Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01011972 - Animal Control (2) ANIMAL CONTROL REEL# POSITION4 02-7%3 Predatory animal control 1972-1973 Special Animal Control Review Committee 1973-1974 Proposed Spay Clinic 1971-1974 Misc correspondence 1973-197 STORED: BO7C ,_.,._.._. �.i 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 tperviees gormerlyrpzbvided throughecontract�nvtth thet--:Bureaueot Sp`biftt sheiit- 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 iscussions to the Board of Supervisors; and 'F' '==-� r�' ys..c.. ` '`•''` �'� •'f 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. 1713 The foregoing order Was.�passea 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 c c: Mr. Warren L. Smith Supervisors Agricultural Commissioner County Administrator ffiaxed this 9th day of January , 19 73. W. T. PAASCH, Clerk By � � Deputy Clerk Aulene B. se#h M24 4/72 10M � , .0 „i„ t.,,,.4 ;FrJ i�Wr✓, ,c� Gmr '/' .'t y. «,• vrv'�3�Z c it's'rx ���' (/��v.^A, c'rNt -may. VGA Liv JAN. 31 , -- Wu MARTINEZ TOLC230(2054) (1-033698CO02)PD 01/02/73 2033 W. T. PAAWH CLERK 80ARD OFSUPEFtViSOR, } ICS IPMOLS8 OAK CO T COSTA co• CePu ZCZC 02180 NL MARTINEZ CA. 100 012 310P PT ,'r BY ham+' PMS CHAIRMAN BOARD, OF., SUPIIYISOB S_. COUNTY BLDG MARTINEZ CA REQUEST APPEARANCE BEFORE" TILE: BOARD OF NEXT "REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING TO PROTEST LACK, OF 'PROTACTIOlt OF PRIVATE-`,PROPERTY BY CON'AtA. ' COSTA COUNTY IE KILLING OF, LIVESTOCK BY PREDATORS tARREN L SMITH eG' 1100 BAILEY RD MARTINEZ CA00 In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California October 24 19 In the Matter of Letter xri th respect to a position with Contra Costa County as a trapper . A letter having been received from Mr. Paul D. Stutrud, 4-04 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 =- BOARD ORDERED 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. ABSENT: None. i 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: Administrator Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Agricultural Commissioner Supervisors affixed this 24th day of October 19 72 W. T. PAASCH, Clerk By Deputy Clerk Lourette Kincaid H24 ant tOM - x RECEIVED 13 Oct' 1 97 2 _ r 7 W. T. P ,%ASCH -CLERK-BOARD-OF_SUPERV!S ORS YoL& C NT OSTA CO. Ser 5. _ .__.._ _ Ey_ Dep tt .L LkmJer s toancl Y�afi Wr. e CL_ I t�a�Per. _ .,every, 420 a few mol fps #-o. McIP 9 of ►c� , of Predair .. .ems of laAima. i _ls _. _ .t._._T_s._ _ �cs_ o �O__. auaI la kccu VIXilkG,N_, Pa �VY�__ _ .a _ ._GuouLcl_ �e s �ah$ I- _61 I tl e s _- and- _ kOw _�/t tLCu h awJ�10.4- ._ +Y'___._tuo�.<<<- ot- _w�11 too_�C -��1 e a Act nab LJoc,& paw, _ �f�r�i ►2�j __ ���y __� __L'a,�i_fa ,rni.a- - 9.5'9-��!. P.S. . Lk)Q- oto not _4v.e _wkz-t e. _tvery ere_ So sevvA_ reply - fia Gen ea. Wlu er.y 4 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 or 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, :r.c: 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 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 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 Disb t . the proposal at meeting on animal control regulations. of Board of Supervisors and was complimented for giving attention to county problems; his proposal withheld from implementation because related severe problems would develop. 4-11-72 Predatory 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 chairman, 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. fp 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 gy 1 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 Mr. James Schroeder Ms. V. Wright Mr. W. Tibbits Mr. T. Bozorth Mr. T. Appelbaum Mr. J. Sudall Mr. H. Weslar Mr. Frank Arato Ms. Sylvia Scheuber Flood Control District k t. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Inter-Office Memo Date: June 13, 1922 To: County Government Operations Committee (Supervisors A. K. Dian and J. E. Moriarty) Rom: Clerk of the Board By Aileen Elder, Deputy Subject The Board today referred to you tar reviex the county- predatory ountypredatory animal control and squirrel eradication programs. c.c. County Administrator r r In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California June 19 1.97.2- In 972In 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 lith day of June - 19 72 Wildlife Alive W. T. PAASCH, Clerk Agricultural Commissioner County Administrator BY— der Deputy Clerk H76 t1'71 10M CONTRA;COSTA COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Inter-Office Memo Date.' ,April ll, 1972 To: County government Operations Committee (Supervises A. _M. Dias and J. B. 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 predatorg' .animal control and squirrel eradication in this county. A lk Attachments } y 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. f AASCH, Clerk Mr. T. Appelbaum Mr. J. Sudall BY Deputy Clerk Mr. H. Weslar Lourette Kincaid Agricultural Comm. Administrator H24 11171 Inn CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FILED DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE APR // 1972 April 3, 1972 W. T. PAASCH CLER BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 9y CON 04 p To: Board of Supervisors - Ueputy 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 34, 1972, copy attached). The Board of Supervisors, on March 34, 19720 recommended that I make an overall review of this countyls 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. (Copp attached. ) Some conservation groups are making a statewide as well as a i 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 i and will no doubt bring about improvement in procedures. Unfortunnately0 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. Non-target species are released.- (2) Coyotes cause considerable economic loss, especially to sheep men, and it takes an 1 experienced trapper to capture coyotes. (3) We require the. traps to be checked at RECEIVED least every 24 hours. EI (1�) The trappers use no poison. iYR � 1972 i W.'T. PAASCH _ CLE K OARD OF SUPERVISORS NTRA COSTA CO. BY ,R.q,d�act.c Deputy t E ,Bb�,rd; of Supervisor� -2- 4/3/72- If /3/72If 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-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 Pour. ALS/ac cc: Clerk of Board OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMIhISi RATOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 11- 77 Administration Building ct_cnK oonNa oF ,v•c:�visoR J blortinc:, California or HA CO-.TA CO. To: Board of Supervisors Dote: December 23, 1969 =rom: J. P. McBrien, �,Z_ Subject: Courity Use of the Services County Administ ator.r of a Professional Trapper As a result of complaints received from 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 contracted. with 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 I•Iealth declaring the existence of rabies to constitute`a public health hazard in Contxa 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 encl s. r� s. ACC OF THC DiRCGTOA a y i;EU W. i. ?/,ARCH GLEAK �d�RO OF Su?':W1sofM AA CO STATE OF CALIFORNIA cr�t.�•.1,�✓//"1,l'•�o.rvtr f-yi )y{.*1 r:�r�.�..• ��wtyt I�.M�.r 1l�A �-T :351 CZaKCLCY WAY 2CAKCLCY.CAUfCRNI^94"4 CONTRA RA Cr.i f A CO. Npveaber•251, 1969 4- V D Board of Sizervisors • County of Ccatra Costa DEC 121969 • Irartimez, CA 94553 [,ffca ci Ca sty Administrator C-en tle ren : In accordance with Sections 1901,2 and 1920 of the California Health a:.d Safe-,y code , t:.e exirtenc.: of rabies in he fol lowing oot-nties in' Rabies Fe,?.c.. IV :has been dere.:..-A . to constitute a pColie health hazard within the peop raahic blouc . of seen ( 7) co�.nzies which include: Alazzda, Contra Costa, Marin , Napa, Santa Clara, Soho znd Sonoma. After'consultation with and in accordance with approval +ranted by the Rabies Advisory Co=..ittee for Rabies Pegion IV on ,November 24, 1969, the California A;partr,►snt of Public Health hereby redeclares as a rabies area the block of 7 counties rantioned above, effective iecerber 2, 1969. The above re de clarat ion , as dk:fined in Section 1901.2 o.'* the Health and Safety Code , is for a 12-ronth period and includes the incorporated cities therein. A copy of this redeclaration has been forwarded to the coc-ity health officers of each of the 7 com=ies affected by the. above action. Corletion of "Statement of Enforce imnt" form by each of the poverninz bodies within -.:he above 7 counties is requested. The necessary "Staterant of Enforce-.,ant" forms are enclosed with the notices of redeclaration to the affected governing bodies and should be fully completed and submitted to the com-cy health o:ficer for his endorsement and forwarding to this Depart . nn:�on or before January 2; . 1970. This block redeclaration is based upon the lona term endamic cyclical occurrence and distribution of animal rabies within Rabies Region IV, the level of rabies surveillance within the counties of Rabies Region IV and the fact that the 7 counties af:ected by this redeclaration corprise a block of adjoining; counties sirilarly and jointly affected by the endemic cyclical nature of rabies.in wildlife. Sincerely you , ivuis K. SayloV. . Enclosure: Director of Public Health UNITED STATES r DEPART MENT OF i::E INTERIOR :.jLit FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FIS11M- ES AND WAILDLIFE ROOM E2717-FEDERAL BUILDING 2800 COTTAGE WAY SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95825 ' _n� •''0!�'I A COUNTY =F-PART'A1ENT G;AGRICULTURE k'c oppr cziata your concern for the A1_r,.u:a-Contra Costa vountics An i.Tz i On.-ago CGntrol Program. 11a too :•;.r a d6c7iy Concar.1cd v i ger the orticla in the Oakland Tri Gun_ was hro:Sht to cur 4ttention. I':.- era encic.-Ping a copy of the n�.:ls rc'.=ase as G1 irir4lly wrl tton. . aijd^3r rd, Director of Fieid Se.-vIcez for Alameda County dad tc l k wli th Tribune reporters, but t.a h=.va no cxcet record of t:hct Was s1;d t�ceording to Mr. I9ildcbrcrd, the intent of -1-to oriClnal is ws release was to inform new rc5ldents In the rural arc%-,.s of Alameda and CGnti a Costa Counties that an 'tRiC"r:l aCI'. ^^ Cf^iit:ai sC:ViCC' x:35 ovblla5le for tho3C that cxp.rlcnccd lives4tock, poultry, or ot;=r. a ,-r icultural depredations. ila7,wevar, the nc!aspaper zrticle strongly implied that Alamzda and Contra CaGta Counties were entering into a new and expanded program of wildli1a clinination. 