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ,tUN 5 - 1974 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE J. P. ats:ory ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION WC K a RD o: supe,1v;soas RA COSTACo. YOUR DOG 1 AY BE IN OLVED IPI A SITUATION T x c. 0 BF KILLED AND COST Y5U COIdSIDERAM MONEY. Livestock owners are experiencing econom:.c loss and emotional suffering due to dogs that a-re not properly controlled. Dogs do chase stock through fences, worry, maim, kill and cause weight loss to livestock because the dog owner did not fulfill his responsibility by keeping his dog properly controlled. jos a dog owner you sry -i.:��ble s"or most actions of your dog. The following portions of the California Agricultural Code and the County Ordinance Code are provided for your information: California Agricultural Code, Section 31102, states in part;: "Any person may kill any dog in any of the following cases: (a The dog is found in the act of killing, vrounding or Persistently -urs*a in-7 --r7f� CPr l i est ock. or poultry on land or premises v hich are not ovvned or possessed by the owner of the clog. (b) The person has such proof as conclusively shows that the dog has been recently engaged in killing or wounding livestock or poultry on land or premises which are not owned or possessed by the clog's owner. No action, civil or criminal. shall be maintained for the killing, of any such dog." Section 311.03 states in part: "Any dog entering any enclosed or unenclosed property upon which livestock or poultry are confined may be seized or killed by the owner or tenant of the property or by any employee of the owner or tenant, Pio action, civil or criminal, shall be maintained against the oimer, tenant or employee for the seizure or killing of any such dog." Section 31104 states: "The provisions of Sections 31-1_02 and 31103 shall not apply to any dog which is inside the corporate limits of any city, or city and county, or to any dog which is under the reasonable control of his owner or keeper, unless the dog is actually caught in the act of ttior: ing, V oun, in g, chasing or killing any livestock or poultry Section 31501 states: "The owner of any livestock or poultry Mnich is injured or killed by any dog may recover as liquidated damages from the ourner of the dog =„;ire tae ac`ua l value of the animals killed or twice the val;).n os' the damages msWained by n. the aur.1 i-ice J � " reason 01 trisv ?i7,Jus r..?S ,=.5 t�t.� v2:: L`lc jr ile. Nom-, _ . Section 51--2.462 of the County Ordinance Code, Animals at Large:. "No person ouinirg or possessing any animal shall permit. it to be A lar.;;e or be pastured or ksept on h ny street or other- public place, on private property against the wishes of the owner or occupant? or In any manner or place to the i n�r4ry of the owner or occupant of any other property. As used in section '"At targe" means an animal not under restraint by '. U sh s .not in an enc]osed are:,;, or not under the control and i r_ vsw I mediats presence of the o*wrner& For purposes of, Cane Sectica 309Vk 19emale in heat ) "at largfi" mrsaxzs outside house, garage, build3.ng, enclosure or vehicles 4 NOTE s This ingormatio�s J.s not authorisation for any person to ; discharge a £irea z"u "those areas where •such action is prohibited•. 7/73 200 ed ` May 30, 1974 Contra Costa County C%'. TVED Department of Agriculture • _s Animal Control Division J 161 John Glenn Drive Concord, Ca. ;. 0LS=01: p r GGA:. 0 5URRVi02i ViR C-31A CJ. Gentlemen: F•, : . a- s., I am well aware of the provisions of the various sections of the California Agricultural Code cited in your notice. I did not bring any action, civil or criminal, against Mr. Borges for shooting my dog. Nor did I bring any action against him when I was deprived of garbage removal service for two years because Mr. Borges threatened to shoot the driver of the gar- bage disposal vehicle - both by his own admission. Mr. Borges has also threatened, and on at least one occasion, discharged a firearm at young boys who, hiking in the hills, trespassed on his property. I have experienced "economic loss and emotional suffering" due to large bovines breaking down my fence, trampling and destroy- ing my garden, breaking water pipes, etc. , but I have never brought suit against the owner of said livestock. I am a single woman, forced to leave my home daily to earn a living, and dependent upon my dogs for protection as well as companionship. The firearms you are apparently advocating in their stead would not provide protection for my property in my absence; nor would the dogs be able to protect my property if they were confined. I have two small female dogs (both spayed and one very old) and one fairly large male, severely crippled as a result of being shot. I have been living on these premises for over 25 years, paying a far higher tax rate than is levied on "agricultural" land, but I have not received any additional benefits from the County by reason of this higher tax rate. We have no police protection in my area, and very little .fire protection. I have not even seen a mosquito abatement man for years. I consider the notice left in my mailbox yesterday not only a direct affront to me, but a direct encouragement to Mr. Borges and his family to discharge their firearms in a manner even more willful, reckless and malicious than heretofore. Yours truly, Carmelita Pillsbury (1z)4-'5 C 3-3uc IZtX.r-,. road cc: Board of Supervisors sheriff's Department I rFOX (Vulpes velox) The kit fox is considered b to be the most S�uti- ful of all American carniv In color it is Ctovely P M -, grizzled white with light yellowish buff tones, tail s tipped with black, as are scattered long hairs About ip• ` 25 inches long, weighing from 4 to 6 pounds 'is.a APV' >} desert dweller found on the western plains and oothills of the Rockies, where its food consists largely of lizards/ .3 / stxas ir><sects and rodents. _ Z d P CARD ^ :lddres- . v 6 3 0 Z. 410 a DOROTHY VETTER ✓/ � � 635 ELM ST w+�, EL CERRITO TO C4 9453Z^l <>,� CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A. L. SEELEY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER ..'• V -l',•• SEALER WEIGHTS AND MEASUR92 -=.- 161 JOHN GLENN DRIVE BUCHANAN AIRPORT K. E. DANIELSON CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 94520 AaslsrANr cowwlsstoNER ASSISTANT SEALER 662-7550 S'- T, COUNt{ BRANCH OFFICES 100-37TH ST.. RICHMOND 94809 1420 HIGHWAY 4. BRENTWOOD 04313 233.7000, EXT. 3200 034-3010 May 29, 1974 SCC CITED MAY 2 91974 Mr. George F. Boscoe J. R. OLSSON 2240 Tamal ais Avenue cLe EOARD O� SUPIERV;SORS pCONTRA COSTA CO. El Cerrito, California 94531 B Deputy Dear Mr. Boscoe: On May 21, 1974, the Board of Supervisors referred your letter of May 10, 1974 regarding a skunk in a trap to me for reply. Our Animal Control staff advises me that: 1. You were informed that removing skunks from traps was not a service performed by Animal Control, and that Animal Control responds to requests regarding wildlife only when the animal is dead, injured, sick or is a rabies suspect. In a later conversation with an Animal Control Supervisor you attempted to describe the trapped skunk as rabid. You were informed that since there had been no contact to transmit rabies, you could feel free to destroy the skunk; that only if requested by the Health Department would Animal Control pick up the carcass for examination, but that Animal Control would dispose of the carcass if the skunk was killed. 2. Supervisor Kenny's secretary called the Martinez Animal Control Center -and talked with Animal Control Director Crill and indicated she would attempt to interest the Department of Fish and Game in the matter. 3. If you really believed the skunk to be rabid, we doubt that you would have released it. 4. It has been a long-standing policy that Animal Control not be involved with wildlife except as outlined. C'�"S : /60C.'tW FOR YOUR INFOc �-AAT!CN. 4— ' Mr. George F. Bore -2- i 5/29/74 5. A subcommittee reviewing the function of Animal Control has considered the subject and essentially concurs with our existing practice. 6. If the Board desires to fund this kind of service in the budget, it could of course be provided. 7. The exact extent of the prevalence of rabies in wildlife becomes of concern only when an outbreak threatens the well-being of humans, etc. The presence of rabies is acknowledged; however, we know of no "critical" problem. 8. The California Health Department acknowledges that eradication of rabies is impossible, and that it is possible to have a somewhat controlled situation. 9. Individual citizens may hire a pest control operator for such a service. Sincerely yours, Arthur L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner- Sealer Weights & Measures ALS/ac cc: Clerk of the Board FOR YOUR INFORMATION EAS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A. L. SEELEY ••k .. : . DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER f` 161 JOHN GLENN DRIVE SEALER WEIGHTS AND MEwsuRrs OUCHANAN AIRPORT K. E. DANIELSON x. �'= -�-,l'••��'•� CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 94320 ASSISTANT eowMlsswNae 682.7330 ASSISTANT SEALER r� c------ BRANCH OFFICES 100.77TH 9T.. RICHMOND 94903 1420 HIGHWAY A.BRENTWOOD 94517 237.70/0. tn. 7159 654-3519 May 31, 1974 RECEIVED JUN 5 - 1974 Mr. Louis H. Thomas SON 3750 Roundhill Drive K O D OF SUPERVISORS Pittsburg, California 91{565 o cosrA,cq. 8 � - Deputy Dear Mr. Thomas: Your May 16, 1974 letter to the Board of Supervisors was referred to me as I am responsible for this county' s Animal Control program. Your letter was received by us like a breath of fresh air as very few people who support programs take the time to write. This county has a Special Animal Control Review Committee which is taking a complete look at our entire Animal Control program and I will see that your letter and/ or suggestions are brought to their attention. Sincerely yours, Arthur L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner- Sealer Weights & Measures ALS/ac /,w��• Clerk of the Boar J v In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California May 28 ' 1974- In 1974- In the Matter of Letter from Pittsburg Resident Relating to Animal Control Pr ocedures . The Board having received a letter-dated May 16, 1974 from Mr . Louis H. Thomas, 3750 Roundhill Drive, Pittsburg, California, 94565, relating to implementation of the County Ordinance concerning dog control and urging strict enforcement of these laws by County Animal Control Officers in order to protect the rights and property of citizens; On motion of Supervisor J. P . Kenny, seconded by Supervisor E. A. Linscheid, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid letter is REFERRED to the County Agricultural Commissioner. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote : AYES: Supervisor J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias , W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None . ABSENT : None . I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc • Mr. Thomas Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of County Agricultural Supervisors Commissioner affixed this gat n day of May—, 19 74— County Administrator J. R. OLSSON, Clerk By ? 4/' Deputy Clerk H 24 sna -izsoo Charleen K. Travers RECEIVED MAY 16, 1794 30A-RD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY M AY.�10 1974 CALIFORNIA � M o;SaOy no o- suaEaviso COSTA SIRS: e I read a piece in the Oakland Tribune on ';lay 15, 1974, concerning the shooting of a dog, by an animal-control Officer, �rbich :.ras chasing a horse. The article read to the effect that, the Officer was being admonished for shooting the dog. I hereby fully agree ,ith the Officer's actions, :rho was obviously trying to save the horse which the dog was chasing. I am a Mail Carrier in Alamo, Calif, and I see dog's running loose daily, causing neighborhood quarrles, etc. I ;personally have counted ZO to 30 dogs runr_ing loose daily on my route alone. It is ti.,-,,ie that the bleeding hearts dog orners, who refuse to adhere to the County leash lair, be silenced in favor of the persons .rho do not Trish dog's damaging their property. Contra Costa County, has been very lienient with the people, ;1tho allow their dog's free run of neighborhood's. It is time that action is taken and "stiff-fines" handed down to the owners of such dog's. Regardless of how !such a family"loves" their dog, these animals are becoming a hazard by being allowed to run loose, either by accident or otherwise. Owners, should be given notice, that their dog's gill be "shot", if caught on private property, trying to kill another familys pet,or livestock. I belive that the Officer, who shot the dog in question, should be congradulated. If the Ufficer is reprenanded for his action, you will be giving the dog owners a free hand to do as they wish, lettin;, their doges run whenrever and whenever the;; please, killing and !miming other peoples livestock and nets at will. Contra Costae County, should pass a !a-n limiting persons to owning 1 dog per household The cumber of dog's in this County seems to be doubling each year. �� """`��• 3770 ROU;:'DHILL D.R. CSD. PITTSBURG, CALIF94565 In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California May 21 19 74 In the Matter of Letter from E1 Cerrito Resident relating to animal control. The Board having received a letter dated May 10, 1974 from Mr. George F. Boscoe, 2240 Tamalpais Avenue, E1 Cerrito, California, relating his difficulty in obtaining assistance in the disposal of a potentially rabid animal and urging certain actions be taken to provide the county with proper facilities so as to avoid such incidents ; 0n motion of Supervisor J. P . Kenny, seconded by Super- visor A. M. Dias, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid letter is REFERRED to the County Agricultural Commissioner for response. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote : AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J . E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT : None . I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc : Mr. Boscoe Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of County Agricultural Supervisors Commissioner affixed this 21stday of May , 1974 County Health Off iceTAMES R. OLSSON, County Cler County Administrator !TT By Deputy Clerk Cha.rleen K. Travers H 24 5/73-15M rn, t�f. 2240 Tamalpais Ave. El Cerrito, Calif. Mav 10, 1974 RECEIVED 11 AY 1974 Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County C BO,' o UPERV RS Martinez, California COST By Gentlemen, On May 8,1974, I set a small animal trap in my back yard for:' the purpose of trapping small rodents which have been destroying my garden. Quite by accident I snared a skunk. I know that Contra Costa County is declared to be a rabies area by the state and I realize skunks are considered to be rabies reservoirs. I called the county Animal Control Center in Martinez and asked for assistance to remove this animal from my yard. I was turned down. Since I�eason to believe this animal was diseased I continued to contact various governmental agencies for assistance with the help of SupervisorsKinne7' s assistant. I was unable to find any agency of governnWLtt willing to help me. I subsequently released the animal in an unpopulated area of the county. As a result of this experience I urge the Board of Supervisors to take the following action: 1. Refer this complaint to your committee which is reviewing the activities of the Animal Control Center. 2. Include a provision for the annual budget to fend the Animal Control Center or Health Department to handle incidents such as these. 3. Fund a study to determine the extent of rabies in the county and establish a program to eradicate this disease. 