11a want to very definitely point out that we are-not cc:barklnr on a nc-.4 and c.pandcd program o; wi ldl ifl a ei Ir•:inntion. Alameda County has eantr=%cd with the Division of Wi ldi lfe Services for animal da.:.aga' control since 1922. Contra Costa County has contracted for this p,ovessianzl service since 1924, except for 1959-19 2 and 1942 when they supplied their at-in control specialist. Over th-- `fears ue have adjusted the a :ount of v.ork in the54 counties ' to the work ioad rcnuirncnt. Tina curl: load is related mostly to tila incidnnca of wi idl ifa rabies and the amount of agricultural eepred.tion. Anrieultural livestock production has been reduced over the years as urban expansion has of ininated ranch lands. For thcso rcacona the. programs in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties have not bcon siCnIfIcantly expanded sinco 1935. The antral dam aga control prorran in theso tvra counties havo bean reduced by more than fifty percent this year as compared to last year, and-a twenty percent reduction was made In the year before last. t in Fiscal Year 1569, a total of 62 animal darnere requests were received from ranchers located mostly in the eastern half or Alameda and Contra ' Costa County. Iron-tarSat or non-depredating animals that are captured in response to justifiable d:.nnge control requests are. released at the site of capture. A total of $3,32x.00 in agricultural dapre-doticns were recorded In answering the 62 d.:mice con.rnl rcqu-znts. G6 course, 02 depredation valuation could have 3sccn two to thrco tiracs ,reatcr if our men had not captured the do-preda t i n0 or i r,-n i. All dep rccia t i nZ ania.als, except dogs, are put to'slccp In a hurrr.na manner. Deprcdatincg dogs are turned over to the rancher or county pound depart:rent. The control techniques that our animal da.raga control specialists use in Alameda County are mostly live box traps, however, the steel trap with cora humane offset jwds has to be utilizrd in c..pturing depredating coyotes. Unless an.emergeney problem occurs, no lethal accents will be used In these two counties.. If ranchers conducted their own control operations many needless animals mould be removed because many would use lethal agents. . We have searched through our records, going back core than a decade. :•!c have not taken any mountain lion or bear in Alameda or Contra Costa County. It is our policy to tame bear and mountain lion only after significant justifiable ccoroaic dar•iSe has occurred to warrant their rccaova1. Even though the mountain lion and 'bear occur in small numbers In theso counties their diet has apparently been confined to native- or wild animals and/or plants, because we have no record of significant i agricultural depredations for more than a decade. Last year's agricut.tural-product o' n valuation in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties was $16,457,000.6G1' Ccraa3c control requests +•.arc i received mostly from_-_43--ranchers that own or lease 118,570 acres of lzmd In tho two counties. In 1063 the California Dcpartnent o: Public Heaith reported a total of . nine rabies cases in the two counties and- W cases were reported in 1969 through September 30, 10-09. 03' the wildlife cases this year 15 ! were skunks, 2 were foxes and one was a bat. Approxinatcly 50 per- cent of tho work in the two counties is devoted to public health and , livestock rabies protection. The bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Division of Research, predator-prey relationship studies do not indicate that predators control their prey populations even though they feed on them. . •'the � primary reasons for this conclusion Is that the reprcductive capacities : of rodents for exceeds that of the species that pray upon then and that the prey species do not confine theli diet to one rnd6nt species for Any iength of tine. Rodent and rabbit populations control the populations of their prey rather than the reverse. This is due to batter diet and nutrition Improves the reproductive potential for �. the prey species. Diseases and other stresses tend to have the majority influence over the control of rodent. and rabbit populations. 2 ' We ire cnclosire10 copies of our animal: damagentrol i pol icy.. We sincerely hope the preceding infor:-.ition, wIli be sufficient to r' ac;:noi,rlcdpa thcx true na:urc and put osa of ani=l da.-rge- control I activities. Ver/ truly yours. Ronald A. Thompson Assistant. State Supervisor Wildlife Services Enclosure s- . . h .. .. i.. u r ..'"P`.'. r. .. .... ... ...%.. .C.�.. ... .i. ^%kms i 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 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 " MD ��� D�� NON, 19- 1959 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 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 - 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 rote: AYES : Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, J. E. Moriarty, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid. NOES: None. ABSENT: None . CERTIFIED COPY Ms . Valor ie Wright1 certify that thls Is a full, true & correct copy of cc: 6h the original document vv..lch is on file in my office. Mr. Walter Tibbits and ilia it v:ao 11;:;;1 I: ndoptc•i by ti Board of Mr. Tim Bozorth Suprrv; o' c'-Intra C,t.i C,mnty. c.'ilifornin. an Mr. Tom Appelbaum the .'i-,::i. n t %7. T. 1:AA_CII. ripitnty Mr. John Sudall OcrK .c vif.Jo clefk of said Board of Supervisors, by puty clerk. Mr . H. Weslar / MAR 1 4 1972 Agricultural Commissioner 1�/ r'cc County Administrator RECEIVED "AR s_t —1972 W. T. P A A S C HcZl'G.,GC_ CCEAK-'WAI O OF SUPERVISORS � $DftCCO. , xz c-w-reas 6. _ • �lS �.�O�.�if�J? /.S 77J �Q,NE��LT ,2 _ 1 Y� •� � ,�-= ��.--��==�"'�. �— -�i��"'- � � IHr &WI.H.H.Weslar J 1154 e � iC Pinole,Caloma94564 � _1 —'e 111rrr •.._ \ ti _ � z - -EIVE A F, l c!_eR eoAaD or=s iso s CON TA CO' • w ECE �T MAR 1 ') 197f W. T. P�tAMCF • CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVfSCfit HT COS A C.a7 - - - — - - By DGnL`ty� rdo-F,Yupervr�ers Cvn�/2Cos�rtCvun _ __coon /1 i•7 C/ edlMv. crrn0c� foG��SfruG�`ro� ©. 'z`ofa/c _��noc�rc fpr�dcc �i.-! ss��soh. nths_cc�o�^ _Zilr he cVr_40176 rnon617 Cos- �4�-�� Gon rr�hSin Clore _--- _ GAO r'Ur1 n� Tsee /7o ��_ �tG 's cz '_ L fetd-- � _ -),0116,61p, y-�. /lea oA -krAp /Sc/j'r Oyorsso rn_ Q.�d _� roVp _a 3c &W ,/� /W 1-teaw- /110,5-, Wf/4!?r 7b �rrn�r k - o a vse vnd-kl- 71Ymtlav 9�S9S _ I3arch $, 1972 Board of Supervisors Conta Costa County Martinez, Ca. 94553 Gentlemen: We hear you are permitting a predator control agent (trapper;) to work in our County. Ne 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 figure you can consult the local paper, the TUOLiME PROSPECTOR. 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 how 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. lie urge you to consider the matter of dogs roaming in even small packs, and the damage they can do. And consider how 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 help the shee�men and other livestock ouners in our County, forget the trapper, -and put in a real control: against the real killer. We look forward to yourdoing something realistic to solve this problem. Thank you. Mr. and Mrs. John V. Sudall 1d L' 'l..iEIV1J 1744 I-Talnut Street El Cerrito, Ca 94530 bR fv �`�'%7 I:J L C • 0 �` W. T. PAASCH CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS fly n ,,Q CO GO8TA-moi rf cZ. .,.•fix-G=�„t�._�'�'`� �� .,.- �.c' crz.�"� -�f ���c.��, K /�j�r� �� �{��"�rC ✓fes- �'+^`•/ c, 2 REC : ED IliAr'l W. T. PA,ASCH CLST BOARD OR SUPERYtSORS CO d65TocA�.,pp 1�Y ��+�Oepusy REl&wAT.A- CEIVED Q /3, /L >aa CLERK BOA DO UPERVISORS 1p A TA COt ty &7c'Bill '� I3, i97z bt�Cj PAX CK 2 Wilt, 6L ��i 6&�i jvt� �PVI . / j 4 '�bTSCIOo- t5 gr r2 3 J � Ild aAMJ ,y4A_ f/l. H � G✓�" 6A CIL �W- • bZ;7 Sd fw 2A rpt • 1��i °�''� iI PA `"' �a ars ' 5 6 (,,tAAJ�n aos- 6-4 Pte - 7Jx Q„ �-&A.A-J a • i z • • �"� � jv-� f� ern«""l 0 7k� VaA Pjd-K� X OAA , 4/ Ot-.C! • • Y1F D Aj. ITO- � � ATLI jatAJ dv'- T�of J,; Cox A AI&IL �` Iffad (ut OR- 1A A/0- I 0 rUkltcd a.Wa r�wdc-(dt i i _ 47 ,3-j4 zav mac( �uN-YY mu-! �ItrFQ 4 UUL2.� Lp- i J�r 1 �f ✓� �(M 66-4& CL4- 1 allot. �t let -lit tetZ j 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 id 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 problemi 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•Ag=icultural 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 suyuosed to do." I want Animal Control'to do the job they're supposed to do!- Name :4f Address Date 2. cZ 4. `may 5. ('n ..a.Q ua" 3f 19 fPa.fo � Jon.. 6. 7. r 8. hawy 'C 7 2-- 9. 9. t- 10. 11. :} GI JQ L 6 yo 4 L 12- 12. 12. l Avdc 7 13. Z. 14. r L G 15. V to pe�z 16. 3/TS 17. &U.". Paz 4 M 18. SW&%j vav�_ 19. 1,v1 20. i� .� n� 21. 22. 'kr�., - ( troloa lit 3 7 Ifs k a c /y �� Z 23. PO �X r � 24. C Ckt,V C 0 R, ^,C.R.11, 1i S � R -�a�Ks lst.. G C_L_ r-# ��Tr�r oN v ENA �r�.c�ii-.�a'GS'SND �t t,� ( ``"`'=.'"` NH ALEAl ,1 fir. 37, oilvi Avki'{et 1CICI1f, 3to2'3- 6oy.Qr G��C,12. ta _� Jam_ C�, . �..... Jav- 1237. Y&7i-2 �W,2-v- 411. • r �z. C3rdl i5c��a� _q 4/ 4-1 I-Ij• E h V` po�Leo ok 5 4 S(Z� a - �S _ L/ U, VOL`L` -:W8 Ll-nc oh-) UJB %ta-F. . y -46-- 2 7 �� c �1oC C) rY4lten C c,� • -5 - a 77,eel �. 393 C"°'"- r �► a .-i i tf101J tNib kli#iR b65 W GOO tfJA C5"` Couk11 `' _ GD • moi- 7a 6S 055 0. _._ 6�. �inc� tin �.a h� �• �l��-toy---- G�Z- eco..}- 90 //cam/'. O�a�• _ � '�- ��7�.... -. el Y�Y, 4�,o t,-kcbs-vt-I-) -�Rk,2) �aF?, jcuwnw . 303 I lV �V S r, OUA qG,. Jo�c ,v►x� 985 Coc)�X CA c;c msZ_ 6 -.� .__ . . 72 joo. ,�e�lce� p►�le.� _ <<a�.. 'Aka-.. .'1(t r t�2 ) c Oto of 0 c` .� ,�'';/:�-;- --= _ LT G1� _ jLa u4 - , 4.1/ 6 �-c.�t;sr.,1J�1-Ct�'t, •� t � � 1 All �'' " 1 (07- 4f Li/-,,7/ a 7;2— //57 1s, Y _ /�2. � i�'r�c�-�. 3�01,x;-.�.�-�'� ,t��• `�..� -7' -)Z- D67 5' l r efs if A PION M END KIUZR DOGS AND DOG PAcks IN Comm 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 Departmerrt 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-rooming 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, Co tv i.cultural Can�issioner, acro to news re is _ Agr ' rd _poi's sympathetic with t�,d 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 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. , , OR 55 q 736. 3. 4. ,1 —32Z 7. 13 Pt) �_Ilivnr.�,'�4 Ct:q'L 8. //a& Illy—, W. C Z.-/A Ife . . . . a _,?VPV 9`. - J 13. 15 - - i2 FA,,__4 18. 19, ✓US`. ._.i} ,• ILx�1. �"< ! '° i...:.swy .+.? - 1j 1 <.,.4-t f .. ' t ... ,p d'.j l:, 20 - '21. 22. /� z- f� �1'-�' �39- 9/ ,1 24 K3 25 A P=70N TO END KIIJM DWS AIM DOG PAW Ili COMA COSTA:.fbU fN � I. the undersigned,-a resident of Contra Costa County, want an immediate end to the problem of killer'dog packs this county. I want,the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: : r to provide the' Deparrtmentt of Animal Control with funds to hire a ful'1' time person or persons to pursue the killer dfg-packs in this county until such time as free-running dogs and f dog _.Packs no lo{tger Pace 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,zto news re n,is �4 a s z sympathetic with the problem and admits.that the killer:dog pack problem exists., _ ins ve been trying to get additional men for years," Seeley"has said, "but the X . effort faces defeat at budget tiine. Wil£e not doing the' Job we're supposed=to' do." I want Animal. Control to do" _the job they.'re supposed to-do.- • h� �L,�i • ' Phonec • 1 - _ y.. 6 M 7. Olt 8 YAJP�• f _ • pp r F !° v• i :t '.+<<. fie^ a ./,....r "►,.- yn ! ( C *3 •. Yf^'� + 5 1 ." N _12. / s` ,r 13. AQ • x � 3 S� 14. 7 16. f. rr dyl r 1s: r r za g ,. 20� A, 6L P Mki 1, -77 d .22. Py V or G �n A PETITION TO END KILLER DOGS AND 'DOG PACKS IN CONTRA COSTA COUM K e `Q 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: r - 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 V. 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 J responsible control of their dogs. Art Seeley, County Agricultural Cmlissioner, 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 .._.- Y37-1/8 7 M &faf A- 37-� M 3 ' 4. 2111 7. a. 3oa . . . . . . . . . X2.ora 5D . . . . 9. " . , 4C, _ e� jh 37 11. 0 loldor ! 1� foo/ - ' � gw / a- M i5 11,06' �. ZZB-6 3 19. ;�� �2�Z�? t`��/9'1')')�lf�'?')��, i� rf.�al -cSn_ (`r9Yw"nRri s, /0 3?0-zyjg!�! . . 20. t� 21 y_E-f V) '23. P FWd N-do-r-) g '24. foo rW2 C) a _' a' - 2s. - �£ ;4 Wr?To N T 4 A PETITION TO END ALER DOGS AND'DOG PACKS IN�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 Closta 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're not doing the fob we're supposed to do.": We want .Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do! y Name Address Date 3• - ;LT C"'ArN.- -7 -L- 5. . 5.' rte, Z iex r t l"1ci r rl 31a4 hom tj ? 7 7f4 8. Ll 9. � C 1 1 10. jm , 11 12. 13. 3 7 14. 1,V7 ji� C&AAR_ I 15. �u F 16. - 1 17. z'� - y ry Y 18. .� 19. _Z_ 2 0.,&44 /;%1 21. t� nrl�� rr-_;` Rd on ro`.(Il `41-z�7y�' y r7 22. :4 bQ A b s 0, 23. 242fiaX A PETITION TO END IRLER DOGS AND -DOG PACKS INTRA COSTA COUNTY y 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 ,,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 pmcks in this coun- ty until such time as free-running flogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents oS this county; -to provide jjtrict 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 Agrieultural' Commissioner, according to news re- ports, is sympathetie' 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 Name ddress Date Aff 1• !1R �� A6md'h 2. - 3• 4. 5• Lk - 3 : AjL ?. GY <ill o 8. CAPFul z 9- 10. rel 11. Q 12. -Tn aj-_-th a-, � �' � !'� el�.t�rio_ w. 13. tr0 l 14. 14%1� Ilk 15. • 1y .37 16.MQtV- MCArcQlt-.JS1 G.tiC&V%.trail" Rood kla'"N01 1 2- 7. � r - 19 20. 21• ` 22. 23. Q - _ . 24. 8L I �5 ic z �,�� Z 9737-3319 2/S3 41AH604k- 770 570NE3A2 � �-�� � `� � C.ta,-r� Y\ate •_ .` f C.7\ .� a4&&A- C&U— 7 Return by April- 10th to: Mrf3. C. E. Violet LZ _805_La_Gonda ._Way. - Danville, Calif. . 94526 sr , y _ , s. s y J - ti A PETITION TO END *LER DOGS AND DOG PACKS IARCONTRA COSTA COUNTY WE, the undersigned, residents of Contra Costa County, want an imme- diate end to the problem of killerrdag packs in this county. , We want the "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, livestocX�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 sympathejtic -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, "hut the.'effort faces defeat at budget time. We're not doinx the job we 're supposed to do. " We want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to dot Name Address Date _ f 2. 2/ �T�lLit` C GjvGa /� - / - 7Z 3 a-9 �/�•v"��i v�-L /?1Z �'o tiro -ik 7 y 4. ��c.-^�..J c•L�c,�-l-Cr �'�- /.S- .� �/ai.r c l� � �' cv� 5. * o 'TrQaT Cud. ASS a,ewd 3 -/8-7 Z- 8. 1 . 10. il• w 13. 0_�; 4,4-1E )c7htcv�- AA� 14. t 16. 18, p- 20. /n / 3 Z7 24. /-#. ,r`. / lin• . •.� /l ., S/ 7 2$. r l(C Y /'J " i R A PLTTPION TO END KILLER DOGS AND DOG PACKS IN CONTRA COSTA COUM'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 reouiri.ng owners to be in responsible control of their dogs. Art Seeley, County Agricultural Cam'issioner, 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.d'ob we're supposed to do." I want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do: Name Address Phone 1 z )lw� /�YO -/j�/ 2. O t 3 3 — O/ 4. 1 l 9. 10. �-' c Z. — { '7 xv 12 w ✓ j .� � 7 3 4s 14. -,J 15. 16. CLcr. 3. (�� 18. 3 - 39 V3 19. 1 -�-�- 20. —� 22. r J .�� ------ — -23. ,6 . '24. • • A PETITION TO END KILLER DOGS AND DOG PACKS 114 CONTRA COSTA CM41'Y I. the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, want an immediate end to the problem of kilter dog packs im 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 prob14'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've supposed to do." I want Animal. Control to do the job they're supposed to do: . N Address ,, Phone j 7 :�� 2 4. A,5 ,A 6. `�U , ALza-I -lid. CC,,. .a - �` ' 7. � Joe 1 I o Sa 2 1133 9. 11. 12. ��� 13. 14� . /d 3, d r � 19. r 20. 7 r �-�-yL cZ''� •�O to S„ !�' it% UCS LJL 3 ` .� T .23. TIL�rlf V l' A PETITION TO END -ALER DOGS AND DOG PACKS I*ONTRA 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 ,,ontra Costa County Board of Supervisors: -to provide the Department ofAnimal 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, 1lvestoolt 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 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 fob we're supposed to do. " We want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do! Name Address nn Date i. � lr��•�x�. 3 Zy �L AME H4. jo- cubhZ0001 VZ-717z- 2 LLO 3• 5• 9 L V_�,f 10. 11 ,IRV J •� 12.w. 00- 13. 30 ?Y 14 15. A/Z 18. ' r3 o7a 20. 112- 21. 221. - - 71 23. / kf7/, 250 l r A PETITION TO END *LER DOGS AND_DOG._PACKS-II&NTRA COSTA COUNTY WE, the undersigne , rest e dnts of Contra Costa Co�tyimme diate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this ct 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 tineas free-running--dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestoolLcand 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. emergeney animal problems 24 hours a day; to require the use of tranquilizer guns for capture of dogs rather �- than__hunt�ng 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 dot Name Address Date 1. ZZ 2* 6. 7. / s. t 9 10. 377, r. t v.�. ;i,. r L-! ? �-,,ti.J. : r'" ..I ..'t r^7��►. k'' G=--%-_.� .�^ 7 3 f. 12• - - t ..-'_.r.�'l.f�w Re; .�_.l..w,.l- I,�.'^�. !..f /,' ••. .,�jw<,...7 13 ''x` t 14. [f-Y`,_:.F. ,'J ...f` ��•.�' ,.�. � /.T� S�7r_��fYl� C.fr,,.,.� L2LR,Ha,..� - -- .. _. �'- .... 15. 16• 7.l �� f!if/�..L. ..!'.1✓''. r�.trT �l i"+'._.✓'r r'\ L+',_..r'�F C - i y '.t / "L-6 [ Y 18. r1 . Uj ct rr. W 21,{ 6 19. it '-i '` k.C 20• �� 21. 'f. a. .— 3 �3 _ o 25. 1 Return by April 10th .oto: t G, I q,�SO � yrs. Violet _C. E. Vi 805= La Gonda Way DaAville, Calif. . 94526 ry UV ; Lk3-S � �' s .. ,v^'t�is'_•y`IMt� f"�s��cX1. A P1:TT1'� TO END KILLER DOGS AND DOG PAW`-14 obtl coSTA coway 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- person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this-county until such ti• . 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 Ccnmissioner, accordirr.to news reports, is _ sympathetic with the problem and admits_ Pat the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional men for,years," Seeley has said, "but the06 ' 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 do: Name " Add ess F'horie J . , : - 2• ., O:b 3. OA - ; 4 r 27 7 4t, L • _ o ., 7 Z-Z .0.i)�WtO-410 xYj V, 040a�d ' t 12. 14• 8- 71 �^ v 17• 18. OAIV 19 3/// Cant .a. ;�� 9ys`�6• RR 21. J ill 'i AJC 41, `. 22. G �, 23. .24 _ ! t 25. . 1 �. A PETITION TO END KIRM DOGS AND DOC PACKS IN ONTRA 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 ofAnimal 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-runningdogs 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 Job we're supposed to do.", We want Animal. Control to do the job they're supposed to dot Name Address Date 1. •�� 't om-1,E.� �-�l ��os cJ�_ a'CL 3, .t t _ /o - 7z- 5• 7• / !Ct; ' 1.1- �7 !/tet/�/�L<< 2. ) L•C / ?��JY �' 4,y� / . � )>��?�C.� / /�I t 8• V 9• /0 �- 10. Cl Ct 11• a �7� 12. lD o 13. 14, a r 15• r: 17. r _ 1 8 ) c C7• 19. 20. fa Q r 21. .ado 22• 23•f u 24. /6 3M#a 31.21177-1 25. 'L s1 -tc6 ,�coNt �K . ,l�con,�Cv�,p� 1r 1 A P1;TITIOW TO 1:34D KILLER DOGS PVD I= PACKS I11 COJEW COS71A COUL l I, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa:County, want an kanediate end to the problam of killer dog packs in this county. 1-want the Contra Cotta County Board of Supervisors: to provide the Derzr ni ent 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 lopger 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..Seelev,,County Agridul-j ra Cotrenissioner, according to news reports, is slmipathetic with-7Vie problem,and 'admits that the killer dog pact, problem exists. i "I'.ve beea, tr-ylie-to get..additional men for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. 146 re not doing they job we're supposed to do.rr 1 I want Animal Control to do- the job they're supposed to do: ' Name Address Phone Q�'. IL 2. 3. 1 4. 4 r 6. f" ee N � ' G f Z 9• -- 7 ?2 10 ZZ(0 � •o� �. 12. 7 13. 14. (! 51 ' a:&, A4.l4 '/7n /_'$S'i la. 19. 5847 D& 7�.bo IANC CCr4yTbN 685 zo5 - . 20.��"1 r�. � �Jtn1±�'t 5 i3 �� P `�k.. � ,I 1Nf 7 �f�-•- 3 21. ' 22. a c� G8Z - 70 23. 24. 25. /S1, fCIL- 6 L 0 A PLTrrION TO END KILLER DOGS AND DOG PlICKS Ili C01T1MCOSTA COU7TTY 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 Conga 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-rwudng 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 Commissioner, according to news reports, is sSmipathetic with the problem and admits'dhat 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 ,'4 A 1. L.3r�lir�. C��rr'��c1 ��.R t'�'1tinf� r r�'3C� 5�t—���•� 2. 1 z 11} 1r: l2- V1;C DW 3. VQ o nod -'07 4. 76J 5. Oz Q�Lr 7. 8. 11KO MUV A/t 677e, C,4, 3 7 G - 10 111 12. l3_� 13. r • r 14. I 3716 -S? �. 16. 'T_ 2.1 1_ Z F^� ,=,{� •i 1 t-�w /^Y� f,' l 1.�.�■ _ 1 17. �Qot c� �, �. y a kQ D h c,u.j¢. 011- �a(a.- S 4 —407 V A 18 t _ _ r*�!7� :�7 t 1 rl. �l -7 .G� 19. iAli21. J11;1 1 .23. q37- lqy 25. A-O&L0 U f D • o . (ob 1 r A =- I'1'ION TO END KILL,P.R DOGS 41,M DOG PACKS IId COI\ij�14. COSTA COUNTY I, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, want an immediate end to the proble;i of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: - to provide the Denart—ment 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 lar-7 requiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs. _ Art Seeley, County Agricultural Camiissioner, according to news reports, is s-ympathetic 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: N,ame Address Phone 2. / EL', f � c� Lo- .nZ , �3 c za 7. - -- f 9. /L f/ —�,oz..