1�. Immediately contract with-aa private exterminator to prmvide such services of this type on a cost to the user basis. e ,c. 6"-'je I would be most willing to donate my time and services on any citizens committee charged with studying this field and earnestly desire a reply to this letter stating what you are doing to rid Contra Costa County of hydrophobia. Sincerely, eo�r�;e Boscoe CALIFORNIA HUMANE COUNCIL 4432 GNOGA AVENUE • WO M"& (213) 347-4173 CF'I`,TED i 1 --� ,fay 8, 1974 Hon Edmund Lindscheid, Chairman Board of Supervisors (14Y S i 974 Martinez, California J. R. 0* ON B CL=,^• _ 'E UPcRV1S0 RS Dear Mr Lindseheid: c cosrA fc�x)gCJ,.Or pwv Enclosed is a copy of our 1973 California Animal Control Survey. Our previous (1971 ) Survey showed the expenditure of nearly 9 million dollars spent by a sampling of 65 public pounds for animal control in California in which 801 to 85% of the animals were destroyed. Our 1973 Survey revealed an increase to 13 million dollars by 68 public pounds, an increase of 50% over 1971 . It is estimated that more than 68 million dollars was spent by all agencies, public and private, humane societies and private indivi- duals last year in California. While human population has reached ZERO GROWTH, animal population continues to advance by 33% yearly: We must stop this drain on our resources -- the millions spent to kill, the countless tons of food to feed animals that never should have been born in the first place, and the continuous pollution of land and water., JUST ONE 1-iAJOR. STEP, IF STRICTLY ENFORCED, COULD HELP END THIS NIGHTMARISH SITUATION IN A FEW YEARS-- BREEDER CONTROL; 82,000 classified advertisements inserted in two Los Angeles newspapers from December 1971 through December 1972 reveal the unbelievable numbers of people breeding animals for money. Most breeders pay no city nor state sales taxes and purchase no city business license. Moreover, they usually breed animals for sale illegally in resident- ial zones. The loss in revenue to California amounts to more than $16,000,000 yearly! And 15,000 free cats and dogs offered in 3,500 ads in one Los Angeles newspaper in a 60 day period proves the need to control breeding! What will we spend in the next five years at the yearly rate of increase of 33%? How much food will be wasted for unwanted animals? In answer to the indignant public outcry, many officials ignore effective immediate remedies. They offer, instead, higher license fees, "studies, " public education, and the promise of a pill in the distant future. As a public official, you must realize the importance of immediate breeder control. Assemblvman Howard Berman has introduced AB 3922, a bill which will license breeders and control the rumhers of animals they can produce. We strongly urge you to write %Lr- Berman, State Capitol, Sacramento, 95814, and offer your support =or AB 3922. Also write Mr Walter Powers, Chairman, Assembly Commerce and Public Utili- ties Committee in support of the ;Dill. Sincerely, Edward Newnan, resident This list of breeders is a very small samplll the 82,490 ads in two Los Angeles newspalifram December 25, 1971 to December 25, 1972.. At the time this Survey was made, ost-breeders paid no city business license, a no state sales tax. On the basis of the Los Angeles pohulatirin, it is estimated that the loss in state revenge from breeders amounts to approximately S15-16 million dollars_ Since this Survey .vas taken Los Angeles City and the Board of Equalization are forcing animal breeders-a comply.tit's the laws. Lu:da Rohrbach Z , l ' Mrs.Greenvood 1 1701 Kagel Canyon Sun Valley. was AKZauoa r' tis:w`4 iC3•+iri.n selstn arrv, s8950 Balboa.Northridge ;:, - 5 adtili dugs.Sells pups,S200 each 3 breeding females,sells pups S200-5350 each No tax Gertevreve Robinson 'J Las Virgenes Canyon al: Mrs.Barbara Turner. 1D Etr.M,sv . Dur ?tRS.LI)s>r,trp dogs: IGO=o-Pes.Sheep dogs— 1J1iGCOhasseL.Reseda Yn.;'r _ ' o"m • � top-c..+A 200--S2150 Poodles-S Ft30 each 3 breeding females i t in presenT litter r Ots 5=-<c ovvo WILL ,IOL roR x..a >Rt: PTY. UTVS. Mta Sobelinan MM-M I DRUM ,Mrs.Grillo ?t33 Co sltnso,:^loodlsnd Hills 617.1 Elba Place,Woodland Hillsups ,'!s(C AKC I tuffs,Toys,hi:ns Cr':C : i. 3(1 t1o,for breeding: Yorkies-5300 5 adult females:12 pups aTS100 each 3�7-aaN•s F.•� — TS fittict:Tague t_t �� Mrs.Betty Hilton Ec ZL-k_NTER.VIIREP! v „rey hound purtt•e° 8965 Herrick Ave.,Sun Valley ..`y 1 Ftg, S rtn,tth Fntc Trrrie�. 13.1(1 Chavez,Burbank ettantton Sit, 4 hteetrrng females Small, clean'& af.'er.l"n- 19 dogs in 2 litters,Breeds Pugs•.Fox Terrial:, nL_�.'._ :+,suits. AKC-Situ+ ate, Reasonable,.g.•6 3e1j2 &Belgian Terriers net. 0"n. F1Ot:5c -M-te Keller --- - Ar(- ^s aJth 3 b V165 Her 301S.N. Lima,Burbank hlrs,HarbrrYfiottzman tt�' Ave S V 1G3•Clt� 79 s > .t ' 3 :.tors: an a,:'c.Bred dogs regularly to-SALLTtt�r�-c*-+�� 32214 Oak Sharia Malaga,Westlake Village .�iiC 15 to S 125 each f x,.rs. srmtrv�:'*•-�t.^r+� -rttsr G breeding females.Pups S1soup. : o pL7olr•3 for •,its. ph..)!aBarlo-w Lihtla Gamhetta t c t 5t"=ndard Jr c,t nrre. Fir- 1349S Picclic Cst. Htvy:.".lalibu 220 Hamilton n^d.,t'lillo.4Sprs.Ca. 4 breethn. females,no tax I)V B xRMAN pups, -Kc - 12 litters not weaned-12 litters expected soon ] P r +a.r t-e ! •cot t•+cct.art I litter. 12 pups - 1 titter,13 pups huge Chtunpiott,t,tnes kill '10-15 pups per litter v.r Gert^trt S".cz c s +� : deliver.jell up. `\ t: r rate.,c•v,. areeac, W- I Atter,16 pups-550-5150 each 24 Or).Brae George Murray .v.ewat+as is •s rs"a.ee Our - -s w tR'tr' It 1035':'. r,C' 'ck,Carr ,^ 950 s!.Creek Rd..Ojai,Ca. s 3 sat Au rr r r 3 s= 1'334 Su Blvd Enc,Apt 105 rht OrR.LAN ups. Ate '. A ?nt for da breed_r M ses ter cVseer--rt w sce A k ::li am & shoe tit'll 9 g aO:.ERMAtl - At r 'pottrt+ s rr s belt b ^,n.:r<:t'ee::s dog'ina;>artr..ert,no tax: old, 1 crjy--+d 3 shoe,_Re • b'•s s s . elle s.`!is pups for S i 7�-S2ao BSCh 9574933 Jean Citron !!jnatc <rtmr, Yes b r + ::e . +tr.:e - .- ^t. t.0.O.rC..r;t tfti..rtr..0 S. i in one litter:)in another. 7 in third titter 1050 N.Genessee Ave.,Hollywood 1r r•r c arlmers r c 1-0'- 25 rop25 pups for sale agtr 7 wks to i /r D.i r1FiC, —""- 5200-•S250 each.no taw' rvs t.S- Mr iAutntt wk3 I bt e- loyal lr 177 trto esara. ees.e t r `ti ,L 13943 t•'leidner,Pacoima 6 tireedt.iq females,pups S50-S75 each 8�J+5585 Chris Mclntsre i 1:70l7lugg.ero,La'.'Lruor!Te r3Ce` :' !n !­c ^r.it�r puri. AKC. tYertdy F rr:•nt r) 3 litters,6-8 dogs in litter S75 and tip Lt til .�rirld tit Ch�isttn:s.. I I IMO 4,063wo.n,Sunland $`:-I..4 fi93•:f33 _;ER-V_APi Shepherd3. AXQ :Litt.Paul Allen 1 tat,1 -4 mos.gin Fitter U S.G.1r_ Iine. 4 M".. blaC1 _ rnR6 aav> ALE.N r '633 Royal Meadow Rd..Sherman Oaks F enter 3 days.8 to litter d,:tans S blacks.7O ,343 - ,ltd, a.e.,4i ,t,t edtng lot years 5 ttraeding females.2 litters,S75-5100 each 3633 ROYALL.%1CADCW =7r•. ;.lr Talbot -S H S LTIs.S, ;t11iG,-th. ear,-sumitat8 ,,.. _ .'•:�.•,Es,t.:.f` cavo. a:., tat .1127 Fleet.tood.Sun Valley .sired. ��iltl! t-L1^etamenp 1§42-High-Pl.", sante 12onica ' 2 luters,8-9 r414s old Si00-S12 Lro�xuo car ^ tt ahM-Gen G!,leers,2 wks to 9 mos cid 5':I! ages, 'P!C`s - hrisL:tss! -Qty veru ►t r =•>n it,rs.Ai►.sttt 515 to 5150 each pup now 788-l -3 1 Mrs.Richard Wendt 'BASSET pt:pt.r •Champ. httauiels ST, BERN.RAS C"ccs. t^r. 2i 81081v1ammOth,SepU1L•edJ. Site. Pape t :.a Shats. =:31 Strn.}mr.EI Mont� Grt.1�: 0'n. s?V&w. la- 3 tueeding females.g litters 575 it : � t.iii ttnlu. .Zz r 1 a Zcrm,tl Kr,,a.,.wince a. - 25 paps.5 days-8-wks as?.acS2 George Toth j'r�r11 a •.o r r lerunal sW es 7.1ts Hinman Cougar Hitt Ranch,Ayoura,Caltt,':1�, ;��vi:. r,u,'' `-°s°•scsa.,a t z•17$Cal,ta,t•YuCd!anU'1-!ills : - �'+d ip27ks for itself -. �••,-fir runt tom^ "S jS,Sq/y t>,.:•vl,n femal s - seas pups for 5154 01.0 f-11, &,os Cton- 1.OT a •-r C O.,t<,�nCr•*O Idi+.^,:Ares. far AIT �;_•q ?Ars.SchNI _ �RFSH Setter 8906 Morris,Sun Valley �y�ps Ready iol S.>•ulr.i!netl I,tiers,5125-5150 C`: tit^ �.•.t & Field 13'605 l)Garmu,Sylmar Setters can have up to 23 in fitter 5rn1s -or_ec 333-63tU . Y.•,•rrf: r Bernards- to litter nACTIC Socks l`50. Chin •e S at;1,rc (.atited male c J. Hweit- fox—nand afghans �.3ti7-5b Mrs.Seh,vino 19026 Keswick.Reseda ;,,t,, .•., Llr,, fanm•ty ,0 3 litters.9 wks,9 mos.S99 each 5'06 Archvrood,Canoga Park C.R£e1T MZIES for F.., nfcvner.2 litters.u'Lvks-3 mos Christtaas. A.KC Brindi L'us.Q«Hoerr �• c:'Oel S250 each irta.tte4 up.341-55;!) `75l 8enesta,Encino �. aan '.SnrnplaC�. _ hntiv+s 7 dogs regularly,in business for 35'years :,- :ctL :ailo. .c9 '114 '.1r, Evans Iil�f! 1_l!t X�'t1ttL t no taxi residential area _ - - --: ta•tGSSutton Cnarstp Blood lines P&- Lung eLung time bredler-no tax disree p2pers.sho:a:Worm.. Mis.Carlson 14 ot t.eTor.S100-S775 each ed. Eeautitui pups. Deposit 29995 w.Mulholland.Agoura, OODLIS K. -tupistc. X1 r,ac other litters will hold -(i;1 CtirLstivas. Has 35 dogs-sells pups for S50-5350 � Co;:)M_ Snow.;Stud .:r:--- - aer.•�cac•,9-65'9 ...-.:.._.._ A °.::1 Kennet; rf.3+_rrsrd::AXC buy vzw ouoaits t'•1:.Ellis .•+„ser. s..r.rtrra trim us w5'a ta.c it f-r tis t.rr s a��C_ a tc cs as `12 It ..:,tit.•-- 1rt I,t(ers Of pulps SOC sale Tv. C,1+7t xrins+s- t,:.,i S;yrs. 16$70 Par*h+.nta 5erul.teda pC� aJS ft uns IT L. Tltl-- t':3,5 Y+n�•on.5unt3nd' st t 3I•>e s`u's, Sees. t:i+� tri„•,ttrrn K.lnne(s ;, !3,n tater,5100-154 each , tds,.3a3 6103 —� at;90 De Rey.VBntee { G�Me fromlyl l 150 flogs to sell-5100 up j taces•e�c=cs t! sit s<,2 .. .. a.nenL Se.l•D,u► varus.: are$:9h.1 .. . Ceara Pe'lert roti. t:rrarr7✓.-• :- . a{aaatM4f, erame-od. 3'x ra .• ... . 4:1.17.i� I Is-urnpson ;SIr��I i:tlinCSP- killers. ..1r Oussfiltl Ph.378.8 t 1 Ji)U3 Bessemer.Encino i ahotss,ks., trained. $25. 26551 Mazur Or..Palo in P.ennrnsula .. • 831-73 1 litter.4 riks•.1 litter. os: 1 litter.6 mos. �;..ts ho:r «.;S Utter per year _ Has 12 cats,no tax. K.:rrttf tUr Kerrip1981-2617i/33.4229 447r,H.:6Lv::• Encino _ _ _ G_•nree,Gorman 445.1535 a=o+�as Cn."INies�.ac:j tri;: itrs+:,t:rr, flitter •7;vks,. �COLLIEPUPSANC 21654 Ersci,i.t;TopSngaCartyonn�- N..:,,sutM -.1.PJatr.r:sitnit' 1 •::r., R iroLs 5100 and up .'All ages;show & peL Stud pubs.S150 up.ivlll breed ag:lin. ;• _'011 Dec..'7.1'and p8 June'72':..'� 5enrfce.93140627 o:783-42"_.i' Bought dogs from Joe Reinish betow..no tax y Somas 889.8456 : BORZOI tRuistan wolfhoundsi. ! . Joe Rrinish5+37-0798.`.::. - Enpf,sh lines. Chemaians Dred hoe. 1895 JayblOOk OIIVe,,San PCdrO Ka,ssl yrs Kennels : l�Ui _ite•14%_ .. .. s.':s Cnlires and Borzoi '-__ - __ His 6 breeding females-syr breeder. '9 Borzoi..fid.taxf?1- IFEA*096 .Coitlei, rare in uSA 1 I�trrr.Aue Aug:.15:.:) litter due:Aug:Z8 Greal.temVerarnenr. Ideal lea+, Cori :i":r:e,l COI:.,s 5300 each reservations for not litter•• 'fa9045sr Hj-�-a pulls.in titter::sells, or-S200 each Got maiiGilivvrl;sa s when ARD..comes y L.ndj:'.7nrWLsgh. - 353-2764.-. neighbors tett them that 3 of Rheinisch's. •^ . ._. ..::cis;Sh:idow Hills -: - - . d,igs.belong.to him::.::. O GERMAN S1iEP.PUPS AKS i .•:!•• .=1:s4s; 1 litter-10 wks uoeJlraincdrStlats. 553?7S1 H _ - .::.... .: Diana Dnckins OCKAP ;b35 i 1 : Ta.- ..m_s,Has 8 1.0 In litter.. from 11701 Kagel.:. .: ,: .;..:. 89'11 Heir Sun_Valley'::' ::': 1. Sliali•L'vee Gtieck.4. ;s a:u.cuuiity:Has 6 bretdiI females Bret cler:at;way's h5s•20-30 pups to choose is was. 9 breeding females' I r*IS ii.'.EDER IS NOT IN THE.COUNTY.�.BUT. . �S PUT!L AS AN EXAMPLE.OF.'BREEDING Mrs.Johnson et A.Jeal .a"We ou .s,rkc s-,.- ',:T!"ITY. 145 Peris.Lane,Sanlo.Paula err:srtnr: +.:on Rhoades .21'pups tri r;vo litters 5100-S125 t5ch.no tax R.mr.:.t,Pacoima ,.. '•39 C;EIF.AT DANES AKC Bith n 7uneey: ;. :iRiS:i Sct;e:: Is P. .... :A7� Shy had 16 pt.pt;2 vJ:s cid !0340 Johznni,Surland i Dual h. j + ..•_:._.::e . -.. 0 P rsibi Ll:sei< t: s! ltu7 eariy C '►:iinit.rt:,it:r-.t:itt+<old and I tetter expected soon. ce. Has 10 adult dclgs..9 pups !: d.]' Ci] R Wiil n, M h:::�.rac.Iget Sacrifice pri .5100 up:3:i' ,l84- !+3s 6 t:,::etl�ng females 5nd:1 mate..'. : ::.: ow parents b96 4039. -... j%_;-;2'.t. 13.73.Has`four briers.2 titters at. '� - Terry Kirkman :.�r-.:e 4-:11obbw K.iscon, 18557•Arminta,:Ph:':.. 7920 SaIoma.Van Nuys Says she has 13 breeding females at variola- s•35•Ir%37.,t'.pgs are 2 svks ofd. 1 titter at .�'.'.. r.SERV.Ihras Az[mo-.,� ' ',r•:.:,,1 R:ck Harrel,.13.184.Fillmore, .:.;. prices:usually hai 2-3.litters at a times tv a, !.e:C14 ?.>:: ..r-..:•Pr..2964325.Mrs.Rhoades hid CREAT LXAR'ES AKC' Ca.;. c2 ou0o••s i Clic past.7 mos:She setls:dogs i-utz.&.:lots oI .Harleputu. =T! :t s.50 to.S600.Each one of.these dogs- show►:,ile pet t4. )ittcra] .. Plush Pu - " Ternm Bold on de oSit PPY'.: .... ,.• a1' can be bit•tf aeons.'Has.been breedingfor..:'. ... p CCCKAP�O $�_l: 12123 Hawthorne,Sun,Valley.: '�:'.. . ~• 18.•'arst, Zone RS _ C96-4039 - . - arae!,,sl}rs..eciars ie:S15 ye:k - - Always has 8-1.21itters.to choose from tepees_ Ait exs- t7:5._ ,:•::::Cr:< .. e rss.itP3AN short hair• .:� yrMrs.Stacey. - - - , . 5oxer'Pu�pies Al�C :3t;.; 3raTflry,Sylmar mate. field. $i5.'2:lb.'chi- 9317 Huston Rd:,Chatsworth Lake 13.Bouncing babies. 1•:,1..+;: If.pups hdoshua;25.267-9534 Has 13 dogs::pups$75 u P: 340-1662.. :!:•. P••.cu. Elaine Scholten 1-_.... ��..s. {{��..D[.11� : ?= C..s.t':a�diarll!HMIs 14500Psi't;Sylmar....:.. ...: tnl.TH - .ILK..PUPS ::• .•r ..t pups,S150 and up 18 dogs I{SHiKTi11%* tsr ih+Z 3::;., 32 dogs.for'sale:no,tax:S150-S175 each Ar-CC.' field.. 2; a:taw. :- T'. �i..era-.1233 These ads.are placed by breeders clubs and agencies. Members of.these clubs do not.advertise.but.5ell their animals through.tl:eircI bads . ' . tiC:+tr=•:SN ELCHOUND For Into SORZ01 CLUB OF. CAUFORNIA ) 3C,/NAureft-:JnN_SC14AAU-ZZ: - "-. �' *MASTIFF•Aaaolis:"AKC SM!ser. ' s r N E-Anac,atwn President �P.riwan.wnstn3mds 377 yTd7 Cat.D ot•S.C: ou, ,..cups.arerd info. vice..Free broc.•+ure, 71eJ8itk7M_a *.a Sue2st:'Pval.e.5ervlce Adv.- .. - _._.-.•-•• - 7a3•e6St T1S•2:3ti - 714rSLLS736: �`. - ... . ,. RNsR PUP A1C . C_:) -o•ate Sneealoo Ctup of S C.t .S;.r:OvED-.:n••raet na for a•... - ":QST: BE. O S. Z a:ss 6 stud service seam: .•.r. 6 !.tiers ro a,aase/rom!:. _.. ._ _,r!5iers In,a: 37i�1p, Tr=%am..-4d i4.n of.I A. PCs •.•,� •CEESNOND CLUa'OF S.G: Ra:tpn 3.Smootn. Dakota.%ennao':. : .e ir_ o. i1._r_ : Je:%)A :1.1 :593621 or7141726iSf: 03% S-a14SIZ EXAMPLE: : r 014`11_':IATiOP] CLUB OF SCIUTHERN:CALIFORNIA :.. Puppy:list:for:February 19731. °�La �N+:c:iiti ar.s,; rr. . • ::rrv:A!chtlr Mary.Elizn Rich.; 7807:the. Ave.;N.Hollywood 8500.ttoorciah Ave.,Canoga Park.. A DOBERMAN On:.cups AKC:wrx s.iN sus . to t :•:trri'fl]I sale - �•avail It.Dania.Kennel. 2 litters.for sale.;•. ..... >._. .. _ - - ;:e•efcs :. :.. Barbara:Ann..Rose:...' ..,. .. . .. : ; '.. ?fi i ;•: t,ut;San Bernardino 9942 La.Canado Way Sunland -'uvp,�_s anrf otderdogs for sale .3 litters.various ages.:..::.:. ft b'T CLEARANCEi ads ����AISUCH :� full TO OFF:- . - A:. = _.':, - �= IPT.0:t'dlfit3• _ t c......a::t:s i S4 C,"--YET CENTER c._'c: ,:... 28 o D _b;j:-. si.___s do cats 310: cs. --- All'Ragisierabla =;.1 Cr = S.PITS 845.0••60, "fY OLD TOWNE MALL :Perilan 3.N.maa4raa K:liens tla'b)ttwtrnme al.,Tarrant ---- r�ggggs s i?t•iSC+'ct+5-73 Pira. : Alai.:Maumutea Man. Sc.Snsucer. -� ��C.P[;p5.- AKC.PtiFpies=All Breeds. rM.E F .i.1 -I.S. c•. Pe�tsnaotr•:...... ...6taClss; bar. E,caouno-... . • z•:gam_- NOW.ON DISPLAY C)e•�aut.A! I: l.'Yets P!CC:.R s :G nushuss OY knpUSl'.: $E?►GL ES S7S Paodses,Jla,fne.Poms 0acr+shurWs. .Don's was+•.04.1.Cn,rc Murray 47,... erns :.• TOY:OX TERRLF.RS Ca+rns..:'Scalt.es. Aln, SCnnaureet � a--T,d'1•�lt.oly SaT.;G.Sui_:7t3atitt ers -.. P lack .. am. - .. J sae:[•�e 51i5 ScNoaerkes:..W:rr'.4lr !►rotes. xe•. snonas,::•.•hsr:'..ElineuryJt- Chows. SAiiO�LD.. uDSJ-�. :aduit: ons_._:_..: A::,�'Praorr...:- r 9 F ps tn�sts se ters:':;.... SL aern.rdis . . � '•. .:. ::::•�M a yi: RlCk:l MS1ear':erdi 'Oi::'-...- - - .. .;j-dra AU�osSlaO;up Ritr4 ria'. 3ia1r...Fz:Semasex.�+K Gxeeahe�aa Ssra►s�::._ L.zu and i►:t:et Enr:sa sneeroas,sr. aarnard:. _Stud serricr..e'a:3a2-2L _�- _ rex': _ j :;+ .•-- P - Germ:-5-arr'e•rs f •ri ?: -Hybrid.• Ore'.aa•ty 117:. S),:Il- sinkAmerleardiAsasUr Ch4r dl _ Go Cee iletr, " Sols J:!LIT� r : #�� .547.377 c.•_a:aTin:.s:Jas_:1s dei,.rJ.'`. uaraa:rs wesnes PUP?Y RANCH.PET CFNTER �� _._.y ]tofi LRasa.Aasos - w:rena•r Few Terra • OPEN SUN, II-4 P At: $:.^.r.^^d!2 F%ap:Reseda i7rAi Hawrrornei arid..Tarranca Open Sya.'Man.. tnuri.Fel.• 273rsR-Sm WI 't'r g ,fi V1iCS. ' rrre.8«Cora I 1/1 c1:f7za. 0� 1 Whitllifldt at GOD CENTER Ar SI•ML_5. :pup::._A C.. l - - sat ciao... :• d ,t:rvice ` Fr .:esue stud -t•f +.: 9.i :reef•Cease Cut. S _ - es.'and Dn. t. - nr.rt•.i.