� 12. 14; is. Q �d Da Av49 16. r 17. 369 AdAdLY1 nh,h (A&P� n 19. d 20. 4&W, 21. 22. i 23. OD r 24. 21 .2 A P=1 ION TO DO KILLER DOGS PIM DOG PACKS D1 CONTRA COSTA COUTUY I, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa Coun-ty, want an mediate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: - to provide the DeDart-ent 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 recuiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs. Prt Seeley, County Agricultu el Comr ,issioner, 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 Tien 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 do: Namc :address Phone 1. Z 2. �, 3z7 4. 5. \ 3 �S i.t .v z A l�¢. `�ti e,a 6. 1 IeS/ S;QA) �vw / � �� 6�* 533 71l �`w ,meg--Z150� W61 ir- 9. 10. ' -`; 2 ! VOL 837-6732. . . /0 7 W1111011 14. ry� Ui 2 0. 21. i ✓ 22.Z7- 9� 23. � '�" Oq - y 9 24, Q �a3i 25. �, x A PEETITION 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 dogpacks;in,this., county.: I want. the Contra„Costa. County board of Supervisors: -to provide the Department of Animal Control withfunds to hire a full-time. fperson or persons to.pursue the killer dog packs in this.'county, until such- time as free-ruaning dogs and dog packs no,longer, pose a problem; to the wildlife, FIN r� livestock and residents of this” county; -to n ovzde stricter enforcement of the law requiring owners to be in res=.::nsible control of their dogs; -to provide personnel from Animal•Control to assist with emergency animal- ,;pro'_lens 24 hours a clay; to require the use of tranquilizer guns,.for capture of dogs rather than - hunting han hunting or trapping wherever possible Art Seeley, County Agriculturai-commissioner, according to news. reports, ,is: g 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 M effort faces defeat at budget'time.. We're 'not doine=.the 'Job we"re suuyosed.to do." I want Animal. Control tq da,the job they're supposed to do: . Name Address Date z . _� . 3. X31 4. G s. ,� 7 6. s 1 ? p 7. 9. r 10. hd E e ` _ 11 AJI 12. 7 2--- ` l . (,tQ�.tcz Gin L, ►1' e -�rih. - t'F'" • 17411 X02 14, ' 0 7a., L1, - . Jolly 16. 17. JQI 18. j r . : .c .� C7'L '•C .�`3,t'?'-� ... -G�,c sK..c �,�rct 19. 22. d a ks ryry I . . -..: A '':TMON TU END KILLER DOGS AND DOG PACKS IN CONTRA COSTA. COUNTY �= 1, the 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 Cou..t� ao rd of Supervisors: 44 -to prom Le 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 irce-running dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, 1^vc::_ock -t:nd residents of this county; ,)rovide stricter enforcement of the law requiring owners to be in resnonsible 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. hrt- Seeley, County Agricultural Commissioner,. according to news reports, is: symrathetic :with the problem and admits_ that ,the,killer dog pack'problem exists. "I=ve heart trying to get additional- men' for years,"'Seeley has said, "but the We re not doing the tab we re su posed to do effort races defeat at budget time. ' " p " 1 want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do: Name Address Date.. . ` 47-1 3 / 2. 3. ` of i2a tj -C 13/11 4. UAL 5. I V j, .. r S. t406 61mP 9. Ottf/G G �f l t1c 10. 3 / i ll. MAP. -Ire 7 12. -%' 13. rni� al .. l a a 1v�tYoe � � - . 3`- OL 16. YVI : T< �j > 19. 20. [t t WzN eA 2 t bir at '` r 24. 4 z . d u z �; a , A PETITION TO END MILER DOGS AND DOG PACKS IMONTRA COSTA COUNTY i 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 gtriet enforcement of the law requiring owners to be In responsible control of their dogs; -to provide personnel from Animal Cohtrol 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 Job we're supposed to do." We want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do! Name Address Date 74 J 1 - i; �,.� / _ �. A&X_Z� 2. Z/Z 4. 6. 7. s. 9. 0. 4if 11• 12. j AA.4,A--, 04 15.— c 16. �i.e .. .v a 302 r 3 1 7• 1 �i� _t ��l �� �' � 1 { j� N . 1l I til:' ni,t: 19• 1 1.` 20. r r d 2 2s 1 Y 23• t ! ?iS .E t_.�� -y�r ry i`;! �1{ bit t �� Y. �> ? frig 25. p �. A PETITION TO END KILLER DOGS AND DOG PACKS Ili COIGM COSTA COLJVTY I, the'undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, want an inmediate 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. 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 surEosed to do." I want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do: Name ' Address Fnone 2. ("- /E1 ' 9 3• 6. cav S. l n�le� t- - b tea (of 3 u� llc —off. 7. r�`Q_a42�� 4 ll. 140 WE/4dzLeak) d-11 Z J LP i2• I t 13. -- Q ca 17. ,8• ' ?- 0• m rye r�(��(fn ry- (` a �1 (t Y� 7'[I C i �+(��,l� 1 3 9.. Y 6 7 �' 2z• .(,G�i,CL �--/I�tl2-�c',�sf ��S -��e�cl�o ��2eG'�� �eLru,'%LL�- $31-75'i,3 22• 3. 21{• "� '�i i,, ;t �_ f.' ,.c' :� .s°...'F<,s - ,c ''� ..... �'.i :`a-t� E f ' �.= ae � ��-..`°—%r 25. a kN -c i- ' .�� /Jjc/ jl� fcG/ (/ Z A 1"ETITION TO END 'KILLER DOGS. AND DOG PACKS-IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY , c .. u;dersigned, a residentofContra Costa County, want an immediate end to t:_• problem of killer dog packs in this county. '; I want the Contra Costa CounLv Board of Supervisors: -..ore the Department of Animal: Control with:funds to hire a`full--tune person os: persons to pursue thekiller 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. probleL:s 24 hours a day; ­ -to ay; -.-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 supposed to do." I want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do: Name Address G Date 12j, g, 3. ot LI-, X, 6. 7. $+ - i 9. F0 Z 11. -2422 J-). 13. a �- h 14, 77 1s: 16. (5! 1 1�1tf q 17. C -f I- 18. -15. `O ` . `y -7 19. -- 20. 21. 22. 23. /fl.f/w- '24. r '"�+ A PETITION TOE KIPE 0 A O ND R DOGS AND DOG PACKS IN WTRA COSTA COUNTY WE, the undersigned, residents of flontra 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 Job we're supposed to do. " We want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do! , Name Address Date I. "X - 2- 2. A'�-1 3- - LE 7 4. 6 Y7 t 9• 1 S R., 10. i 1 i. ` (01 12. 13Ile 3 144J —ACIAJ Lj G 15. l �' uc a , Zd i 16. L77V. 17 7Z 19. lt5u 7 4- 7.e, If 21 22. 23.r i R A PETITION TO END KILLER DOGS AND DOG PACKS I11 CONTRA COSTA COUNY 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 Ccmnissioner, 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=jab we're supposed to do." I want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do: Name Address Phone 2. 3. r17EU A A 0 4. 5. . . 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. . . . . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. .21. 22. .23. .24. 25. A PETITION TO END KILLER DOGS AND DOG PACKS IN ONTRA 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 "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 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 fob we 're supposed to do. ".: We want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to dot Name Addr* ss Date 1• a o5s?/-7o2., y . c lU 2. .z .L 7 3. 4. 5• 6. Zo95�� D �z ski 3-Zs-- - 7• L� - 9. iv 3 �� •�� 3-�71 10. Al pi A 11• 1 d '2<' , 12. '5APt 7 Z_ 13 14. 15- 16. _ 17. ' 18. . 19• 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. . 25. - A Pia'7TION M 124D KILLER DOGS NJD DOG PACKS I21 COMM COM COUITY I, the undersigned, a residenf.of Contra Costa'County, want an. immediate end to_the problem-of killer dog packs 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 lapger pose a problem to the wildlife; x` livestock and residents of'this county;-' . i • - to provide stricter enforcement of the law reauiring.owners to be in responsible control of their dogs Art Seeley.,;,County Agricultural Ccamissioner, accordi rg• to. nc �s reports, is ^ k ts}mtpathetic with theproblem_and•admits khat the killer cog pack, problem exists, "I•'ve been7�7�: .eget additional men for years," Seeley has said,`"but the _ effort"faces"defeat at budget time-, We're, not doi.n� the job we're supposed to do." I want Animal Control to do the 'job.they're supposed to do: i r.Tame Address. Phone 2. 4. //G mow, - — l� cSa 5• 9/l /-:�.�.cs-�—t� � �.3�s�'r•1.��a.e� r.L. ���- (' P'd"' `��`°r�^.. C ,r 6 9 Qv) 8•A'k.z X55 6Lilk{t .�. I .T7 t�. .: ��e. ' n R4 I& 9. V ; �0.' .--. �� Z4►-�ncusin�r_�P�- G��c.�-r�C- x-684-,-6296 12 1110, 13 x 16. 17. 1f111ar '/ Iii" �r ✓"' /�Y� � � /1 �C _ -( � C� / l8. >` -19. (6 7 j .sZe(r 3�9 20 3 9 7 3 `� - — k '21* 3( 22.- -23. 2.-23. •24 25. - a•.,+cy;4 ...,.: .. .., i .*.�.„x., .-.._..L ,. .. .^,o... a <. .. ,._ ... ,.. . ,.. ..we,.l' .. ., :,. a.... ...i,? ,,,£Au 6��' , A PU Tl'ION TO IND KII.I ER DOGS A14D DOG PACKS III CO1,TRA COSTA COLI ML I, the urid6rsigned, a resident of Contra Costa'•dounty, want an ' i.ediate end to the problamliDf killer dog packs in this county. I.'want the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: - to provide the D_ -pe_r -,lent of Animal Control with funds oto hire a full-tire person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this county until such time as free-running dogs;and dog packs no 'longer posse a Mblim 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 Seelev,. County Agricultural Commissioner, accordirg to news reports,. is yr f t sympathetic with the, blem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to: et 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. —379 3. LGLf 4. I y Lo L/9 15-Alp 4 7. ti/l-7/2/.L 72kJ &��1.7?) <X t 7 .9-� Oh 1 8. > 11. ;3 12. 3 13. is. .JS J' - ls. p of 17. / - i 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. ?4• 25. • A P'3TMON TO END KILLER DOGS AND DOG PACKS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, want an immediate end to Ithe 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, livzstock 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 probler•.s 24 ?'ours a day; -to require the use of tranquilizer guns for capture of dogs rather than hunLling or trapping wherever possible. Art Seeley, County Agricultural Commissioner, according to news reports, is sy p:!,LhC t.i c V i th the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I't� ;iQon tr_•ing to get additional- men fo'r 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! Nara Address Date i. � 1-13-7Z 3. 4. 5. E. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 17. 1�. L. 22. 23. 24. _- A PETITION TO END .AER DOGS AND DOG 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 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 Job we 're supposed to to. " We%want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to dot Name Address Date 14 2. 3• 4. 5- 6. 7- 8. 9• 10. 11• 12. 13- 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19• 20. 21. 22. 23- 24. 25. A PETITION TO END *LER DOGS AND DOG PACKS INTRA 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,4ogs 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 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 Job we're supposed to do." We want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to dot Name Address Date 2Xn • .� /fTi L 3 /� f AO 44- t;k3 � 3• 9L 944MCL MCC 4. 3 �8� 5. �� h . 6. 7 '" /Z/7 of ` s. Eno3 9. /• ' 10. UAL 11• — Ift IM INA. 12• 13L/ 14. 15. 16. 17. 16. 19. 20. 21.• 22. s _ 23. 24. 25. A PETITION END 14aLJXR DOGS AND DOG P'PCKS,IN COMA COSTA COUNTY r - ' 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 Depart-.tent 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-n ruling dogs and dog packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents of this county; to provide stricter enfaitement of the law reouiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs. .Art Seeley, County-Agricultural Ccutissioner, 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 w 2• �. ` /?10 AO 44 4 - � s. �� (2 9• 10• o �2 p` 12 14. % ' t � i 1 c�Q-0.0 1� AL PA-y 37 -s l5. . . . . 16. 17. 22. '2 3. 24• 25 t - ` A PETITION TO END KILLER DOGS AND DOG PACKS LN CONTRA COSTA COUW1Y I, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, want an L-mediate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: to provide the Departs ent of Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time nen-son 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 fiat the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been tying to get additional nen 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: ?dame Address Phone 1. 1r 34 e t% - 2Vt � 4. 6. Aire 4 �. 3 c. - 7. �nM 8. 9. ° ''. '7 o 10. 13. . . . . . . . 14. L7. 3 19. 2u. 21. .22 23. 24. t 25. A PETITION `I END KILLER DOGS AND DOG PACKS D COMM COSTA COUW1Y I, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, want an imediate 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. Art Seeley, County Agricultural Cmnissioner, 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 Xor 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 do: ' :ar^e Address Phone ej 2. 3 �v Ato_Y0�a 5• zf'cep.n xJ ��..�+n 3 — �u .,�._ t �.tsc �e 73 _a a2 S/ 6. t .24 1 _ Q t 7. Ir 7 0 . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 1fl. S / 35--6 P22 11. 12. 4109 13. ' 14. 15. . . . 17. F i8. �c 20. .21. 22. 23. 25. A =11TION TO END El= DOGS AIM DOG PPZI<.S III CON'TRACGSTA COL'hTY I, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, want an mediate 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 Demons 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 phis county; to provide stricter enforcerrent of the law requiring owners to be .in responsible control of their dogs. Art Seeley, County Agricultural Cc=issioner, 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. 14e're not doing the job we're suDbosed to do." I want Animal. Control to do the job they're supposed to do: Name Address Phone 13111M Olu,p � _ 72M ROT AD I 2. q U c( �Icurr� .�+►. /7� X53 7 �l 5�2� 3 . ZC-1 6F 4 x,37 44 9,5 �- S!5,� 2 7. -2 -YL-7:'.' 72. 10 13. 15. 1�. N oda. 376 - sa 3 18. ;�% � c Q &,eOC13 7- T-3 74e— to 2D. '21. . . . 22. �� ,1 �� 7 23. 2;. 25. • A PI.TITION 210 IND KILLER DOGS AI4D DOG PACKS Ili CONTRA CO�2'A COL11IY 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; J - to provide stricter enforcement of the law requiring owners to be in responsible control of their dogs. I Art Seeley, County Agricultural Cargnissioner, a to news -re according _ ,rep"s 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. 1 e4 .g37.- (� 4 O 3. W,3 ! o.•,a 4k! e Inds/� K37 163 937- r 5• opg 7-496 70 7. J� AL1 8j. , • 24 :Z s. - ORb 11. _ 1-2s/ ege lzv4w, _ 9 12. 11 e4 / ye- :2 13. 14 15. 1,7 &Ao,-7/- if. 18• /)/^ '�.. /'�} i/c2ti'C� t1 C✓J f ie, Y ( � I— / V ls, LA-e2- /53S S37- - . 3s37- '21. J) e�� Z-2 . .22.�� .23. '24. 25. A PETITION TO END #LER DOGS AND DOG PACKS ISONTRA 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 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 job they're supposed to dot Name , Address Date 53 A Jk, CI,- 2. 3. ZS- 4• ` IV/ CZ �Zs- l 5T �� • _ 7. s. : ��� PFlUAA1 n-)J2_RE4IRrre:K G/ �clrlrc &t-u./`g� 10. 11. 12. 14. o 15� 3z1- i 01/1 19. 20. Q 444.t 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. A Pi;grim to um KnI�I.I DOGS AljD DOG PACY.S DI COiti'TFA COSTA cou'TY I, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa.County, want an :L-i-mediate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Contra Costa Countv Board of Supervisors: - to provide the DerarWent of Animal Control with funds 'to hire a full-tune person or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this county until such time as free-running dogs and dog packs no logger pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and residents of this county, to provide stricter enforcement of the law reauiri.ng4o niers to be in responsible control of their dogs. Seel�ev, County Agricultural Connissioner, according to net-;s reporrts, is s� etic with the problem and admits -that the killer dog pact, problem exists. - "I've een`ttryirg to get additional men for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. Were not doing theJob we're sunrosed to do." I want Animal Control to do:the job they're supposed to do: Na-re Address Phone Of 2. Iwo 3. j . JkJU. A& s. 7. r 10. Jig 7,-_2_F41 12 ,,, rr', !?S�(/`i� 13. „�. ��rr 14. 15. i7� `,- , t IS Jr All, 17, tit �r r / �, ~ c,, . .►ury 1 + �. -9� u 18. 19. cn 20j. L 21. / ? 4 -.tom 4� /rJ_ QC� ��- "1� O_✓ �.'Y 11.Gr� �ti. _ }' jj'� C 211/ ax 25, j i' I A PITUTION TO IIID KILLER DOGS AIM DOG PACKS IN CONTRA COSTA CWUY 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 dpg 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 reouiring 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 + 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: Dame Address Phone 3. AT Za 4 S o2s�- 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14, 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. .21. 22. .23. 24. 25. A PLTITION TO END KIuxR DOGS Aim DOG PACIGS.n CONTRA COSTA ax NN I, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, want an inmediate • 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:-doig 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_ "t the killer dog pack problem exists. ,S "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 job we're supposed to do." I want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do: Name Address Phone 9- 3: 4. 5. y 6• ,. 7. -wt� _� ti rlc�.� 9• i'" '21. �. L �- IV z 10. At 11. 72(L- .j 12. HCl-5�D r w e.. 13. I / 14* 1S• G . Z - C �;.. 17. 18. 19. 20. .21. 22 • - .23: .24 25. . it A PETITION TO END KMER'DOGS AND DOG PACKS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY I, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, want an imnediate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: - to provide the Deparbi ent 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-ruining 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 controi of their dogs. Art Seeley, County Agricultural Ccamissioner, according to news reports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits.that the killer dog pack problem exists. f "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. LZ 0 7s 2 L / '937-631/4 2. '7 U. 9. ou 12 13. za i 14, 15. 16. ` C' ILJ7 93 7-6 16Z 20. 22. '23: 24. 25. i ' • i A PE ION TO END KILLER DOGS AND DOG PACKS IN CONTRA COSTA COLUN 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. 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 J.. P)U�t4 Jac, . 2. � O. 4. t(^� �- UAF-TIJ 7� ( 9" 5. - 6;7 IRCR& PY. Oa . 97,3740�- ' T r- 8. LJI- . L JL 4 7 12. R&n 01 13. �� vi. •—(j t 16C? S k '16. 17. �o b_K 1 )Q?t /i - IQ. 14. L I I - c� 01 20. 21• 22. .23. 24. 25. A PETITION TO END ALER DOGS AND DOG PACKS INWNTRA 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 "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 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 C"ommissioner, 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 dot Name Address Date r -,f2, N•'t. q r 2• 7 2--- -1711 4. j� 6. Ali 8. . 9. 10. 11. 12. i 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 21. 22. 23- 24. 25. A PETITION TO END KILLER DOGS AIM DOG PACKS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY I, the undernigned, 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 Departriien t 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-ruining 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 I want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do: Name Address Phone F3- l6 117 20 3. J 4. K h 3 3 9 6. 9 p0 cq4zh Aa 4 8. 9. . . . 10. 11. . . . . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. '21. 22. '23. 25. A PETTTION TO MD KILLER DOGS AND DOG PACKS DI CONTRA. COSTA COUNTY I, the undersigned, a 2 esident of Contra Costa County, wan' an .i;-=ec to end to the problam of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: to provide the Depart-,ient of Animal Control with funds to hire a full-time persor. or persons to pursue the killer dog packs in this county until such time as frrae-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 amers to be in responsible control bf their dogs. Art Seeley, County Agricultural Commissioner, according to news reports, is sympathetic with the problem and adnits 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. i Jere not doing the i ob we're supposed to do." Iwant Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do. Name Address Phone 3 2. '�1 1 ry e, R-5-7- u. L)14`1 5• a,32- Y17 s. 2122 S79 ;�. On All G6 12. 13. 14. �5. 1s. 21 22 - LJ. 24. 25. A PLTr1TON TO END KILLER DOGS AND DOG PACKS' IN CONTRA cOsm COU4TY 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 do* packs in this county until such time as free-ruining dogs and dog packs no lamer pose a problem to the wildlife, s livestock and residents of this county; - to provide stricter enforcement of the law recuiri.ng- owners to be in responsible control of their dogs. Art Seeley, County Agricultural Ccamissioner, according to news reports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pack problem exists.- "I've xists."I've been trying to get additional men fpr years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. We'ree not dokg the job we're supposed to do." I want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do: Name Address Phone or c P - o s- e, 171 6 ' 7. aZ - �• .j — /7 8. . . 9. . . 11. 12. 13. . . . . . . 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. - 19. 20. '21. 22. - '23. 24. 