-IlERS:-.Put:tl! .....+.. .. --p c z z :z :z z r- m m 0 0 0 0 m > > o C:) c o = 3 r O 0 Z CL o 0 0 a ei tona cr 0 r3 0 > ci ri rp M 'n 00 a cn "j W N0 to x C-) co K) -W -W -C 0 00 f 0 (.0 -1 0 C) C� Z7. 'j W LD 0 m w N) m m "J C) (D C7 0 L-) -tt'- (D r.. Ln 0 0 LO N) W — to (D ED r- C, z CJ > Cn :3 0 N to K3 ci -n co CD C:)* C4 w LTI I :- I :- - - p P3 . p W tj m C= 0 --j m to C') 'j 'i " ca ca w C) to z- 0 :1 0 o C) — -j (D m m w m w w w Z = o o ro I w -4 ci Na -11 OD Ln 0 z DC0 CD w 0 w �j 0 0 cn= 0 j; CL m 0 C/) W m NJ C4 E; 0 a-Oo C r-% Lo (M C-- rm K3 0 w 0 (D -r� 0 m m 0 V A. w CA) 11 0 co m j m tj L43 ,j Ul M :M3 n > 3 m LO m 0 w W 'i cu z w to 00m m 0 w w w 0 w 'j N) Cl to cn 0 :3 0 CD LEM M — y tn :a _ Vo ti N ha 0.M cr C) c) m SL ;w o 0) is 0) -L'W m I En (D ED CA) 0 o c - cr :rwm N) C.0 I Cl) < C) C) -j cc) Lo -4 Lf) cA) En' 07= 0 0 0 3: 4 m 00 0 W 0 3 ' = * ' , CL §-;:;�2:.—< 9: :3. = L- cc - W ri " ==r 0 3210 Z7 rz to 0 F 0 CD zllK3 -A'. N3 ba .96 - CD -C) ci (1-1 cu 0 — 0 GSI : CL N3 :3 C:) 0 to 0 m m w " 'LA I I C, 0 rj m 0 0c. CA3 C) C:) %.I W -4 w w 0 w -4 w :Q -j �< w to, —=o 0 co :3 M rD < .Gq 61 V� 6q (1) 0 cp a :3 ri ro co 0 0 0 .6% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 3 La c4^ z eq = = = m = z m m = = V� = 6q -n c 5-- ro Ln Ln C-1 " CD En 0 0 0 0 6"7# m 0 0 0 --• 'D m m - Ln m o CL m ri c CM03 CO ci :3 C 0 cm 3 rj .1 C4 N top m =r r, to uI -6 w to w �. ri '0 a w 0 0 " co :q C CD 0 m m 0 w 0 m m w ? w CD - co Eg N CL =-a cn 0 3 m 0 V O M M cn M - 0 0 V o to o N m m 0 w h 0 a CD CL 0 C., 0 0 0 D. cn 3 3 0 0 0 Lo --I t-z w I'j C) 0 0 0 0 cn 0 A. C:) Lo 0 0 0 —�o 0 0 " 0 w = r- CZ Z = :3 co = Ul :3 � 0 - 'a 0 0 -,J C:D 0 m 0 0 0 rj CO ri w = tsi 0 C0013 0 CD ri U2 ra r :3 :3 :3 um ri *'00 to:',0 > 3 Z- 0 < C) t7l 01 co C-) (v :3 0 0 0 w o CD 0 :3 0 :3 :3 0 a o 0 0 0 o C.) Ic — 0 0, = cz CO CO co CL CO0 0cCO 0 o < CD rrml 0 c: CD -. ri (m r w 0 0 0 W I CD a 0 m 0 0 a :03 C) 0 o ("I o —U) o :3 co co co o = CL tj Lo D. .tu a, co 00 0 ri < =r CL co M) —r-Fr* C< 3 o Mn41, 0 X*- cn :�j to L" ,I cm b m M 0 >ri 0 0) co cn ca 0 bo W 0 0 NZ W M - " o w e 0 -t' 1 1 .42 ri = 0 c:> -'j. oR OR -j C) p. 'j C'R < " 0 'O 0 0 ro cn r) x 0 "t.. Ln C:) --j >b= � C) cn cn C. C' = �> j 0 C) CO co an cn 10 r �i az w C:) ro m Ln w un o cm 0 w o w m L" X ul c) (JI L" al co 'j to -'j to to CD LO W CO 0 0 '0 bi 0 -j 0 C-- c c 0 a o o m w 0 m L-1 a K) N ta in co 0 C4 :L L-1 Cl Ul o 0 v 0 o co C5 'S. ch co 0 w 0 C) V cc0 C) C m 0� C! CO w ti 0 w (5 to to 'h-- 0 w 0 0 0 C) 0 t 0 O z z z r r r r :c m m C7 n p D > cs < M 0 0 0 0 0 c s c > 0 CIL 0 = cr C 0 3 t! = m 0 -) X* = Om "- = m 3Z - O = - w 0 0- L-- 0 X* co =r a 3 CU 0 > G) IQ V14 Ln NJ I - . !�; A. V -+ al CIO fl.) UO cn co Cn to N3 00 -1 0 ED w co NJ W co -1 0 co C) 0) w PI) 0 N3 L- V M CO C� CO W Ln N3 w in 0 co w -+ c Ln to w w ED M w m co to -N 0 0 -A, 0 --j 0 0 m N) Nj 0 03 a) m m C.) Co CD W W P. - --J L) in Ull a M. W CI C- 14 :lj J P 91 CO W Ln co — Ili Lo: p Lo m con w to -N j G'1 CO -:4. to 03 r%3 3 ca 0 — r%) (0 -4 w m N m w to 0 0 0 V A m (0 -5. m " " I N3 a A w cz m m w N o w m m m m N w -4 .0, w A m m to 0 to 0 A tDm m N3 m y in m 4b. C) '(D j O w b. m 0 Ln w m m --j hi Ci N CA w to N m O m N -j to 4h, M M V in -4 A M W I- Un -i Q SA) NJ 0 0 o w 4�-- -co Em w co "1 0 Nw 03 — C) w 0 ca N I (" I M N) im fli CD M r-N N O W CM 0 M N CD CL CI in Ul LT, is CL Ul 00 0 Ab. —C) 0 ' 0 L, co 1 co 'o -4 0 LTI CL co (A oo 0 ED m C) w co -j co o. N)co in 0) t0 to -4 (0 (D to -,4 U-1 00 a. m to SA ul 69 fA -E0 69 fo? 64 EA in Q C47 V) EA EA 69 H3 EA en 13 w W -- = = 0 0 0 0 in 0 0 m ri -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 o- 4A fA f--ct n CD to to G fn (0 O D 60 (A. V A M -- 0 a n cD p '1 to m A to a r C) a) m (IS C4 0 0 C) cj W -A, 0 0 0 0 0 -r�. -03 LTI C) 0 L, — 44, cc (D 0 C, = w En Na 0 K) oo N) w C 0 CY) Z. to co O C) V Cri C/)0 ri 0 0 0 10 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 w 14 N) :3 co :) :3 = =3 :3 0 �4 Ln N3 to -j cn 0 N) 0 0 m m :-. in 0 0 co w co w C) 0 = .D — - =3 NJ c 0 0 0 cn 0 cn W NJ C) m C) co c o C) a o M Q al C) a) 0 0 C) C) 0 C) O4�- co 0 a) Ln W 4�6 CL 0 :3 C) CD CD a) 0 o o o CD M 0 Ln Li 0) N) S3 W 0 C) W t%3 0 CD M w K3 co o C> w 0 Ln L" o J CO w 0 -0 mr-- '.0 0) E0 Zi 0 lop, co to 0 ci .. I - 0 'n A Cl -Q Ic e C) cn m ri CIP. Ca 0 li Ul z 03 m (A) Un Co M Lo x x m 0 V Ul -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - co NI) cn C.1 m C) al (D C) 0 11, " m - 0 " C) (1-1 -t- -P, to to co " a 0) to (11 co co co -4 fl) (D 0 Co N V V Cj Ci A (D C:) to CO 0 w C> -i m 0 0 0 w w 0 w A — to 0 CO < CD 91 -n -a T �, r s j " c m a rp- p C D m O CL 'b 30 ri a, - O cr °' ... _ t N� N -� � � �' tit � � -{ C �• "< � O � tN 0 m . OZ 3 C O p G O G { d m n '1 d - tYl o p cn 0 N tit V ❑ {yj o J co W CSS J J 4 j� N -+ O A -+ N N (M -� M i -+ V -+ to 3 d t A N O O O < N O co .+ t" A CO N Us V -+ to O Cil Ln O W t v V =3 =� t: - J to to V Us a) O O v to t O V A U7 O V { W C-- al L7 O O V co ! W O O tb O W A C so ❑ cv tai ��' ,., yj � 'V -� N •••• -+ ^.+ W ( A -+ W N W N N tD i~J L7'^G ? J V W W C:s t'.3 A -+ �! A I to N W N C7 to rn W •-� _ 0 o ;: M -t G to d tD N O7 O N O m ( N O N N O N W Ca O J N CJs tis — N W O to O to i -+ V -� O O 0 M to to .s I ❑ D L7 cm , t7 � t i to o < V O V N -+ m A N 0 N --+ W !-j --� h7 W '� t0 -t O G O tNSs Ul 03 -J LTI m to m Q O to O O 00 OV A W Q O 67 M N N _ O❑ o CSS t77 O O W N O G7 co to m to -+ to CO O W C.1 Cw O W o c, V co co i I� ! J0 ! I I V coWri A O{7 C) o -��, amo w i f o i 0 co'77 ! ! 4 o rn ii o w o ❑ as C, rtj tt! A t31 co O tb tD Us v O to 0o to N r N = C• ❑ c g " C4 N O > o -0 t00 o v N i fi A I N m i t t w N ) Q n .,. to 3 'til .r ".t t J fi tz7 C t W to t I ! c7 Rn U7 isf -co ri V (S ! i o _ l .,i -i to t i I O V M W ❑ ,, n O sm N O to -+ O N V V O N to to V n w ri h C n C x ru - t b9 6A ifi FA ff! G O O t 7 O W C O O ( < = O N to tai N - W _ N •C C O u J eo i63 0 .a n 0 to ! ro m 69 fA f!� co toj fA ` � 3 "< O t77 v ( vs V ti A M I ' to -.. g w = � = CL ko o J I fi t _ tnp C N p tss t, O Er, O Co W A N -• - t�7 W W A i i :+ W -` -t C tyzt.1 M M A V W V `~fs7ntD O -+ V CO O ri V N Z V -+ V O -+ to O p m 7.rC A• D =d X G 7 O tC7 Z r 0 " 3x � � � � = m m ry cl M i I J J :30fu 00 oa3 O v O co N N N m t ! %n O O c O QN.n ti � L ^ O tO to O O O N Q A O is W O OV O co O( C ❑ cN 0 � � n � T Xa n. C : d` '^ tit W -a o > p O 7 O CO '� C G7 V V7 0 - � O t/1 4 O O O H W = O n c7 + p L W O n O O V i 0 O t O M O joy o 0 0 A c 3 = o n x =2 t7 ❑ < � 3n mm n C' _�.. N C• r�_ C t 7 N 00 :3p M .+ 1 � = rs' VP Icil, p O Cl O Us 1 t O ! O O 00 DCD M co O_ C N � '� N � C t �ty.•. 0 X C y M c n J { J J W t to y , N onr .Ow WLn N ! W ! O O N J 1 Q O h ? o o O O -' i N W o O to cnG CD L` _ 'S. [:j O t 3 x 0o " ! ! C) o i o j m o m v teas a m C 3 ! x \ G: x coo � y 0 G-'•' ry N A p j V O N -+ N V t71 to tis N -+ W Ui A -+ Q x O (i tsi W N W C) A J V Co V to V co V J m A •p C 3t3 tb -s O O Q V O i tn.. -+ Ln O Us til O -1 O U7 t,1 A O 3 C C -s N Ut O O O G7 co W O O o] O CD .O 00 N co o D c• r` c CC. M o 1 N In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California April 29 19 7 In the Matter of Complaint from Greenbrook Homes Association, Inc . , Danville, with respect to dog problems . Supervisor E. A. Linscheid having advised the Board that he had received a letter dated April 25, 1974 from Mr. Ken Smith, Manager, Greenbrook Homes Association, Inc ., in connection with the number and type of dogs being kept by a Greenbrook resident, Mr. S. Pierson Gould, 104 St. Charles Court, Danville, and the alleged problems caused by these animals; and On motion of Supervisor Linscheid, seconded by Supervisor J. P. Kenny, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid matter is REFERRED to the County Agricultural Commissioner for evaluation and report. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote : AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: Supervisor W. N. Boggess . I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc• Greenbrook Homes Association Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Attn: Mr. Smith Supervisors Agricultural Commissioner affixed this 29thday of April ' 19 74 County AdministratorJAMES R. O�I;SSO�N�, County, Z k By l ja,&,_� Deputy Clerk Charleen K. Travers H24 7/72-15M (4- 0 C�repn6rnn i nmrn �ssnriulinct. hir. 300 GREEN13ROOK DRIVE DANVILLE. CALIFORNIA 94526 AREA COO[ 415 837-3024 RECEIVED pril 25, 1974 Supervisor Edmund A. Linscheid 1974 45 Civic Avenue J. R. OLSSON Pittsburg, Ca. 94565 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CQNiRAS A CO. Deputy Dear Mr. Linscheid: This is a request for assistance in solving a problem involving control of dogs which has now dragged on for several months. The problem centers upon the keeping of a number of German Shepherd dogs by a Greenbrook resident, Mr. S. Pierson Gould. at his residence at 104 St. Charles Court, Danville. As evidenced in the enclosed petitions and state- ments, these dogs constitute a nuisance and hazard to the neighborhood. As early as October, 1973, Mr. Gould was notified by the Association that kennel operations were not permissible in Greenbrook. At that time he assured the Association that the dogs would be removed as expeditiously as possible. The number of dogs was subseauently reduced, however several still remain on the premises. In January of this year five families residing on St. Charles Court filed a petition of complaint with the Association, a copy of which is enclosed. This complaint was forwarded for action to the County Sheriff, who in turn forwarded the complaint to Charlie Crill of Animal Control. Animal Control reported that surveilance had been made of St. Charles Court with no dogs found to be at large, and promised to talk to Mr. Gould about being a good neighbor. Copies of the latest complaints from residents of St. Charles Court, dated April 22 and 23, 1974, are enclosed. Mr. Gould has listed his resi- dence for sale, but after about four months has not found a buyer, report- edly due to difficulty encountered in showing the property with the dogs present. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions bearing upon Mr. Gouldts property, which are enforceable by the Association, do not clearly apply to the case as it presently exists. Thus, the Association is in a position of being able to do little or nothing to alleviate the situation. Since it appears that there is a definite nuisance and a potentially serious hazard involved, any help you may be able to give in abating the situation will be very highly appreciated. incerely, Ken Smith Manager Enc. (3) cc: Animal Control Complainants April 239 1974 Board of Directors Greenbrook Homeowners Association, Inc. . 100 Greenbrook Drive Danville, California, 94526 Dear Sirs: For the second time since January 9th, 1974, we the undersigned residents of St. Charles Court wish to file a formal complaint against 1,1r. and VWs. Pierce Gould , 104 St. Charles Court, because we feel their dogs constitute a public nuisance and a threat to our safety for all of the reasons stated in our previous cozmlaint (see attached ). Sini::e JaDuary 9th the dogs have been sighted on numerous occasions wandering freely (without leash) on our court both with and without owners. They have also on numerous occasions engaged in very vicious soundin4 fights with other dogs while many youngsters were in the area _playing. it is our belief that any dog which can fight viciously could possibly turn on a human and do irrepairable damage. The attached letter is an example of what we feel could be a most serious threat to each of us. Again we state that we feel that these dogs should be R29017"ED BEFORE someone suffers bodily harm as opposed to waiting until�r some- one does. Until these dogs are IREMOVIRD from the premises, we feel that not only can we and our ohiMr-ennot enjoy our court and our park., but also, we cannot feel safe in our own front yards. Sincerely yours, arm YAM• i �v 904. Mr. and Mrs. Jas. Smith Mr. and Airs. Thos. Halter IT. and firs. Glen Gregory Mr. and Mrs. Dan DenOuden t Mr. and Mrs. George Stevenson Yx. and Mrs. M. Chimenti Eno. 2 April 22, 1974 To 'I hom It ?by Concern: On Sunday, April 21st, I was sitting in the middle of my own front lawn. My husband was working in thg front yard also. Suddenly I was "charged" by : ne of the neighbozs many German Shepherd dogs. The dogs belong to Pierce Gould. The a;:tacking .dog came darting out of the Gould's front door with a wild look as if it were looking for someone to attack. The dog charged straight at me with hair raised, lips drawn back, fangs bared, and snarling fiercely. • The dog. c-me within inches of striking and had it not been for Pierce Gould's shouting, I believe I would have been severely injured. I was terribly scared and frightened and after twenty- four hours have not completely calmed down.. During a conversation following this bad incident, M. Gould was quoted as saying, "I'm not suxe what the results would :sate been if I lad not been there 4o call off the dog." The mere presence of these "attack dogs", as labeled b- their owner, on this court nosas a severe threat to the local residente. These dogs 'tialTa b'-'GLI ai the 'lyse on numerous occasions and even at times when the owners of the dogs are present, they run uncontrolled. We certainly think it ie ridiculous and unforgivable to believe that someone has to be maimed or even killed before something can be done about this situation. With the number of youngsters that play up and down the court, it is a wonder that none has been mauled by one of these vicious sounding dogs. Diana DenOuden 3a ' t ,t • n'Gf - 1 •r- '.to -f n't-�•`ss - - +,L� - r.", L• "��•'• "fit' ��. - a %f A! �:nri�_..,-._...:_.�:-. ,.•:.,:�;'.<_� �'>:.: :(:.r..a '•sem-r.a ...r •a •-r vim, ,':s:�•� �•:� r•• i.` '•rF•'_ ,`li 'Ii thy.: .��r;`{r •.s rY ='aF. 4.� •'r'�..:yam,-„ _ _ - _ 's :.l:i_.r f. kfir. ='w r'tr�•- - `•6 r..���' moi;:,,a' ri•,, - - - 'ei - y :... .., r._. .. :u. .,...,::..... ._ ..� air ":,..:i—� - •,51:',.:.: 1. - . - z Sk. - i- 71•-fin. � :..; � r i.. c - .. ,:-.�...:,-c,_.:•,..�a_�_.:.. •. - w M ': '`.'i°'. :a, .r.�a�^,r: =i�� %s=:i..•�-r.��F d:'':` .a„^?'c:::r� •;.�,;- _ :_,; - •':tom ..:�:.::: _ _� �:3,. �� i�Inc� >5 :� .�.. .,,, �� :•�: a3..:i-UOQ '• ' - - - ......._. , .,�. 1.. ._ ...� .. r•.:'�:... •,:•- - ':iJit': i,:i':ry:r - - 4�f•4�.'• w.T. wi...-F',7 .. r-' �+::�:� •�5• tom. t,; f:c' .�,:a - •':`�;• is it -�• 1 .:•:.E?'`.::, I _. ..,. ... . ...... . ...:. m ....,•>:.•r��.::'::' - - - - „ice - •,::/t��•:r;)'�t'Y::.r�a��--�>y•r�='�., , �f t _ _•� .ar: .M1. 2 ally ,r ...... ...... �>c:. - - .Q'L'-'''fir•:•. 'Y.; 1:'r ,'1��' .4,.. .p;` s �ry ,•.1 '.,t`;;, .... .. ...,?,�•,ry:�+:.:.•.t:.•...,,_ .:'- ::. •�,.:�.. _ n, .fl3a3ct �.cc...u,:•e: .rQ:�:� �:�� ;:: „� J:�� �- .,:��:::; �-:,.'�•,�:='� ��"r� Cir C� n.. -,:'•� ''J •�.4 ;*s. `;;;�' `�,:..- •q:_. •ula4.. i, �,4.�'V.yr._:�';':'?._.,.}13:.Ci:= - "� 4�..114:`ti; ..t:- .. .... ...• •...- ....._ �-: .:�:'•':. - x:51:. :a r. ,t• a, _ tti R 1roc - , Q ic . ri ..r`= la ! y- t-- - ,4 r a' a br _ a - - - _. . . r Ly+:Lb.ai... z • r - i.��.� -i r dis. ` �.' v'.:.X13. '�.. .� . _., . .. ... . _:._... � . _.. . . .., _.:. Vivi • r� Y1Q �OErCt' r�. - c coo. }. O _ ... ..:.....�..�� -����1-,..mow�:�•:�:� - - - �, �:. �r-';I'll •.�1'�':Z::�:'�T10 "�= ";fA:,�°°::` -!. ,b. :c ] .F^ tel• - r r� .l Y:- �C Cr C3 -u.r. - . _:_.`_:�.._... ... _ . :.___ •seta. - . -. . .. .,. r _ . �>r f. u �...� .. _ .043 .R: r ca,4:�40 .,r.,,.. i'O .._. � . 1 ron=cin �a" .;�. . ._. � _.•...�,-.,. ..Y -coin OUr ha . ,.,:. ...._. �, � , nom• :: � _ - o. - u.in ........ .,...,.fir-.. _ . .: .. _. Q `. � of .or 'bide.r y, d0rdt �o `r +- siiz c -�e -o - - - ur i.y.r. •]r 4 •r�'u .s - �).,,� �• : }.. r- -►sir`` Y.� �:. .. .,. .,... ..., r.. ..... ,., ,a/. .S.y «., .. ..'.. - - h r,l�::::: :,;�..__: .•,,,-a rout,+'(• - _ t -V y a 'T•.. a -� lvri, ;G- .. regor9 tom_ ... ::.;... ' ♦..,.err:+_.1.... �4 {CJ - _��.a,- Y � r• � •y. �. . _ .. .. -.,.... ...... _.�....,..._ -..•, . .4.. ... .: - ...-f:: - - Y:iia. �• s. - :8r of - An, .tyesr,. •>r ,�,_... �.-. .:�`- ...� „ :,•..a. ?. `Z..:,:.:-,_:t r� :4. +N� F�1 ,.