25. f A P8TITION TO END LER DOGS AND DOG PACKS Ih*ONTRA COSTA COUNTY WE, the undersigned, residents of Zontra 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, livestockand 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 I k11_ler--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 dol Name Address a" — ate 5- • r� 1,4r � ! • 8 G ' 10. 11. 22• _ 13- 14. 15. 16. 17. 19. 20. 21. 23- 24. 25. A PETITION TO END ALES DOGS AND DOG PACKS IDOONTRA 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 C'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 C"ommissioner, according to news re- ports, is sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer do oreSepack problem exists. "I've been trying to get additional men for- ' - Seeley eley has said, "but .the effort faces defeat at budget time. We'rF�: doing the ,fob we 're supposed to do." We want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to dol Name Address Date 1. V�A-..�vw.a�•dl� � 8-p• k�t�Q.�i.J`��. - t--t'� 2. 3 /I/M cl(r a 4. A •� c1.2 5• • ?• 7 /3 _ 8. 9. 10. 11• - • 12. 13- 14. i5. 16. 17• 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. — 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 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 cpntrol 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. ♦r Art Seeley, °'^ounty 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! Name Address Date 1. 4 - 6- 72, 2. e `— 4. liL f -7 / r. _ . ?. R C0RS IGLI A 1 -71 Cam,I NU PABLC1 o(ZINo. 8. S' tot oj A Ij oP--. oa -7 9 QArMWo P46nu ,k 10. 11• 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. A PETITION TO END KILLER DOGS AND DOG PACKS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNI'SC I, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa-County, want an immediate end to the problem of killer cog 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-mauling dogs and dog packs no loi}ger 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 Cpm1issioner, according-to news re is Ports,., 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 Job we're supposed to do." I want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to do: Name Address Phone 2. 33 - � ' 3. kAt 4. s. • ` Ilk s 93;e-/& g AZIO 01 to8. < ` 11. 12 �'" � 1 y. f 1 7 Z .143 16 17. 18. 19. 20. '21. 22. •23. 24� 25. A PLTITION TO END KILLER DOGS AND DOG PACKS IN CONTRA COSTA COLHI Y I, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa.County, want an immediate end to the .problem of kilter dog packs ip this county. I want the Contra Costa . County Board of Supervisors: - to provide the DeparMent 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 ofthis county; - to provide stricter enforcement of the law reauiring'owners to be in responsible control of their dogs. Art Seeley, County Agricultural Cm�issioner, according to.news reports, is sympathetic with the proband admits that the killer dog pack problem exists. "I've been trying to get tditional men for years," Seeley has said, "but the effort faces defeat at budget time. We're riot 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. 4. �a /� S. �` o 7. 9. 10. 12. 13. 14. x 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. .21. .22. .23. 24. 25. A PETITION TO END FiILZER DOGS AND DOG PACKS IN *TRA COSTA COUNTY WE, the undersigned, residents of ;ontra Costa County, ;rant 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-runnlni3 dogs and doj, packs no longer pose a problem to the wildlife, livestock and resident; o:C this county; -to provide otrict 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 frith 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 ,o b we 're siipuosed to do. " We want Animal Control to do the job they're supposed to dot Name Address Date 2 c'! t�6�' Cao--r� t,�• �r-tt�vfzCE� 3-.�-e -7 5 G, 57 ,�,� ' -�.� -7e. r � r '�• 1 y �� 'k-Uw Gtv�-L f 9.- 10. 11• 12. ` 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21 22. 23- 24. 25- _� _ A PETITION TO END LR DOGS AND DOG PACKS IANTRA COSTA COUNTY WG, 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 o$ 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 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 dot Nae Addr ss Date AV 2. \4,& aL�Q2 0 ILI -7 3• Idl .7 l s• ��_� 7z 6. l3 2_ 7. A g 2 L 8�f!/2 v A J o.-Af 9. 2 j ;_0 Z 1-U, 10.> (.{1- otic - 11V7 7 r 'I/1, g4117o>- A 2:==4 �7 k,_44� kw f 3• -� ? j2. 14. .. �Ty otC, t_� • ,r A P�II ION TO IND KI=R DOGS A.0 DOG PACKS D COINTM COSTA COL7v'TY I, the undersigned, a resident of Contra Costa County, wart an im-rediate end to the problem of killer dog packs in this county. I want the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: to provide the Departr.,ent of J'zdral Control with funds to ;`lire 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 reauiri ng owners to be in responsible control of their dogs: Ps't Seeley, Counvi Agricultural Cor zissioner, according to news reports, is sympathetic with the problem and ac:uits 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 tine. 1de'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 'chane 2. Lr 0i. Sarno x'37-0773 3. j z = .:t o '� C„� '� Z G /Pz 6/► ? v171r 5-772. 0 0 4. , 13 -7-7 8. -7 _0-26. A1 -0. P� �3,--7 i 1. �� ,r,r, rb,r � i - ,,o rUJ� r .I'�r, �•= I--� �N�.c9 . . . . . . . T . -2. 13. . . . . . . . -14. 1 17. 1a . , iQ 2� 22 2.3. 24. 25. A PLTr1TON TO END KILLER DOGS AIM DOG PACKS I11 COIM?A COSTA CO( EL 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 Conni.ssioner, according to news reports,, is sympathetic with the problem and admits that the killer dog pact: 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. 6a6a 3. o - 17 L4 Jrjlfia J L _v nn 5. , W s. q 3e7 37�. 7. f Ld -71 9. 12_,lA NL 13. .14. i - �✓'.�� �^��.....s` f s.-/ �� .,� J ! FF�F � r�� lrJ'`e �i • � ! � T' f . r V�u. ,�! rr t� . ;r/r!J . (y r ';'r s/. /L3 ✓ �c� 1c, �, `� !\i• �+n 1 .1�. '�A,,,7 17. Ail 19. .21. 22. j .23. r 24. 25. e 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 Supervis?rs to ;provide the Department of Animal Control with funds to hir is 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 2¢ 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 supposed to do." "I want animal control to do the job theyjre supposed to ,do: n rp p' • kA 1 , June 13, 1972 � ^� would We to speak briefly today on two points -- the Predatory �nts�61 int:off-am in Contra Costa County, and the Squirrel Eradication Program. o "u sc I %'OUld like to say that I hope our hearing on these rather sensi ve subjects dues not disintegrate-into an emotional shouting match as has been the case recently in a number of other counties. Nothing gets solved under these circumstances. I- don't think there's any doubt that these subjects are important; otherwise we wouldn't have the People here that we have today. What we all ;oust keep in mind is that there really isn't as great a division of "sides" on these subjects as one might think. Por example, contrary to what some might think, I personally do under- stand the fact that the ranchers and farmers and other landowners in this A c..unty have a predation problem. Where i basicaily'%differ with some people, Olen, is in the way this predation problem is being handled. I feel that livestock predation in Contra Costa County is caused for the riost part by feral dogs, and to a lesser degree by wild predators. I think your statistics over the last three years, in which only six- coyotes were trapped iii this county by the Federal trapper show this. The Commissioner o£ Agriculture has even stated that "Probably the most important function per- fc::-ad by the trapper is helping to stop the serious losses caused by the family deg." I also agree with present Animal Control policy that the long-term answer to the dog or dog pack problem in our county rests with keeping the family dogs off the str,!?ts, and to this end this should be one of the :Hain function, of animal control. But I also feel that since there's obvi- ously an on-going dog predation problem in this county -- GYM -- that some- thing wo-.a Oan our present animal control pzccedures is needed. 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 and run traplines, is going to, or ever has even come close to, solving this problem. It obviously hasn't wori;ed over these last years that we've had a Federal trapper in this county, as can be judged by the situtation that has brought us all here today. Forty-five fomes, 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. lie 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. The Fish and Wildlife Service can su Lest places where wild predators might 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 Game 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 Lhat 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 respectfaully 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 thatu 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 department is also directly involved in this area. Mr. Peters stated that, historically, ground squirrels have appeared to be the pr .se focus of plague, mainly because they 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 mice, 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 of: 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 grourid' squirrel .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 way 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 of poison grain for squirrel control in this county be ended immediately. This technique is not specific to squirrels; it also kills rabbits, birds, and other creatures. As an example of tnis, 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, I_ submit, is ridiculous. 