},., ter -�•J.'A'J,., .. ...,.s_�/.. .:.�:r '-3�+J^�•rr:Y'�:.e.'a,-.-a.�.,�'.F<=+tsi:�;:;...._�%'t�.c;S•:',a�.;.Yi�.'a.4L:.�f.t•.•i'e4��'*, Ap it 22, 1974 2168 LaMirada Richmond, California 94803 RECEIVED mr. Arthur L. Seely Agricultural Commissioner APR.241974 Contra Costa County 1611 John Glenn Drive I a our Concord, California CL= WARD of SU XV40pA Lh&tDear Mr. Seelyi We wish to bring to your attention some inaeurrate in- formation about ourselves which is in the Animal Control records. This information must be immediately removed from the Animal Control records to prevent any further libel, slander and defamation of our character. Attaci:ed is a copy of Mr. Ted Brasier's description of the sh:soting of our pet dog which Fir. R.B. Danielson sent to Supervisor Dias. A copy of this report was also made available to Assemblyman Knox and Senator Nejedly. Accompanying 11r. Brasier's description was some "Addition- al Facts and Background" which contains information which is not correct, Under item No. 6 it was stated .that "August 24, 1972, one of our officers investigated a problem regarding a German Shorthair type dog running at large on Greenridge, iiay Road and Dam Road. This dog, owned by Mr. Kamienski, hung itself trying to leap a fence with a chain attached. This dog was unlicensed". The report concluded by saying s'It is quite evident that the Kamienskis are allowing their dog to run at large and failing to license in viola- tion of the County Ordinance." This information is incorrect for the following reasons: 1. Our German Shorthair type dog was not alive on August 24, 1972, andtherefore it would have been imposible for one of your officers to investigate a problem regarding our German Shorthair type dog running at large.We have several witnesses who can testify to the fact that our dog was not alive on August 24, 1972. 2. le never allowed our German Shorthair type of dog or any other dog we ever owned to ever "run at large". We don't know how your office arrived at the conclusion that we allow our dogs to run at large, lide have lived in Cali- fornia for 4�5 years and have always owned two dogs. Bever -t- in this 41_s year period were we ever cited by the Animal Control for any dog offense. It is our opinion that your , concluding statAment was included in the report to discre- dit us as responsible dog owners which we are not. In an April 17 conversion with K.E. Danielson, I in- formed him of the inaccurate information contained in the Anima,. Control records and that we could prove this in- formation •rr=as incorrect. He stated that because the infor- mation was contained in the Animal Control records it Must be correct. I repeatedly tried to tell him that the infor- mation was incorrect because our dog was dead on this date. He further stated that the August 24, 1972 date was irre- levant-hiS point being that our dog was at large. I was , unable to get the point across to him that our dog was dead on August 24, 1972. He refused to take any action on our complaint. I also informed him that prior to March 10 1974 we have never been cited for a dog qt large violation. I also asked him to remove this information from the Ani- mal Control files. He said he didn't 1mow anything about this. We know that the District'Attorneyrs office has this information in his files and that he said were were pre- viously cited for dog at large. The District Attorneyls office attempted to use this information against us in our recent court of law appearance when he represented Mr. Brasier. The District Attorney's attempt to use this infor= ration against us almost resulted in a :035.00 fine. We have a witness who accompanied us in court who can testify that the District Attorney's office tried to use this evi- dence against us. Rrs. Mary Lumsden of the SPCA is also aware that this information is in my file. She mentioned this information to sirs Carol Strauss in their April 22 telephone conversa- tion. Because this incorrect information is in the Animal Cont_.,ol files, :re request that you consider the following course of action: 1. Furnish us with a copy of the report in the Animal Control files regarding the charges of dog at large on the German Shorthair type of dog. 2. remove this information from the Animal Control re- cords and not use this information against us in the fu- ture. 3, Notify Assemblyman John T. Knox and Senator Nejedly that the information regarding the German Shorthair type of dog is incorrect. I� . If the Animal Control refuses to remove this infor- mation from their records, then by copy of this letter, we request a meeting with Supervisor Dias and the Animal Con- trol to refute these chrges. We would like to know what action you intend to pur- sue regarding our complaint. Please let us know at your earliest convenience. Sin.cerelyo Francis and Patricia Kamienski cc: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Supervisor Al Dias Charlie G. Grill Edgar Vovsi-Pinole City Council K. E. Danielson Michael Phelan-Chief District Attorney March 8. 1974 Vervisor Alfred Dias X. E. Dmniol:on .4s3istant Agricultural Commissioner — Sealer Gres franc Kamion:.k:L� 216$ LOMO S day Riaftond ( Yo mend of a'� a is 197�r � s On 1FMrch 1, 1974 after receiving; a call from your accrotary I called 1:r. tL'enienski and, eftor hcLrinko; his aido of the dow hoat:UZ incident, I requoeed reports fx= our 1.„� Control Supervisor and the Animal. Control Officer involved. ' Our records shoir that Off icer Dracier :tens patrollin; the oa of San Pablo Dam ;toad and Croonrid o Drive %.-bon he obsorvod . a do chasing a colt in the pay ure. As the officer wal':-1 toward tho paw varo to attempt to Impound the dogs it ran up the hill. Officer Brazier drove up Greearid,e Drive to Upland Drive aVA got OUM of hic truck and tiu3 dog, a GoldenLabr._dor, i= ayLin chasing a horso. Rather than risk the chance of the dog injuring the horse the dog t:as dispwtchodg using a eingte shot from a .22 caliber Jtt this timer i.r3* iLauionski arrived at the scene and atat6d her dog i-m3 loose and not to shoot it. The officer advised her that ho had just shot a Goldon Labrador chasing horses and rec:uested 21amionalki to rennin of the scene to identify the do:,-,; ho.wxor, she deeliadd to identify the dog, but stated she had no liccnso and there wan an identifica-tion tag on tho dog. The officer went to where the dog ms lying, came back and decc+ibod tho dop; to Rrs. Karmen a1:i and she accopted a cotxt ca.twtion icaod for "Anicul at Large°p a violation of Soction 416-,4.11.02 of tho County Ordinance Coda. The officer than brought •tha dog to the Animal Control truck and rcAved a rod leathor collar :.-ith an identification tag stamped# Prank Kamienski, 216.; LWErada, Ricbmond, 223-2600, ADDITIOTTAL FACTS AID BAC PG:OMM 1. Stivar door Ron 'Mon on :;arch 6, 1974,9 accomaniad Officer Brazier to roviou the site where the com ouas shot and daternired that the pasture in open hMaide and theme :ma no danger in using fir©arm at thin location and in j icor Alfrod Dias the direction fired. The pasture as far an can be determined, is in the unincorporated aroa. (California Agricultural Code, Section 31101 permits tho killin, of any dog "actually c_ut?it in the act or uvar_ _ inr-, wounding, chsaint-, or killing any livostock or you try" (cnsphas u cd) t:hothor in corporate limits of a city or unincorporated arses. ) 2. Thrre have been numerous problems of dogs chasing livestock in the area. 3. Tho Kanienski residence is appro.-dmately one block from the pasture v hero the dog iras shot. 4. Officer Brasier vias at the seen 10 — 15 minutes attempting to inpoundiand/or shoot the dog. 5. The court 4ppocrence date for the citation issued 1x9. Kamieasu is I:arch 19, 1974• 6, AuSust 24, 19729 one ok our officers investigated a problem remrdinG a German 5horthair typo dog running at large on O senri3ge, May Road, and Dam road. This do G, ovmted by ' Er. K=ienaki, hung itself trying to leap a fence truth a cizain attached. This dog bras also unlicensed. it is quite evident that the Kanienskis are allovrLug their cog to run at large and failing to license in violation of the Couaty Ordinance. D/ac In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California April 16 19 In the Matter of Letter from Richmond resident regarding animal control regulations . The Board having received a letter dated March 30, 1974 from Ms . Virginia Madruga, 5103 Clinton Avenue, Richmond, California, 94805, requesting information with respect to animal control regulations; On motion of Supervisor W. N. Boggess, seconded by Super- visor J. P. Kenny, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid matter is REFERRED to the County Agricultural Commissioner for response. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote : ASS: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. A R,SENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of on order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc • Ms . Madruga Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of County Agricultural Supervisors Commissioner affixed this_lAt:hday of April . 19 -7j� County AdministratorJAMES R. OLSSON, County CZle ,, BDeputyClerk Charleen K. Travers H 24 7/72-15M yM � a RECEIVED A — 1974 opi aA - April 24,; 1974 LREEIVED 2 51974 J. R. OLSSOtj Ms, Virginia Madrug8 D OF SUUPERVISORS 5103 Clinton Avenue j %9STa co. Richmond. California 94905 .De °. Dear Ms. Madrugas The Board of Supervisors on April 16p 1974 referred your letter of March 30, 1974 to me for reply. I am enclosing a copy of your letter and numbering portions of it to correspond with my answers. 1. There are loose dogs in almost every neighborhood in Contra Costa County, but most of them are owned and not "strap". 2. The Special Animal Control Review Committee is considering recommending to the Board of Super- visors that a true "leash law" be enacted* merely passing a law will nat eliminate the loose dog problem. Such a law would remove any vague. ness when question of a violation came up. Such a law would need vigorous enforcement by Animal Control (more men) and by the courts. Enacting a law does not mean everyone will comply and strong enforcement measures must be available to help make people want to comply. 3. As noted in the next paragraph a "leash law" does not stop people from pegltting their doge to void. themselves on a lam, etc. even though the doge are on a leash. Ma. Virginia ria a —2— 4/24/74 4. Section 374(b) of the California Penal Code may cover this problem, but the person witnessing the violation would probably have to sign a formal complaint with your City Attorney. Such it law (curb law) is extremely difficult to enforce and/or gain compliance. If you have any further questions# please feel free to call see Sincerely yourst Arthur L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner— Sealer Weights & Measures ALS/ac once cc: Clerk of the Board r x =-f r•--�' .tom °- � �: C.''�''7�''.rc.�-�� - IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS .' OF , CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Authorizing ) County Agricultural Commissioner ) To Provide Predator Control ) April 2, 1974 Services . ): Supervisor E. A. Linscheid having 'advised the Board that he had received from citizens a 'number of complaints and appeals for assistance with respect to depredation of- livestock by. predatory -animals, particularly in the eastern area of the county; and Supervisor Linscheid having further advised that he had discussed the matter with Mr. A. L. Seeley, County Agricultural Commissioner,` and Mr. Seeley had indicated that one of his staff could be trained as a trapper; and The Board having called upon Mr. Seeley to comment and Mr. Seeley having reported that the State Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Services, had indicated its willingness to provide training in trapper services for an animal control 'employee at no cost to the county, -and Mr. Seeley having stated that. there would be an expenditure of approximately $150 required for initial equipment_ and that said employee could be utilized in predator control_work as required (approximately one month each year); and Supervisor A. M. Dias having inquired as to whether trapper services by the county employee were to be provided for a specific length of time, and 1r. . Seeley having responded that it ., .Should be an ongoing, yearly activity; and The Board having discussed the matter; On motion of Supervisor Dias., seconded by Supervisor Linscheid, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the County Agricultural Commissioner is AUTHORIZED to train and utilize one of his weea and vertebrate pest control personnel in predator 'control activities for proven livestock predations. IT IS 'FURTHER ORDERED that the overall matter of predator control problems is REFERRED to the Special Animal Control Review. Committee. The-foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: . Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J. El. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT:. None. cc: Special Animal Control 7 r+rr Mnr Uhl by 1 roi ttac f_- correct copy of Review COmmlttee ?c1► n'Sir•.i i.. :•?? me in my otrice. a:?.i f h..i.ii l.:ca *wz xr-ti'r. 'a-_ctI the L'ncrd of County Agricultural Commissioner" �:: ., . ,o.- cr C�:. r�,la {:aty:ay, caa'o ::=-a, on Ccerk r ex•off.'Oo Cicrk of said Board.of Supervisors. b�De ni. C:ark. _ on ���- - In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California March 25 , 197-4- In the Matter of Requesting Agricultural Commissioner to report on conditions at the Animal Control Center. Supervisor W. N. Boggess having noted that he had received a complaint from Mrs. Arlene Spurrier, 1627 Humphrey Drive, Concord, 94518, regarding the length of time that cats are held at the Animal Control Center before being destroyed and requesting an explanation concerning said matter; and Supervisor Boggess having recommended that Mr. A. L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner, appear before the Board on April 2, 1974 at 11:20 a.m. to report on the existing conditions at said center; On motion of Supervisor Boggess , seconded by Supervisor E. A. Linscheid , IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid recommendation is APPROVED. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P . Kenny, A. M. Dias, W. N. Boggess , E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: None . I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc : Agricultural Commissioner Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of County Administrator Supervisors affixed this 25th day of March , 1974 JAMES R. OLSSZlun ty l, By tDeputy Clerk Charleen K. Travers H 24 5/73-15M fONTRA COSTA COUNT A. L. SEELEY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL COMMI_9fOfiER /'�' _ .�•} 161 JOHN GLENN DRIVE SEALER WEIGHT:. Ar+0 MEASURES �.+'�^"' �-= t �•I BUCHANAN AIRPORT Kt E. DANIELSON CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 94520 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER r �\" •�^�'�LL�I ASSISTANT SEALER �• -7- / 682.7550 Coil% / BRANCH OFFICES 100.37TH ST.. RICHMOND 94805 1420 HIGHWAY 4, BRENTWOOD 94513 233.7060, EAT. 3255 634-7518 March 19, 1974 Mr. E. A. Taliaferro 1949 Pullman Street San Pablo, California 94$06 Dear Mr. Taliaferro: Thank you for your letter of February 22, 1974 regarding the dogs at 2607 Standard Avenue, San Pablo. The Board of Supervisors referred your letter to our department and to the County Health Officer on March 5, 1974. As it is county policy for the department named first in the Board Order to prepare the reply, we are providing you with the following information. Animal Control Officers attempted to contact Mr. Sabec, who resides at the Standard Avenue address, on March 3, b, 10, and 12, 1974• Our records indicate that Mr. Sabec owns one dog, a Doberman Pinscher with 1974 Contra Costa County license Number 6336. There were no observations of violations during the visits by the Animal Control Officers. Although Animal Control does not enforce sanitation pro- cedures, the investigating officer did comment that the area of the residence appeared clean. Results of the investigation conducted by staff members of the Health Department are stated as follows: "This department made a field investigation on February 25, 1974 of the subject named property. The two dogs were being kept in a clean and sanitary manner at the time of our inspection. Subsequent inspections indicated the same condition, with no public health nuisance being created. !-JIV.ED MARX 1974 J. R C F SU RV FOR YOUR INFORMATION 4 • • Mr. E. A. Taliaferro —2— March 19, 1974 "Mr. Taliaferro, owner of the property, was notified of our findings." If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact our office. Sincerely yours, Arthur L. Seeley Agricultural Commissioner Sealer Weights & Measures ALS/nw , cc: County Health Officer County Administrator Clerk of the Board of Supervisors I In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California Marc h 19 197l— In the Matter of Letter from Walnut Creek Resident Registering a Complaint Regarding Cats . Supervisor J. E. Moriarty having received a complaint from Mr. Jack Au France, 1012 Hacienda Drive, Walnut Creek, California, 94596, regarding the number of cats kept by a neighbor at 1006 Hacienda Drive, Walnut Creek; On motion of Supervisor W. N. Boggess, seconded by Super- visor A. M. Dias , IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that said complaint is REFERRED to the District Attorney. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote : AYES: Supervisor J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, W. N. Boggess , J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: Supervisor E. A. Linscheid . I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc • District Attorney Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of County Administrator Supervisors affixed this 19th day of March , 19 _74 JAMES R. OLSSON, ounty CI ■ By '`f'� -z �� Deputy Clerk Charleen K. Travers H 24 7/72-15M i In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California March 12 19 74 In the Matter of Use of Animal Control Regulations in 3rd and 4th Grade Classrooms . Supervisor A. M. Dias having advised the Board that he had received a suggestion from teachers of third and fourth grade students that inasmuch as many pet owners are children, it might be desirable if a summary of the County Animal Control Regulations, geared to the comprehension level of young students, were made available for use in classrooms ; and Supervisor Dias having further advised that in his opinion the suggestion had merit, and having recommended that it be referred to the Animal Control Review Committee -for consideration; On motion of Supervisor Dias , seconded by Supervisor J . P. Kenny, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid recom- mendation is APPROVED. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote : AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias , W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None . ABSENT: None I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc • Animal Control Committee Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of . County Administrator Supervisors County Agricultural affixed this 12th day of March , 19 74 Commissioner JAMES R. OLSSSON, Counn erk ' By ,C 'q , Deputy Clerk Charleen K. Travers H 24 7/72-15M 0 In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California March 5 19 Z¢ In the Matter of Letter from Mr. E. A. Taliaferro Registering a Complaint About Dogs, San Pablo Area. The Board having received a letter from Mr. E. A. Taliaferro, San Pablo, registering a complaint about dogs housed in or near an apartment at 2607 Standard Avenue, San Pablo; On motion of Supervisor J. P. Kenny, seconded by Supervisor A. M. Dias, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that said complaint is REFERRED to the County Agricultural Commissioner and the County Health Officer. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, 1-1. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid., J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc• County Agricultural Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Commissioner Supervisors County Health Officer affixed this—_5th day of March , 19 74 County Administrator JAMES R. OLSSiiON`�,"" County Clerk By Deputy Clerk Helen C. Marshall H 24 5/73-15M E. A. TALIAFERRO 1949 Pullman Street San Pablo, CA 94806 234-4310 FEBRUARY 22 , 1974 RECEIVED Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County FE -9 74 County Building Martinez, California 94553 c soJ.R. OF UPE2VI;ORS TRA STA CO. Dear Sirs: s . ...._. ... Deputy I know a person living at 2607 Standard Avenue , San Pablo, California and his neighbors report that he has several dogs housed in or near his apartment which enimates foul odors. They complaint that the San Pablo Police Department do nothing about it and that the Health Department of Contra Costa County do nothing about it. Is there nothing can be done about it? Further, it has been reported to me that these dogs -are biting dogs and Mr. Sabec is reported to have commanded the dog to bite people on various occasions. Respectfully, E. A. TALIAFERRO-jlw EAT:j lw cc; Health Department 100 37th Street County Bldg. Richmond, CA San Pablo Police Dept. City Hall 2021 Market Avenue San Pablo, CA 94806 CA- fONTILA COSTA COUNA A. L. SEELEY �• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE •• �-. AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER •. !�:' 161 JOHN GLENN DRIVE SEALER WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BUCHANAN AIRPORT K. E. DANIELSON CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 04620 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER 682-7380 ASSISTANT SCALER ra`coiin 'I BRANCH OFFICES 100-37TH ST.. RICHMOND 94605 1420 HIGHWAY 4.BRENTWOOD 04819 233.7000. EXT. 3235 SS4.3518 January 159 1974 RECEIVED a- VV%- A;L. Dr. and Mrs. Russell Schulze: JAN 171974 12 Camino Encinas 1e. oLSSON Orinda, California 94563 °llX "W oOF SU TA,co SONS Dear Dr. and Mrs. Schulze: Your letter of January 3, 1974 addressed to the Board of Supervisors has been referred to me for reply. For ease of reference, I am enclosing a copy of your letter, numbering specific statements for which I am replying. 1. My staff has informed me that your 12 year old daughter had been notified by the Animal Control Officer that the dogs had been impounded at 4:31 p.m. on December 3, 1973• The clerical staff sent a Notice of Impoundment on the same date, December 31 1973. 2. There had been prior impounds noted on your records, therefore, a $12 impound fee was charged for each dog, in addition to the board fees due for the present impoundment. A license notice was also given at that time (December 4, 1973) on the 4-j month old puppy. 3. I was informed that the staff did not recall any unusual circumstances occurring at the time the dogs were reclaimed. 4. The officers involved in picking up the puppy were on their way to another call and recalled the puppy was picked up about 100 yards across the street from your house. Your statement at that time, according to the officers, was that your dog regularly went to the neighbors' because the neighbors liked it and gave it a daily ration of goodies. 5. Although the County Animal Control Ordinance is not a "leash" law, it does not differentiate between a violation no matter where it occurs. Dr. and Mrs. Russell Schulze: -2- January 15, 1974 6. It is well Down that a "watch" dog is not a protector of the owner's property unless the dog is restricted to an enclosure within that property or otherwise confined to the property it is to guard. 7. Any animal observed in violation of the ordinance is a "problem" animal at the time of observance. I hope that above information will help to clarify our position in regard to enforcement of the County Animal Control Ordinance, as well as other rules and regulations as required. If you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely yours, Arthur L. Seele Agricultural Commissioner Sealer Weights & Measures ALS/nw enclosure cc: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County Administrator c ' RUSSELL SCHULZE, M. D. 12 CAMINO ENCINAB •� 1. :� t ; ORINDA. CALIF. 94869 JAN .7 ..I'. f January 3. 1971 Alfred Dlas, Supervisor 4300 Garden Road L1 sobrnnte, California Dear Sirs /-On the 3rd. of Doccmber, 1973, our two doga u:nre rielterl up by the pound, at the neighbors house. After upending several hours look- ing for them, it was suggested that I call the pound for inforry tlen. It was after 430 p.m. before I was finally advised that the dogn hr:d been picked up, and it wns then too late for urs to pick them up. 4 d-The following day my two daughters, ages; 16 and 12 ynars, cnt to the pound to pick them up. They had to pay a fins: of -; 27.00 to IN-A l them out, due to the fact that a previous dog that we Vaned had bean picked up.O-It is my understanding; that the atmosphere at the pound versa a very belligerent one. #x1,The next morning I took my puppy out to go across the street to check the neighbors house, as they were away. As I was wniking I heard my telephone ring, I told the doff; to wait and I ran into the house to answer the telephone. When I came out and called the puppy, I couldn't find him. Thcn I saw the pound truck uu the street. Sure enough, they had picked up the puppy, right in the front of my house. I tried to ex- plain to the poundman and his supervisor what had happened , but there was no cooperation. Instead the supervisor said they would release the dog, if I would accept a citation, which I did, v4-C--The leash law was; implemented to solve abuses and protect prop- erty, and not to be used with undiscriminate power. If my taxes nre be- ing used to provide a salary for two men, one a supervisor, on a nviet street in Orindn where not even a school bur, comes around , then our priorities are definitely wrong. When every other house on our street has been burglarized it seems incredible to waste our. money And manpower In destroying the qualitybof life in our county. .9461-The only protection I feel tre hnve is a good watch do{, :end we cant even have that. It is a pretty sad state of affairs. I have talked with different people during this holiday period and hnd the opportunity of discusning this problem with them. I found th-Pt the animal control "service" has created a tremendous amount of sninority and bitterness, at least in Orinda.??=It is one thin; to eliminate prob- lem animals and another to look for and create problems in an area of the county, where to maintain a semblance of peace and serenity is becoming increasingly difficult. My appearance in Court in Martinez is scheduled for the 9th. of January, 1974 at 1130 p.m. I am going to tell the Judge or Referee the same thing I've just written to you. Sincerely, firs. Fimi Schulze and Dr. Russell Schuss eoi James rloriarity, Supervisor Chase Crill. Director Animal Control Center 6 . In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California Janu ary 8 i9 77 In the Matter of Complaint from Orinda residents with respect to practices of Animal Control Division. Supervisor A. M. Dias having brought to the attention of the Board a letter from Dr. and Mrs. Russell Schulze, 12 Camino Encinas, Orinda, California advising of a situation which recently took place involving their dogs and the officers of the County Animal Control Division, and registering a complaint about the practices employed; and On motion of Supervisor J. E. Moriarty, seconded by Supervisor W. N. Boggess, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that this matter is REFERRED to the County Agricultural Commissioner. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, J. E. Moriarty, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, A. M. Dias. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Supervisors cc : Dr. and Mrs . Schulze affixed this 8th day of January , 1974 Agricultural CommissID29 R. Oi.SSON, County l�er%' County Administrator By �' L(Y-u(A _ / r —vim% Deputy Clerk Charleen K. Travers H 24 5/73-15M C� RUSSELL SCHULZE, M. D. S� ` ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY 3023 VALE ROAD l RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA Januar Os 1 4 y 3. 97 .� V I JAN g 1974 Alfred Dias, Supervisor 4300 Garden Road J. ' up El Sobrante, California OF summa 8 ;. Dear Sir: On the 3rd. of December, 1973, our two dogs were picked up by the pound, at the neighbors house. After spending several hours look- ing for them, it was suggested that I call the pound for information. It was after 4:30 p.m. before I was finally advised that the dogs had been picked up, and it was then too late for us to pick them up. The following day my two daughters, ages 16 and 12 years, went to the pound to pick them up. They had to pay a fine of x;27.00 to bail them out, due to the fact that a previous dog that we owned had been picked up. It is my understanding that the atmosphere at the pound was a very belligerent one. The next morning I took my puppy out to go across the street to check the neighbors house, as they were away. As I was walking I heard my telephone ring, I told the dog to wait and I ran into the house to answer the telephone. When I came out and called the puppy, I couldn' t find him. Then I saw the pound truck up the street. Sure enough, they had picked up the puppy, right in the front of my house. I tried to ex- plain to the poundman and his supervisor what had happened, but there was no cooperation. Instead the supervisor said they would release the dog, if I would accept a citation, which I did. The leash law was implemented to solve abuses and protect prop- erty, and not to be used with undiscriminate power. If my tExes are be- ing used to provide a salary for two men, one a supervisor, on a quiet street in Orinda where not even a school bus comes around, then our priorities are definitely wrong. When every other house on our street has been burglarized it seems incredible to wast: our money and manpower in destroying the quality'-of life in our county. The only protection I feel we have is a good watch dog, and we cant even have that. It is a pretty sad state of affairs. I have talked with different people during this holiday period and had the opportunity of discussing this problem with them. I found that the animal control "service" has created a tremendous amount of animosity and bitterness, at least in Orinda. It is one thing to 91iminate prob- lem animals and another to look for and create problems in an area of the county, where to maintain a semblance of peace and serenity is becoming increasingly difficult. My appearance in Court in Martinez is scheduled for the 9th. of January, 1974 at 1:30 p.m. I am going to tell the Judge or Referee the same thing I've just written to you. Sincerely, ,G9rifi -v i Mrs. Fimi Schulze and Dr. Russell Schuze cc: James Moriarity, Supervisor Chas. Crill, Director Animal Control Center CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPART IN QZ_ GR�ICULTURE �LCONTROL DIVISI.� 1974 RABIES VACCINATION CLINIC SCHEDULE (Hours 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Sunday) For Dogs Only - 4 Months of Age or Older January 6, 1974 PLEASANT HILL RECREATION BUILDING - 233 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill January 139 1974 RICHMOND COUNTY BUILDING - 100 - 37th Street, Richmond January 20, 1974 PLEASANT HILL RECREATION BUILDING - 233 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill January 27, 1974 RICHMOND COUNTY BUILDING - 100 - 37th Street, Richmond February 3 , 1974 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FAIR GROUNDS - 10th and L Streets, Antioch February 10,_1.97_4 RICHMOND COUNTY BUILDING - 100 - 37th Street, Richmond February 24, 1974 WALNUT CREEK RECREATION CENTER - 1395 Civic Drive, Walnut Creek Vaccination Fee $2.00 RECEIVED DEC 19197"3 12/73 2M I R. oissoN #57 K ARD of sueEsv:sots RA 'A CO. CONTRA COSTA COUNT A. L. SEELEY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.r � '•�.