2. Ground Squirrel Control in the State 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 hurian Page 5. habitation or schools. Park personnel, I'm sure, would be more than willing to handle the control of these creatures, if needed. Some that I've talked 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 specific 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, will allow our rapidly dwindling predator population in thic county to grow, 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 submit, should be the policy in Contra Costa County. Thank you. Gary Bogue, Curator Alexander Lindsay Junior Museum - Walnut Creek, California -'--.... ....,r .. , M EIVED Hearing Before Contra Costa Board of Superviso 7a Continuance Of FundingFor WT. W. T. PAASCH Predator And Ground Squirrel Program CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS In Contra Costa County C NT OSTA CO. ' June 13, 1972 By 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 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: x � • -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 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. R'"CEI V L' D CONTRA COSTA COUNTY � lll�,� CLERK'S OFFICE 4'e'. T. P A A S C H Inter- Office Memo rL:R✓. POARD OF SI.OPERVIS RS Date: June 13, 1972 _NTR _ 8:45 a.m. %% sor E. A. Linscheid From: Geraldine Russell, Clerk of the Board Subject: Mr. Leo Pallman, 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 I 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. When 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 an 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 J Harry L. Silcocks 1143 Lambaren Ave. Livermore Ca 94550 June il, 1972 DECEIVED Board of Supervisors JUN 131972 Contra Costa County W. T. P A A S C H P. 0. Box 911 CLERK ENT ACO SUPEQRVISORS Martinez, Ca. 94553 Lay oeoutr 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, l 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 sheepaninventory 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. " Notice 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 $1,962.00, with�'the trapper taken 2 coyote. If the livestock industry in Contra Costa County does suffer serious losses to predation one would think they would report sucFi–losses at the time of occurance in order to both document and justify predator control programs. If the losses are not reported until some months later one would wonder if they did in fact occur, or if a random figure is being used in order to justify a predator control program. I would like to urge the Board of Supervisors to ask those who want to renew the predator control program what losses they have suffered from causes other than predation so as to determine predator losses in relation to total losses from all causes. The only studies that have been conducted by the BSFW (Reynolds and Gustad Study) show the following — a i' relationship between total death to causes: other than=: predation (TDTCOTP) and total death to, predation (TDTP) - when expressed as a, percentage of total ' inventory. TDTCOTP TDTP Colorado 1966 1006 6:7 Texas 1967 11.0 3,6 Montana 1967 26.E 4:.5 1968 17.1 6:7 1969 30.6 5.6 Wyoming 1966 14.0 54 , 1968 15..$ 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 10$0, 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 y xirs,, f- L., Si coc s a of ,n P •` ORY ANIN;.AL T; 'N,l't _"� t^^� I � '� . � I I I, kll*' . . ­ I � �. I �., I I � 11 -,�, I I - I � I I I • i:3v.>:��. SQUIRREL `ERADICATION -i':.OGi�iAM I . :,y. .11- :: ,­,�� ,'.�,�,-'-,,�,,�-.�.,.:,��.�,,,,�.i��,���,'-�,!,".'.,-��-��.-�:-'�,- ,�� , _­: __ __,: I I ,­ I I , � _�REQV-D >1e l� /'1`�7 ' Arthur i►. y11 I Y : V'` �4�� - M~ y Agricultural Coy:�isssoner w. T. P A A S C H 7 Sealer Weights % Measures ccE on F SUPERVISORS a , N GOSTA . pY, eput : AIRNSAi�r ;AND`OTHER MEMBERS .OF .mhE BOARD _.Per ;aps 'Xt would be help till., to everyone z" :I, supplied some background znformatzon on these two programs, fcl2owed` by a few ; ' t` comme�t� .on why and how they operate, and then the fzture as I a env1S on :3t. k fi , Y LET'S .FOC S FIRST-:ON .THE TRAPPER: PROGRAM. .. { Oui ,cou1.nty cc ntra'cted` with the federal-governmen.� " �m q�' i` f,i ' �,zn w ti 1 Y6 (June l) when the county employed its own trap;�e^ Ing Feu '' �} " r { � yo. " rher I came 't.o wh s county the employee was working fug wC ' `� s ,rapper 'and ,continued .as _such until he+ was ki , n i =°�Jr l ) in a car acczdezw,n c.- a 3ec :se yearly records then indicated or y a Derr coteute and ,, - K F. p-,dda-tors we're be,� '1 .7 b.ake'n I decided.'not to- �fil� .the v� ar - , . N 3 posy c_o_. =However;; inµ 1963, four years: later, reports_ of, hve sio ck d��, -ecta �on had incI'llr1.eased; to .the. point: that the Board oz^ Supers isors and I were .recezv3.ng a considerable, riuinber of1. requests J .. for trapper assistance along with criticism for `the'.co �ty's s -, not`havig Sul time, experienced t rapper. : Inadditlor =there ,:. }; y was 'st ns�derable concern oy the County -aid State- Depar,:tments . of 61 k�ealth over the high .ncidence- of rabies being fo��d in ,:. sI -1k ilik . .e. a full .time..trapper- .was being:requested by '_ane 11 I , _vas .o 'producers, s agreed r�nl�r 1. to support a request for1. a ..,.d �rggram o�", ix 'month; seer rear, with the county �nta ward :pr�Ztactice payarg ro =rds and the :elate andd federa . p ry g` of the Boa_c c� Remazs are ared for delive at a Public Hearin r ' Supervisors held June 13, "1972._ 11 I 160 -c_ 11 - �- S -�i � governments paying the other one-third. rperience later indicated that skunk control did not appear to be overly effective, and I therefore recommended to the Board of Supervisors in 1961+ that rhe 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 $9.5$.74 out of a planned expenditure of $2,658 for the fiscal year of 1971/72• At that time an agreement was discussed .with the State Supervisor, U. S. . Division of Wildlife Services,whereby future .service.s of the trap_:a_� might be obtained on a more limited "problem-solving basis I; "should be pointed out that further limiting of the trap- _ .par's services and the reduction in the program cost were done: prior to the appearance of local newspaper articles on the w :_ch stimulated public interest and brought about the fo„ this public hearing. For the future, I envision a program similar to the one we ha�re -d except that it be carried out on an "as .needed" basis. By thaz I mean contracting for the services of an experie.need trapper ::he year following livestock depredation that begins to seriously 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 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 .well be the indiscriminate or haphazard use of poisons ,and th _ would bring about the killing of many non-target species. It _ay belief that we should continue utilizing the services o- rte:. axperienced trapper, on an as-needed basis, and only for aninal s that are causing depredation. GROlii: S`� �PpBL E?U DiCA^_C Y PROGRAM Sau'=el control anal/or eradication programs in California date bac: some years , in fact, in 1874, almost 100 years ago, a abatement, law was passed by the Stdte 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 plague 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 -ave estimated that from 1919 until 1954, the county had exAended around $1,600,000, with the ranchers' share being $705 ,281. In 1;5 , -L.)---e county and the ranchers were treating 289,$86 acres. The county has only 470,400 acres , so it can readi y be seen than, the ilnleszed area being treated was 61% of the total acreage. low after approximately eighteen years only 3� man years are used on the program, with only a small amount of help required from the i.-ardowners. We estimate that 416,219 acres , or 80% of the total acreage , are free of this rodent. The areas where bubonic plague had been the concern of health departments are free , or virtually free, of ground squirrels. Yearly cost for the program is now set at $73,000. While the citizens of Contra Costa County have the opportunity to see ghat 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 o= full rancher cooperation and because of the type of program 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. Dcperts 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 havin a .large ground squirrel population. ADVANTAGES: 1. To some people , there is pleasure in seeing ground squirrels as pa_^t of the ecology. The viewing of these animals is , of Ccu_rse , greatly limited to areas bordering. public access , and does not include those areas far back on ranching properties. 777777-777 '-777 2. There is no doubt that some animals feed on ground squirrels _ as Dart 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 present. 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. _•, to to zn to O O O j It ON s. 64 w si M N Q 0 r-I O o Q[ 0 Q cn w 1 O ri u? J GIN r t (V r�- �=> 1 W Cd O� E- a,0 H� Im 0 o w ,0 0 --t �r, \0 o 0 0 o U a,! `"� m•"� H a, = Eg w 4-) c Z E-4 r-i J Qla� coC a .3 -P W v, C\k \0 i\t ra O 0 r-i O i C\l O t\i (\i [r, ry UN r- C :t 0\ -� \ � C m fi=tt 69 0 V t4 t3' ^. ,-4 ^I cd 0 r-1 cd • O-rl•r! t4 O N O k 0 CU 0 4-�p 4 x U v O bD"O +? C: U) H O SO, m� SO.,f t') 0 i ?� x, of J24 S�f W r-4 --a r- -P F4 �d U 10 P to O - d U} 0 f.. (D 0 r-1 ! 0 S 00 -r! P. 0 r40.) z ' U U CO P. 4-3 td W 0 0 1:4 043 -P > 4�1'0 O t13 -44 -3 «f Q3 42) r-4 f4 U! O -H vl r-f k �c •• .c. U 71 0, 0 > bD td bD O V }, ,-{ 0-r{ g. 0 tY .Y O Q" EO O O :. •�s w a o co U Wcp CQ :. 1 App ndices I21 f Appendix 1 DIVISION OF WILDLIFE SERVICES POLICY I Definition trot 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 - cludes those species that are harvested or the social and economic benefits in these ob- othenvise 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 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 ol)iective of the Bureau to reduce aspects of wild animal population manipula- aniuial clrprcclatiotts as selectively as pos• tion. 'Phis program will be selective and hu- sible, and to direct control at the deptedat- inane 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, control 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 Conlyd—1971 ation with other agencies and private in- agencies, organizations, and individuals re- dustry, questing assistance in those Statcs 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 vzother 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- will be developed for each cooperating State. ments are negotiated. The Bureau will con- t The work plans will be related to land use, suit 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 j Service and the Bureau of Land Manage- control is not the sole responsibility of the mens 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- sistent with Bureau policy.The plans will set tribute to the determination of when and forth specific planned objectives. These where there is a demonstrated need for con 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 participaion in a requested control I 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 4 forth in the State plans. appealed through appropriate agency than- The Bureau will maintain firm supervi- nels. 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 com-. 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 1 i i Ap firndirrs 123 control progranss. 