` ',;•,' AGRICULTURAL COMMI5.1071ER ;•,� 181 JOHN GLENN DRIVE SEALER WEIGHTS AND MEASURES DUCHA14AN AIRPORT K. E. DANIELSON - �� CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 94820 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER z ASSISTANT SEALER 882.7850 7 ilii"i BRANCH OFFICES 100-37TH ST.. RICHMOND 94805 7420 HIGHWAY 4.BRENTWOOD 94513 253-7060. EXT. 3255 034-3515 October 24, 1973 RECEIVED a �slnL • . . Mr. Paul J. Myers OCT 2-$"j973 1820 Mason Street San Pablo, California 94806 CLERK 'ARD OAA PER ISORS PfiTRA COSTA_C9. Dear Mr. Myers: By CY.141,s.,c.-Deputy I am sorry about the delay in answering your letter of October 6, 1973•, however your letter did not supply the address of the owner of the barking dogs. The best we could do was to occasionally patrol the area. Mr. Crill, our Animal Control Director, had our people at the Pinole Center contact you for the address and the one given (2410 - 24th Street, in San Pablo) did not exist. Further attempts to contact you for more accurate information were not successful. During the week of October 15, 1973 our staff did impound a dog resembling the description in your letter. Hopefully the problem has been resolved. If you are still having problems please phone our Animal Control Supervisor in Pinole at 235-7666. Sincerely yours, Arthur L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner- Sealer Weights & Measures ALS/ac / cc: Clerk of the Board ✓ Paul J. Myers 1820 Mason St. San Pablo, Calif. 10-6-73 10:55 A.M. C. C. C. Department of A.A.C.D. 4849 Imhoff Drive Martinez, Calif. Dear Sir: I wish to bring to your attention the disturbance of the peace in the early morning hours which is being caused by the barking of two large dogs. One is black and the other is white. I do not know too much about dogs, therefore, I do not know what kind of dogs they are, they look like descendants of the Tasmanian Devil to my- self at 3 or 4:00 A.M. Now, I have no trouble sleeping through such things as eilrth- quakes and the like, which I know you have no control over, but it does irritate me to be awakened by the barking of dogs running loose on my street - knowing that you can do something to eliminate it. I plead with you to look into this matter - POST-HASTE. Respect 4ueers cc: /Contra Costa Board of Supervisors San Pablo City Council Contra Costa Pet Memorial Park s,.. Mr. Lawrence Blythe X-R-Ed C E I Vt D �Q- Z3"-j" OCT (0)1973 hw^- W. T. PAASCH CLERKPISOARD OF SUPERVISORS . (d Ok 110NTRA COSTA CO. BY Deputy In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California August 14 , 1973— In 973In the Matter of Letter from Brentwood resident with respect to impoundment fee for a horse. This Board having received a letter on August 8 , 1973 from Mr. William W. Myers , Route 2, Box 254-C , Brentwood, California appealing for the return of a portion of an impoundment fee which he paid for the release of his daughter's horse from the Contra Costa County Animal Control Center, citing reasons therefor, and posing certain questions relating thereto ; and On motion of Supervisor E. A. Linscheid, seconded by Supervisor J . P. Kenny, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that this matter is REFERRED to the County Agricultural Commissioner for report to the Board. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote : AYES : Supervisors J. P. Kenny , W. N. Boggess , E. A. Linscheid, A. M. Dias . NOES : None. ABSENT: Supervisor J . E. Moriarty . I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc : Mr. Myers Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Agricultural Commissioner Supervisors Administrator affixed this 14th day of August , 19 Z3_ - W. T. PAASCH, Clerk By Deputy Clerk Lourette Kincaid H 24 5/73-15M • ' William W. & Helen Myers Route 29 Box 254-0 Brentwood, Ca. 94513 August 3, 1973 Board of Supervisors Administration Building Martinez, California Re: Animal Control Center We wish to appeal the action taken by the Animal Control Center on August 2, 1973 for the following reasons: On Sunday, JulZ 29, 1973, our house broke out of her corral at approximately :30 P .M. 4e failed in our effort o catch her, since she ran through the orchards. We immediately calldthe Amimal Control Center, and was told that the Center was closed on Sunday, and only in emergencies where they opened. I felt this was an emergency, and a description of the horse was taken, and I was assured that the Center would get this information. ive also called the Highway Patrol and the Brentwood Police Dept. since we were quite concerned that the horse could be a deadly traffic hazard. On Monday, July 30th, our daughter called the Center again and theytook a more complete description of the horse. We had our telephone covered 24 hours a day, in the event the Center called. On Tuesday, we decided to call the Newspaper and put in an ad. Thursday morning, we decided to call the center again, and where then advised that they picked up a horse in the Brentwood area on Tuesday and the fee to get her out would be $65.30. We are apoealing the fee for her release for the following reasons: 1. If the horse was found on Tuesday, why then were we not notified on 'Tuesday. When did they plan on calling us? 2. Part of the $65.30 was because they had to have the horse trailer brought up from Martinez to Brentwood. When they radioed Martinez, could they not have called us first to see if the -►Iorgan was ours, we could have been there in 5 minutes, opposed to the 30 plus minutes it took to come from Martinez. 3. .'ie were refused, when asked if we could borrow a ten foot � o rope, because the horse would not enter the trailer in its usual manner. He said he was not permitted to loan out I \ � any equipment. He did later loan us the rope. 4. When I asked all of the above questions to the officers at # .. L0 the Center, one officer said "I should be glad to have the ` < horse back, that they could have shot it". He later asked me if I had ever seen a traffic accident caused by a horse. y We spent 4 sleepless nights thinking about the possible z hazards, and my daughter cried herself to sleep thinking about her horse. We feel this could have been eliminated on Tuesday and the fee cut to a minimum. Pdr. Sealy assured me that the revenue was not the reason the Center did what they did. �,Ir. 6aely could not give me a good reason for he lack of communication and I told him of this appeal. r 5. ''Shen we asked why we were not notified on Tuesday, the clerk said the horse was 2 miles away from our house, and they didn't think it was ours. I then asked them how many reports they had on file for missing Morgan mares in the Brentviood area. They, answered by telling me how many horses there are in Contra Costa County. Ne sincerely thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to read this appeal and trust that consideration of the impound fee will be taken. Sincerely, William W. Myeags - Y CONTRA COSTA COUNT? A. L. SEELEY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER 1 �/ �I;_: • 161 JOHN GLENN DRIVE SEALER WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BUCHANAN AIRPORT K. E. DANIELSON CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 94520 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER `,Cz'•-.; -'\• ��,O 682-7550 ASSISTANT SEALER f 0st oLT\:t�� `P BRANCH OFFICES 100.37TH ST., RICHMOND 94603 1420 HIGHWAY 4,BRENTWOOD 9451 233-7060, EM. 3253 Sao-3918 August 3, 1973 CEIA ED Mrs. George Sharkey _ '`, 221 El Sobrante Drive Danville, California 945z6 CLER W T OAA RV16ORS cos T A c Dear Mrs. Sharkey: ey _ putY On January 16, 1973 the Board of Supervisors referred your request that "funds be allocated for employment of veterinarian(s) at our Animal Control Centers" to me and the County Administrator. The Board Order was for us to give consideratidn to your request during the complilation of the 1973-74 fiscal year budget. The purpose of your proposal was to prevent the sale of dogs from the Centers with distemper. It was your statement that if all dogs that came into the Centers were immediately given a dis- temper shot, your aim would be accomplished. As the County Agricultural Commissioner was listed first in the Board' s referral, it is my responsibility to handle the reply. Your suggestion has been carefully researched, because at first glance it did appear to be a good proposal. In our evaluation we took the following into consideration: 1. The frequency of this type of a problem. 2. Do the citizens already have some type of an opportunity afforded them by the county. 3 . The fact that the two Centers operate with an unusual shift as far as the receiving of animals. A. Centers are open 8:00 - 5:00 weekdays, 9:00 - 5:00 Saturdays, closed Sundays. B. Night-time depositories are available to the citizens at all times when the offices are not open to the public. C. Animal Control Officers also work in the field when the offices are not open. D. Would this also mean providing veterinarian services to those incoming animals at odd hours. If not, then isolation facilities would have to be constructed. C c!. `��lG�w, Mrs. George Shark -2- . $/3/73 E. Cost of veterinarians, handlers and vaccines, excluding construction of isolation facilities, offices and work areas for veterinarians. COMMENTS AND CONCLUSION Comments: 1. The cost of carrying on such a program the first year, not including construction cost, would be approximately $111, 500. See attachment 1 for a detailed cost breakdown. 2. Citizens now have the opportunity to obtain a free veteri- narian examination for all animals purchased, if the exam- ination is within 4$ hours after purchase. (This is complimentary through the courtesy of most of our local veterinarians. ) 3 . Non-sick animals may be returned for exchange, providing this takes place within ten days of purchase. Animals- that are sick and not taken to a veterinarian may also be returned for exchange within this ten-day period. 4. The number of animals returned to the Centers on the advice of veterinarians was 21 for the period January 1, 1972 to November 30, 1972. 5. Distemper, hepatitis, etc. , are continuing problems with which people involved with animals must routinely contend. There is no record of the number of animals that are brought to the Center, or impounded, that are ill with distemper, etc. , however: A. Those animals that show obvious signs of distemper, etc. , which are unlicensed and have not bitten anyone, are destroyed immediately to help prevent the spread of disease. B. The kennels are routinely cleaned with a detergent, germicide, and deodorant cleaner to help prevent the spread of disease. C. There has not been a serious outbreak of distemper for many years. That is, so serious that all the dogs in the Center had to be destroyed at one time and the Center closed for disinfecting. 6. The president of the Contra Costa County Veterinary Medical Association in a letter to us states some medical facts that must weigh heavily against the proposal. Four paragraphs of this letter are quoted to support the above— mentioned statement. Mrs. George Sharke -3- $/3/73 r "We agree that the problem of infectious disease trans- mission exists within the animal control centers, humane centers, pet shops, etc. The high turnover rate of animals, the lack of isolation quarters, the inability to maintain such sanitary standards as in a veterinary hospital, make it impossible to prevent possible contact with infectious viral or bacterial agents. "It is necessary to understand the immulogical problems we have in an effort to control such diseases. If an animal is vaccinated at the time of entry, it is + 72 hours before any response to the vaccination is seen. It is a week before protection is felt to exist . A vaccination program is set to include two, and sometimes three distemper vaccinations. As in human, or any species some vaccinated animals do not ever develop an antibody titer that will protect them against contracting the disease if they are in contact with the causitive agent. If vaccinated on entry to a center, there is still 100% chance of those animals which contact the agent to evidence symptoms of the disease, if not previously vaccinated. "Vaccination at cost for all entering animals, not in- cluding any other costs, such as facilities, syringes, etc. , nor the cost of an attending veterinarian, would average a minimum of $1.00 per animal. These added costs would not be in the best interests of the taxpayers of the county. "A veterinarian hired by the county would not be in any position to alter conditions of the centers, sanitary or otherwise." 7. The president of the Contra Costa Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in a letter to us on November 24, 1972 stated that they do not favor such a recommendation. Conclusion Considering the cost to all the citizens and the questionable effectiveness of such a program, I- am sorry, but our departments must recommend against hiring veterinarians for this purpose. Sincerely yours, Arthur L. Seele Agricultural Commissioner Sealer Weights & Measures ALS/nw attachments cc: Clerk of the Board County Governmont 'Oporatione ATTACIIIINIM le 12-13=t2 1 Thera are no records on the number of cats that are itapoun•led and housed at the centers so we cannot estimate very accurately the costs to vaccinate. COST OF VACCIVATION 1. 149909 dog.. each year for vaccination at :;1 each for recommended 2 cc doso vaccine, vaccine cost = �1J�,J. 2. Cat vaccine cost = _ 79500 3. Salaries for 3 veterinarians (not including frinco benefits)e= 46,044 44 Salaries for 3 animal handlers (not including fringe benefits) w 2.4,204.2 5. Salaries for 2 clerks (not including; fringe benefits) _ 13972 6. Syringes and needles 5013 Total 3111#533 CCC/ed /x/73 Y ev 1 [RECEIVED JUL 121973 W. T. PAASCH COONTRA SUPERVISORS COSTA CA py 64a& Deputy In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California Apr i 1 24 In the Matter of Letter from Orinda resident suggesting change in County Ordinance Code relating to livestock. A letter dated April 15, 1973 having been received from Mrs. Val Geissler, 271 Lomas Can tadas , Orinda, California advising that she had circulated a petition requesting that County Ordinance Code Section 51-2.473 relating to disposition of impounded livestock be changed, and suggesting that this matter be referred to the Special Committee established to review the entire animal control program; and On motion of Supervisor J. E. Moriarty, seconded by Supervisor J. P. Kenny, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that aforesaid letter is REFERRED to the County Agricultural Commissioner for review in connection with proposed overall study of Animal Control operations . The foregoing order was passed by the following vote : AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, J. E. Moriarty, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, A. M. Dias . NOES: None . ABSENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc: Mrs . Geissler Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Agricultural Com. Supervisors County Counsel affixed this 2LLth day of April , 197 Administrator - W. T. PAASCH, Clerk Deputy Clerk Lourette Kincaid H 24 7/72-15M . r � April 15, 1973 RECEIVED APR 171973 Board of Supervisors W. T. P A A S C H Contra Costa County It CLERKAHA 0 OF SUPIERVISM Martinez, California ey Dear Sirs: It has been brought to my attention that the Board of Supervisors has formed a special committee to 'Study Animal Control Operations'. At this point I should like to advise you that I have circulated a petition requesting: County Ordiance Sub-Article 2 "Disposition of Impounded Animal" - Section 51-2.473 be changed. This is relating to livestock only. I would very much appreciate you refering this matter to the special committee. I have thousands of signatures and will be happy to submit these petitions at your request. Listed below is my name, number and address. Thank you for your time and courtesy in this matter. Mrs. Val Geissler 271 Lomas Cantadas Orinda, ''ali.forni.a 94563 415 254-8247 cc; Contra Costa SPCA P.S. I have some suggestions regarding the change of the ordance which may be of some interest to your committee. { G�2� LO`�G�Lt2�l In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California April 3 19 'jam, In the Matter of Animal Control Complaint. This Board being in receipt of a communication signed by sixteen residents of Merritt Street, San Pablo, California registering a complaint with respect to a certain dog, belonging to a family on said street, roaming at large; and On motion of Supervisor J. E. Moriarty, seconded by Supervisor J. P. Kenny, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that afore- said communication is REFERRED to the Agricultural Commissioner for report to the Board. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, J. E. Moriarty, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, A. M. Dias . NOES: None. ABSENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc: L. Brown Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Agricultural Commissioner Supervisors Administrator affixed this 3rd day of April , X973 W. T. PAASCH, Clerk By 7C car Deputy Clerk Lourette Kincaid H 24 7/72-15M DVIA C E � --- 3 777 ti m, t ; . o _;,t:pntra t;osta-Cournv )3 strict .4ttorne 's Uffa ce r' f` Fable City Yol�ce_ Tie pt Contra Costa County Boatd Uf Supervisors s ' ZControContra. ostaConty AnimVE al Ui st. �t ;t �:81913 �1 ar�Sir$: r Wt P'1�.:A� , Ct- 'RKgpRIXOF'`SUPERVISORB:' n a (��7TfF1� OST,Co.}. The, the concerned citizens of 2400 block.of ITerritt: t zn San a o, ., ki .'to-bring a:raattcr of,e.tti^cine impoa Bance to ,our attention in .the hors that one or:more of'your.Departments may::remecy for_ us.. Attempts,.bf different people on the block to talk Ajit tile` do 's o:•rn�=r have not been successful' zn the past. t ;Residzrig at 2h99 11errztt St: in ,4n Fablo, are tlie. Jai..�s B. Lake famil-�, rrho are; . the.owners of 2 ;eriian 5hep3rd 'i?og who as .on severs occasloiis attacked people: f on the block,,, Hart cul ;.1, children. It is also 'comr on l�-riowlcd e tri`;`the neigh boyhood tl�a} tn-6 owner turns this particular dog loose each night after dusk to s <`roam at l�rQe and to attack eo le at large. p p � y,� 1�ke rise are-.'"diGtrossed to see the`.dog back sunning free the follomng„day `that it Is nzckeP up'by 'he ��ni.mal Control people., `1e ]zkeT rise;;acknotrledge rt -� 3` .there' are too many dors_running;free in the neighborhood, `but none of tn�se to x p ' t�16 La ell 009'.11.s.. As You are i x date h ve sIiowh.-,�h� va>cious teno ncie:5 thaw � � s =probably. atrare, his ._sa*ne block has the Broadway Mermentar�r Sc'nool. fid therefore in-.closinr respcctfully''requvst .that said cJoL_be r?zsposed ofs $ f , particular]y s�rice the oi�mer tin defiance continues to turn this doh out to r # , Y .xoarn an attack,-'-.4t r .._r 1 rtiUndersigned Citizens. Of � `' `�•7� x Merritt St; San Pablc, : a n ' Date carne' Ad ress 3;p _73 -�'-r�.�.: s s 9 ,-,a rte-- �' 3 - e 17 3"�6 t 1j C ,Vr �/L-�►. j r C7'�f+ a e Li.�.LC` r` �I GL��r 'gyp :�XAA 171 r - _3 M t, "ifyC: .. Da-ue n N r :1ddr.ess �-�- 7 L. J y 44 :t�t CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ,Qf� ••._, O� A. L. SEELEY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER _ • � SEALER WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ; �" • tet JOHN GLENN DRIVE •; r�r K. E. DANIELSON SUCHANAN AlRpORT ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER O, ; '.� '• •r CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 94tf2O .••• .�`'4 ASSISTANT SEALER r _j40 682-7880 Sr`tY)tititt BRANCH OFFICES 100.37TH ST.. RICHMOND 04809 1420 HIGHWAY 4.BRENTWOOD 04513 233.7060. "T. 3255 St14-iSfB March 20, 1973 RIECEI TED I 11AR�j 1`9 73, WT PAASbH CLERK . D 4F 11J;CRVISORS TPA COSTA Mrs. Stephen C. Erlenheim By Deputy $6$3 Longford Way Dublin, California 94566 Dear Mrs. Erlenheim: Your letter of March, 1973s to the County Board of Supervisors was referred to me for reply. Apparently the Animal Control officials in Alameda County have the same problem that we do, and that is of people not placing or keeping some identification on their animals and then becom- ing angry when officials cannot take the time to search time and again for the lost animal. Our Ordinance requires us to immediately contact the owner of any known dog, cat or - you name it! We no longer provide informat n on whether an unidentified anima. is at one of our centers and here are some of the reasons: 1. Lack of manpower. 2. Animals are being brought in alive and dead to the centers during all daylight hours and the phones were tied up time and time again by repeat calls. 3. When we took information'on "lost" dogs, the owners frequently did not call to report the animals return, and we often were looking for dogs that were not lost. 4. Some identification of mixed breeds were inaccurately identified. If we provided the service for those owners whose animals are easily identified as to breed, then we must try for all persons. (Some owners even gave us the wrong sex of their animal. ) Mrs. Stephen C. Erlenheim 2 March 20, 1973 While we are constantly working to improve our program, we feel strongly that we have a fine Animal Control program and certainly our administrative procedures are more than ade- quate to perform our required functions. Sincerely yours, Arthur L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner Sealer Weights & Measures ALS/ac:h _...�1► cc : Clerk of the Board In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California March 6 1973 In the Matter of Operating Procedures at the Animal Control Center. This Board having received a letter from S. Erlenheim, 8683 Longford Way, Dublin calling attention to certain operating procedures at the Animal Control Center and suggesting the need for improvement in same; On motion of Supervisor E . A. Linscheid, seconded by Supervisor J. P. Kenny, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that said letter is referred to the County Agricultural Commissioner. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote : AYES : Supervisors J. P. Kenny, J. E . Moriarty, W. N. Boggess , E . A. Linscheid, A. M. Dias . NOES : None. ABSENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc : S. Erlenheim Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Agricultural Commissioner Supervisors County Administrator affixed this 6th day of March , 1973 W. T. PAASCH, Clerk Byht,�V L7/- - Deputy Clerk Dorot A. Harkness H24 4/72 10M i i y � � J [p�y ,} /�"••-mac;'; �•-._•_,,,�:� � �t`.•7•.-�...:-:.:-•�•.t""F..�.V�^`s. Y�!-3'_ -'S�St"•L'{'��.� 'y�:ii.`11=.'• �}•...�T�=:E.�4:i .-J..R,+.�'`�_';'�w,S'• ;.t�'v`''S''"-• '.''.ri�6".x'4`^.. ,r:v._..w:P .. •�-t • - t• • ••r>•'isti:Acis. •. ti s:;�,.`..Y..a.. r _' , __ ! d. •.�.,i Is Yz"� �F..;a..,.'�'.�'t;.::.�. :£;�'x=,..•:_...::'f-�."e�::=tel �:�i� 4� y� r;, 540. ell, GGeC j �2; , L= 7-11 fJ C Gv �� PIS GN ` In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California February 26 f19 73 In the Matter of Various Complaints and/or Suggestions on Animal Control Operations. The Board having received letters containing complaints and/or suggestions on Animal Control Operations from: David R. Lowe Ann B. Olmsted Marsh Creek Kennels Costa Crafts P.O. Box 194 P.O. Box 59 Clayton, California 94517 Port Costa, California 94569 Lila Van Zanten Phyllis J. Jarreau 100 Oak View Terrace 4428 Taft Avenue Danville, California 94526 Richmond, California 94804° R . R. Reynolds 3629 Wren Avenue Concord, California 94519; On motion of Supervisor E. A. Linscheid, seconded by Supervisor J. E. Moriarty, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the afore- said letters are REFERRED to the County Agricultural Commissioner for review in connection with proposed overall study of Animal Control operations. the Boar-d: The foregoing order was passed by the following vote of AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, J. E. Moriarty, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, A. M. Dias. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of cc: County Agricultural Supervisors Commissioner affixed , his 26th da of February , 19 'jam County Administrator David R. Lowe W T. PAASCH, Clerk Lila Van Zanten R. R. Reynolds B Deputy Clerk Ann B. Olmsted Mr timler f.- Phyllis J. Jarreau H 24 7/72-15M marsh creek t415) 682-2156 p.o. box 194 Clayton, california 94517 February 22, 1973 RECEIVED Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Government Operations Committee ''rR n P 1973 Administration Building W. T. PAA 3 C H Martinez, California 94553 c�cjaONARAcR su��avisoRs ey �� Gentlemen: Two recent articles in the Contra Costa Times regarding your review of the operations of Animal Control have prompted me to write this letter. My wife and I own and operate Marsh Creek Kennels, located six miles east of Clayton, where we board, breed, and train dogs. I have been exposed to dogs, dog training, and dog problems all my life. My father was a dog trainer; I worked with military dogs in the Air Force, and with police dogs during my twelve years in law enforcement. Dogs are my business, and I love them. This love ends abruptly, however, with ill-mannered, un- trained, unsupervised, and unrestrained dogs. Needless to say, such dogs---like wayward children---are victims of their environment. I believe our present ordinance requiring control of dogs is reasonable, but until it is strictly enforced, it can not be effective. Neither can a leash law, nor any other law. We must either have more officers or better distribution of the manpower we now have, if we hope to enforce the laws we have now or in the future. Secondly, the courts are go- ing to have to take a firm stand on animal ordinance violations. I didn't say "firmer", because I don't know that they're not already taking a firm stand. I do know that laws without "teeth" are worthless. If your review of Animal Control indicates more men are needed to handle day-to-day, routine functions of that office, I'd like to see more personnel hired, but I can't see the wisdom of hiring more people to combat the problem of dog packs attacking cattle, horses, etc. If there are situations where a pattern is forming such as same time, same place, every day, by all means, put a couple of men on it. If they have to be brought in on their days off and paid overtime, fine. But if it's a matter of putting one or two men in a four-wheel-drive vehicle to scout the hills for dog packs, forget it. This is something that Mr. Seeley reportedly emphasized, and I think he's right; much of the responsibility of warding off dog packs will have to rest with the ranchers and horse owners. I believe there is a limit to what citizens can expect their "public servants" to accomplish. If, for example, at 11:00 o'clock at night someone saw a pack of dogs chasing his cattle, and he did nothing more than call Animal Control and wait for their arrival, he deserves to lose cattle. I don't ':now about other parts of the County, but none of my rancher friends would call Animal Control and wait; in fact, I doubt that they'd call Animal Control at all. They carry rifles in their vehicles, and they use them. If they're losing cattle at night, they patrol at night. I 'm not advocating a total vigilante-type enforcement of this or any other problem, but dammit, we're going to have to get off our backsides and start taking some kind of posi- tive action as citizens, if we hope to cure any of our problems. Now I'm editorializing, Pl—a /1 0 �Z,7ze. 2. and you gentlemen can do without that, but please consider the previous paragraph as a plus for Mr. Seeley's side. In short, as a taxpaying citizen, I welcome a study of Animal Control and hope it's a thorough study. May I suggest that you try to talk confidentially with a few of the "troops", who are out where the action is, and not just review statistics and interview staff-level people. If your study reveals that they need more personnel for effective operation, give them more personnel. 61e can afford it; what the hell, we're paying for BART. If, on the other hand, Animal Control employees are not being utilized effective- ly, let's do something about the administration. So much for my comments regarding your review of Animal Control. While I'm at the type- writer and thinking about Animal Control, however, 11d like to make a couple of sugges- tions that T hope can be passed along to lir. Seeley. First, I'd like to suggest that the attitude and telephone procedure of at least one lady who answers the phone at the Martinez shelter be scrutinized. (I haven't had occasion to call there recently, so maybe she's no longer there, but I suspect she is.) From the time she answers the phone until she hangs up, she is gruff and borders on rudeness. IsTe all have our bad days, and maybe hers is not the most pleasant job in the world, but "if you can't stars t?ie heat...", etc. During a recuperative Period for an injury I sustained while a policeman, I worked for several months as a complaint officer and police dis- patcher. It vas a crumby job, but I tried to consider the fact that nearly everyone I talked to was distraught for one reason or another, and I went out of my way to be plea- sant. I think this lady's job is similar. In many cases, a brief conversation is the only contact many people have with Animal Control, and the image this woman creates is miserable. My second suggestion, again, deals with public relations, but it also deals with policy. I refer to Animal Control 's policy of nobody tells nobody nothin' when they call the Mar- tinez shelter to inquire about a lost pet. Nothing, except that '"fou'll have to come over and see if he's here." Case in point: last summer I rounded up a beautiful pair of Borzois (Russian Wolfhounds) that were trotting proudly up busy Meadow Lane in Concord, screwing up traffic something terrible. Each was trailing about a four-foot length of plastic clothesline from its collar, with which I was able to secure it to a nearby post. I gave them water and was about to start knocking on doors to locate a phone, when a Concord police officer drove by, and I hailed him. He requested an Animal Control unit, which arrived within ten minutes„ I gave the Animal Control officer a business card and asked him to please con- tact me if these dogs were not claimed, since neither had identification, and I would be willing to hold them indefinitely, rather than seeing them destroyed. I also pointed out that the female was in season. He said he would keep track of their progress once they were impounded, but since I'd never met this officer, I immediately contacted a personal friend who works at Animal Control to request the same favor of him. Even though these dogs were strays at this point, quite a bit was known about them. They were a male and female of an exotic breed, traveling together in a certain Jocation at a certain time. The female was obviously in heat. They had been tied with the same type of cord, and probably at the same location. They were very valuable, probably had a com- mon owner, and it should be safe to assume that there would be advertisements and in- quiries about them. 3. Assuming that some type of report is required to account for all impounded animals at Animal Control, all or most of the preceding information about these two dogs should have been (and may have been) included in it. Four days later, a "lost dog" ad appeared in the Times for these dogs. Everything in the ad jibed with the circumstances mentioned above. I immediately called the number given and contacted a lady. She said they had the dogs back, and told me the following story. When they arrived home they immediately missed the dogs. They had limited time to look for them that night, so the wife took time off work the next day to continue the search. The couple was new in California, and by the time the wife realized she needed help, she didn't know where to request it. She called the police, and for some unknown reason, they did not refer her to Animal Control. She finally found out about Animal Control through the S.P.C.A. When she called Animal Control, she said the woman who answered was very abrupt; she only had time to say, "I've lost a pair of Russian Wolfhounds", before the woman interrupted her to say she'd have to visit the shelter and look for the dogs, She asked me, "How often do you suppose they impound Russian Wolfhounds?" Since they had just moved into the neighborhood and knew no one, she didn't feel that she could impose upon anyone for a ride to the shelter to look at dogs, so she thought she should get something going and placed an ad in the paper, realizing that it wouldn't ap- pear for a couple of days. By the time her husband got home that evening, it was too late to visit the shelter. The next day, both she and her husband took time off work to visit the shelter, and sure enough, their dogs were there (and of course, had been when she first called) . This is only one of a number of stories I hear about the inadequacies of Animal Control. I listen to all of them, but I'm conservative about what I believe. Yet, with my person- al knowledge about some of the facts in this incident, and what I feel is a conservative estimate that at least 50% of the other stories I hear are at least 50% true, this is still a poor track record for Animal Control. I suggest that when dogs are impounded, a copy of the report be made immediately avail- able to whomever answers the phone. If someone makes an inquiry about an animal, some questions should be asked. Type, breed, sex, age, size, color of animal. What's its name? Identifying features---collar, scars, one ear up and one down, etc. Where and when was it last seen? Name, address, and phone number of caller. If there's a similar impounded animal report, the clerk or officer could simply say, "We picked up a of that general description today in that area. Could you come by and identify him?" On the other hand, if someone calls the shelter and says they've lost a pet, why not jot down the same information mentioned above, so that if an animal of that description is impounded, the report and inquiry can be tentatively matched up, and maybe even someone could break down and call the inquirer back. Great public relations. Granted, it takes a little time, but for an organization that is in such an ideal position to create a good public image, and is failing so miserably, it might be time well spent for Animal Control. Gentlemen, I am not a mal-content, looking for something to bitch about. I enjoy an ex- cellent reputation of which I'm very proud, and for the most part, I'm probably as happy as anyone can be "with his lot" these days. I have personal friends working at Animal Control. It's a difficult job, and one which probably brings neither financial reward nor personal satisfaction. These criticisms and suggestions are made in a constructive vein, and I hope they will be accepted this way. Thank you for your indulgence. Vhry truly yours, w COSTA SAFTS - Y � PORT COST� 93569 f :�' • BOX 59 RECEIVED r r r3 '71 1 1973 �•�` � W. T. PAASCH ..1-ERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS i CO. RA CQAj.A CO. e?ek- iY Deputy - ! -- COSTA OAFTS PORT COSTA 94569 BOX 59 100 Oak View Terrace Danville, Calif. Feb. 1.5, 1973 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Government Operations CommitteeR-ECEIVED Administration Building n r 1943 Martinez, Calif. W, T. PAASCH ZIARK.700W R'.DA'OF SCl '00- tS ORS mepuw. Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors:. I believe the problem of animal control is a serious one and deserves study and review of present policies. My concern is with the problem of free running dogs and the killing of wildlife that results. I live in a hillside section of Danville. Throughout the year, residents of this area find the remains of deer and otht,r wildlife that have been killed by dogs. It was my unfortunate experience to witness such killings on two different occ.-sions. At both times; it, wes: a single dog. I make this distinction because the local newspapers often refer to "dog packs" as the culprits in livestock end wildlife killings, and may leave the impression that the family pet cannot also be destructive. I would like to see the animal control st:!ff made more visible by expanding their patrol capebilities. in problem areas. This in itself can be a strong deterrent to some who would otherwise let their dogs run. I also favor a leash law with fines for offenders, which would be enforce) by the courts. I hope your committee will take positive steps to solve tills problem now, because wildlife killings b_;- do_s will continue to worsen as building in our hillside are-.s increases. C �L � Sincerely yours, I 1, �: , - 4F -� � 'ti r. , I " � FC . '' � 11 - . � .. J..-; .. �,-�,,. ' ;: : -,s i : . - -�'� --�',' - .� .t a ` �r -t 3 rT4 Z F' rtl�28 Taft Avenue a` `,4x - R�c- o P Cal f' - " 91801 1 February _15, ?973 �,-, 4 ` s? � �'� -111 '1- NC ", .,� �;­'.-�.,Y�'7 z Su1. 1.pervi­­��. I-,,sI.---Iors Lznscheid=and Ke"�, - -nnyM� El .g- ��� +"��"u , -�,-�Co ,Government�,Ops--rationsCommittee ': ". , �7­, -.. , : , V - � 16 ­1­1 I , ,� �; ounty Board of Supervisors. ­ , -; �-. ,�, -. - ­­- , y �Y . 9 f97 AIM" p, P' 0 Box 11 �cs� *+ sa; Martztiea,` California 315531. 1�11 �g W. T. PAA$L'rt. Ct6RK 60A D 0�8UPERVISORB * T co I .. ry er. tJ:,t� 1, � I - �11.�,;�';I , � . a - , - Y , Dear Sirs• _. _1.,, - i L .,r .. I I I =am pleased to learn that you are going to .review",the County Animal Control Program. ; The situation with the:dags and the cattle and horses_, ' kf ;�9 a,:dramatic-mani.festat�on of aminal cont r6 problems.' Lest you. confine your J ' reyzsw o the problems: of cattle; and horse'owners, there ,are'.;tWo issues`I t. would dike to. bring to your atte"noon. One is a .personal`=encounter;.with -I n tM Animal Control o� le which T, found most unpleasant and the other is a ,-, Pe P general` situation which4l am sure_.affects'.all of us in the County. '� r.,�£, T T t I recently bought` a home 'in the Richmond Plaza IT development, after 1 Ing : .n:San FranG1SCO for.' seven years. Upon 'moving in1., I:discovered"th11 at a the back;y_ard wa§`_a haven for cats, complete with a litter of kit1 .tens. '-�< They were all disel.ased as evidenced.by 'foaming mouths, matted eyes and `- scaled skins. I called Anliilal C4. ontrol fog assistance, explaining the 7_ condition of the animals and my re3uctance.`to go. near thew because the .adult x � cats (Z;had seen.at1­1least five. different ones) attacked when I -approac�ied>' them. The lady at Animal Control scoffed it my turiidity.and suggested I r ask one of.the "neighborhood children's to 'bring the `catI.s."out to, the,ahelter, sirsce the Coritrol,:people diel not TMdo .,that sort of thing." ` Thl`s angered: ne because I ,am,a strong, independent farm bred woma1.n, do all=my own,maintenance ' ' wo>" . incluciIng repairing tf�s roof, and have; had-plenty of contact with ��� animals but approachzxig diseased wild animals;without the proper protection } ,' 1. aiid a u� 11: _ went much less a1lawsn a cnild to ,do so is not,_ ; q p , g - , my idea of sound I I judgment. , � Because they_refusedrto=help, I had 11 I-to_rent cages, trap the; cats.`one by r','' 1 - one and transport.them one at a time in my",mall spats car out;;to fhe shelter where I ,had to release them fighting, snarliag and;defecating, with rabies, ;fleas and `all Into 'the night- box. After each trip I had fI.to fumigate � f aril clean.my car, ;hope that`whatever :sited:= the cats.did ziot affect nla, ,and r spend -the .next three weeks :after.the last trip ghting fleas ori,me, in th = j4 yard and the _house. ' = " R m'" t y z ti 1. ++��. � —�� a h �/�[p��� Ifit c 1 a e�Fi'K G y : jT`" k+f t ,� �fi F y fi,3 9> ,, '� t P t tT .... (more} Imo- G� `V'� , �I,cYt"s rtyn 1 1� .. J A ' ,.t: .. 3 S A 0 1. i d.C � x+srfi;,t�� � q,'q'' page 2 Needless to say, I am still very angry because I feel the Control people, whom I assumed were trained and equipped for this sort of thing, could have taken care of the problem with a lot less strain on the nerves, greater safety and in a lot less time. I would have paid theca whatever necessary to have them do it, but they simply refused! Now, six months later, I have discovered more strays frequenting the backyard, but they appear to be less of a health danger and are causing only minor problems like scaring the birds and keeping the neighborhood dogs in an uproar all night. The latter may not be so minor. It is a neighborhood security problem because it is difficult to determine whether the dogs are barking at human intruders or merely the cats. We have suffered a rash of burglaries lately, one next door to me. When the police came to investigate, they asked me if I had tB and the dogs barking at a certain hour. My response was yes; at that hour and constantly during the rest of the night, every night. It is frustrating that I cannot convince people of the relationship between stray cats and ineffective watch dogs, but I was aware of a cessation in the barking immediately after I rid the area of the first crop of cats. Now, with a new generation and the advent of the mating season, the cats are setting off the dogs again. The second issue is the dogs. Most of the dogs in this neighborhood are well disciplined; many are not. Common problems are the constant barking, which I an certain is being caused by the stray cats, and the distruction of lawns and plants as a result of urine and feces. First we need to clean up the stray cat problem. Then we need to do something, on a massive scale, to impress upon dog owners the facts about dogs. I do not own a dog, but I know that dogs that bark constantly and indiscriminately are no security protection; that dogs can be trained not to relieve themselves on lawns; and that dogs should not be left alone for long periods of time. From my observations, the problem is not with stray dogs, but with those that are wearing tags. A combination enforcement program and an educational program, perhaps by way of the local presses and direct mailings to dog owners, would help. If you need an estimate of the size of the problem, ask the local police departments for the number of dog complaints they received last year. I understand that it exceeds all other types of complaints. If all this seems like "nonsense" to some of you, I assure you I quite agree. It is nonsense for a police department faced with the major crime rate that occurs in Richmond to have to spend so much time answering dog complaints. Page`,3 I strongly feel that Animal Control should provide at least the leadership for citizen-involved effort to clean up this problem. m. Even in a people-congested area, a balance of nature is necessary. There ought to be room for all of us --people, dogs, cats, birds-'and beautiful lawns. But .this won't happen without controls and airareness. I urgeyouto view this problem as serious. Sincerely, " Phyllis J. Ja�Zu ccs The Independent-Gazette The Richmond Post Richmond Police Chief Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Governi,ent Operations Commitee Administration Building , Martinez, Calif. (?C Nr. R.R.Reyrolds IREC-VTVVED ,tPu� � ��1, 3629 wren Ave Concord, Ca. , 94519 n n 0 1973 W. T. PAASCH CLERK O BOARD RA OF SU COv'�R$ 2115173 Sy DeP�Y Dear Sirs; I read in this mornings paper that lair. Seeley called for a CSO PRE:?ESSIVE review of the animal control division and its functions. 1 would like to offer a few suggestions as possible controling methods, I do have a concern in this matter due to the fact I have had eight rabbits killed and my hunting hawk mauled by these roving dogs. I live on Wren Ave. near Baldwin Ct. in Concord, and although I dont kno!v my neighbors personally I think I know their habits very well. Every evening they turn their dogs (and cats) loose for the night, these are the anim.zls which cause the problems in r,:y area. I have called repetedly for an officer, when I call, we see him, when I dont, we dont. If this means you are under- -staffed then by all means recruit additional personnel. In the meantirrce, one thing I feel would work very well is tc place a few of your exisiting men on the 4112 and 12/3 shifts. I know this will work because my neighbors are obviously secure in the knowledge that their pets will not be disturbed in their nightly forages. This is tore because there is not regular patrols at night, these people tlUfT be shown anir<zl control laws will be enforced at night as well as during daylite hDurs. if you can not send two men out on the buddy system I dill personaly volunteer my gssistance if he needs it, all he need do is knock, reguardless of time. Another method a little more :severe but effective, I think, is to inform all pet owners of their liability to the property owner if their animals do destroy property. In keeping with this thought ycu might also inform: the property owner what steps he may take to prevent destruction to his property. For instance, I called the D.A. and found there are laws preventing the discharge of firearms within a city or residential area, but no laws preventing a person from using a crossbow or using ste0l jaw traps around his trash container. Electrifing the trash cc-in is another effective neausure. Addmittedly these Measures are drastic and place the property owner in the role of being the one who is liable but when you watch your animals being killed or mauled these are the things one thinks of. I knC17 you will find discontentment among your officers if you put them on the night shifts but I dant know of any law enforcement body that the men dont work these shifts. After all we pay their salaries and as such we haue the right to demand around the clock protection. And like thej say, if the heat in the kitchen is too hot, then you must get out of the kitchen. That about a spade clinic ?? other counties have them. If funds are a problem possibly you could convince our vets to lower their fees, or enact a law requiring cat owners to register their pets and then divert some of this revenue for that goal. Gentleman I realize you have got a very perplexing problem, never the less, this is something which must be deli with and soon. I really think it all comes down to strict enforcement of the law as it stands now and educating the public as to their responsibility in this matter and what the consequences will be if they fail to live up to those responsibilities. Very Respectfully Yours v\1'77���� ;X14\OS Rex R. Reynotds cc CrarLi Bogue 0,4 Received call from Mrs. Abe Gonzales, 560 Buena Vista, Pinole (work number: 232-7363) On Tuesday, January 9, 1973, while Mrs. Gonzales was at work, her grandmother, Loma Krenzer (age 72) who babysits for Mrs. Gonzales' children, let their poodle out in the front. Mrs. Krenzer stood by the window and watched the dog, the dog went into the street just when an Animal Control officer drove up. Mrs. Krenzer called the dog and states the dog was in the house before the officer was out of the car. The officer came to the door, Mrs. Krenzer did not answer; the officer pounded on the door (loud enough so neighbors on both sides and across the street came out) ; when Mrs. Krenzer still did not answer, he went around to the back and opened the back door. When he called out, Mrs. Krenzer (who had been hiding in a bedroom with the dog and two children) came to the door. The officer asked for the dog. Mrs. Krenzer asked him to come back when Mr. and Mrs. Gonzales would be home. After asking for the dog, the officer left and said he would be back. In the meantime, Mrs. Xrenzer called her daughter to come over. When the daughter arrived, there was the officer with another officer from Animal Control and three Pinole Police Officers. Officer Moore (Don Moore, referred to herein) told Mrs. Krenzer she was obstructing justice and gave her a citation. (Until today, Mrs. Krenzer thought she received the citation herself not realizing it was for the dog at large.) RECIEdiv"D, e., d. T. PAASCH ACL= SOA L OF S 'PERVISOP.S ID A QY Deputy 1` Mrs. Krenzer now has to appear in Court on January 29. She does not go out and is only with her family: (NOTE: Mrs. Gonzales called Wednesday, January 10, and was referred to Mr. Seeley. Mr. Seeley was out, so his office)E referred her to Mr. Crill. She talked with Mr. Crill Wednesday; he said he would call her back. She did not hear from him and called him Friday, January 12. Mr. Crill stated he could not complete his investigation because the officer involved (Officer Moore) had been off duty. Mrs. Gonzales called Animal Control and found that Officer Moore has been on duty. Mrs. Gonzales then called this office for help.) 1/12/73