'These personnel will, State health departments, or other govern- }towcvcr, report progrun progress to coop- mental agencies. The Bureau docs not ap- cruors and will be available on request to prove of the liounty system and will not cn- discuss, interpret,and demonstrate practices gage in or encourage its Ilse. and techniques. When toxlG~tnts and control devices are required,they will be used in such a manner as to minimize hazards to non-targcL species. Operations Only Federally registered chemicals will be 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 oral Committee on Pest Control. Warning or by using educational or extension tech- signs will be used where control techniquest 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- stituted 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 cndan-. 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 dontrol 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 Predator Control--1971 t' control is needed and justified in the judo made available peri(Aically; and else cuor � merit of the Bureau. dination wi!! >be mainwined. with manage ment and control.personnel, and with 'pri- Rcsrarch - vatc industry. . �.. F.: The Bureau will maintain a strong and' • * "`* "' `' continuing research cfrort to find new, im- proved.selective and,humane control meth- Details fior implementation of this po3ICY , ods. It-will conduct studies in animal ecology will, be,,contained.,in a revised' field,manual '. and life' history,biology,.seeking alternate, and in subsequenrpolicy directives as appro, methods of control:Research findings will be priate. t; e. nM"'l • • 1 1It . 1 A REQ,*IEW OF TM USE OF TOXIC MATERIALS FOR AN11-1AL CONTROL IN CALLTOP.IiIA The California Department of Fish and Game became concerned over the use of poison grain baits to control field rodents many years ago. We beca_:e 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 1080 treated oat groats on several ranches, and since then have monitored severp.l operational ground squirrel control programs. tie have not found a situation -:here 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 through the use of radio telemetry. 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. fne experience ve have to date indicates that of all the satisfactory rodent poisons available today, 1080 (1 and 2 ounce formulations) is the least hazardous to birds and gaze animals. Thiz material is, however, highly to::ic to all members of the dog and cat :wily including coyotes and bobcats. l P�ep.��o3 by herb fiagen, Cali.fa.r�ia D`r3rLracnt of rfsh and Gam=, Pesticides I:rrestigations, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project 1411-P., August 1971. -2- The Pesticide Investigations Project nude 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 band 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 frog 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 Rresence of 1080. The limitations 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 t hese toxicants. It is quite difficult to make field evaluations of effects on a wide 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 ten times more toxicant than do 1080 baits. The baits with greater amounts of rodenticides are more toxic to most species of birds. n= toxicity data we have developed, and from observations of field applications it has become apparent that of the three materials now used in ground sgairrel control programs (strychnine, zinc phosphide, and 1080) that ICC J presents far less hazard to nontarCct species t. n t'r,e other t:rr,. Binds are fairly resist-mit to 1080 and hieh?y zu-cceptible to zinc :resp'radc. Some birds a.a much more susceptible to strychnine than others. 17e are particularly concerned about the use of strychnine in the ecnecr ranSe end 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 working with other agencies to assess the effects of rodent controlprograms on the kit fox. Although some colonies of these ani=als are currently found in areas that have a history of rodent control activities, we want Lo be sure that adequate consideration is being given to the pro- tection of this fox species. .alternate weans of ground squirrel control have been either successful but pro ib{ 'trely expensive, or unsatisfactory. Gassing with carbon bisul:ide, or We;,ay bnc::ode is quite effective, but far too expensive for any extensive field use. Biological control (depending on natural predators) has gereral:y ended with higher squirrel populations than before. 'Trapping has not been satisfactory and is prozibitively expensive. One disease that seems to dec:..:.ate ground squirrel colonies is bubonic plague. However, this disease is far too da�oercus for any attempt to use it as a control. One of the basic reasons for Ground squirrel control in some areas in California is to eliminate reservci:s.o_ bubonic plague. Bulboanic plaactze is endeWic is ground squirrel popul et .c:s =J s=e areas. 3esear c to develop safer and more effective poisons for rodent control is bei Z carried cn by the U. S. :'ish and B:ildl.ire Service. The -4- University of California is doing semae research in attempting to develop a pelleted bait that would attract ground squirrels. However, their research is hampered by lack of funds. Aspects of pell.eted baits that makes thea appear to be ideal is that they can be made to appear unattractive to birds. Most i,.=ortant 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 strychnine. 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 commissioners 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 smile or use of poisons used as rodenticides in California. Most poisons (except 1080) used to control rnernAiian predators or rodents in California z-y be p=rchased merely by signing a poison register at the retailers. County agricultural commzzissioners in most counties sell rodent baits treated with strychnine, zinc phosphide or an anticoagulant., to anyone with a rodent co:.trol problem. _5_ Most of the toxic rodent baits used, in California are for rodent control programs of the U. S. Fish and Uldlife Service, U S. Forest Service and the county agricultural departments. These people are well.trained. and careful in their use of toxic materials. Some toxic material is used for mar"slian 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, ve favor the type of control that selects the predator causing damage.--this can usually be done by the use of traps. �i • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA RONALD REAGAN, Gorermw CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 1220 N Street Sacramento 95814 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 einimal' Damage Control. The scope of the report includes predator-prey relationship, toxic baits and wildlife, the government's role in vertebrate pest _ v 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 CONTROL IN CALIFORNIA 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 pr(note vertebrate pest control. The objective is to give a clear total picture of hour 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 itis 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 esasple, 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 gust 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 al, 19+6) it was- found that "the cumulative effect of several kinds of predators------mfgat bave an important stabilizing influence." Among the several predators named, coyotes • VERTEBRATE PEST COJITROL IN CALIFMUMA by Richard H. Dana This paper is issued to assist county agricultural comissioners 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 wade 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 laws to the predation problem is complicated by several firm* 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 (Lantz, 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 vas 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 became 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 -- ---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 acyclic peak in population in 1946. Henry Fitch carried an 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 ofcottontailrabbits (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 - 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, 186 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 elsey 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 as 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.animal 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 50% 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 lagamorphs 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. Marty 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 withina few hours. Studies have been undertaken to determine the effect of.rodent baits on - valley quail. JA 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 he.-AgriculturalCommissioners (i.e., five ounces trychnine per 100:lbs. of grain)-did not affect the birds. Studies and observations made where 1080oatgroats were used;for ground squirrel control by aerial broadcasting in areas of large quail populations' demonstrated the baits were coapletely ignored by the quail. 2/Fierce, 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. 4/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 Hill. 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 creeks; fasted 48 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. 2/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 SanLuis Obispo County's experimental rodent coatrol program during 1966 and 1967. It Marsh, 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 hwfl 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 intreated areas. No dead birds.vere found that Were attributed to the control program. Food habit,analyses,shaved 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.1060.". 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. _ Ia _ In spite of 1080's poor reputation with r the-public-,-:muchof.-this based on misinformation ordeliberate distortions7of 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:'" Tiro facts indicate that sodium monofluozroacetate. is not carried.through the food 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 sail 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' is -leached-from baits is not likely to be carried far by the leaching water,,-,but- tobe-held• in-the±, upper soil layers. Researchers reported, "Analyze- 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' habi.tat to agricultural and industrial development. Within the past 10 years there' has been a 34% reduction­in the amount of native'hibitit 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 fLrbearer, the`kit fox was exposed to indiscriminate killing. Kit foxes are particularly vulnerable to night hunting with varmi.t-calling techniques. Other factors that influence the decline of the kit fox populations are disease. Rabies a idemics haver... _: _,aof .... ' ' k , been reported mong 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 G QT'S ROLE IN VEIMB RATE PEST CONIIZOL r 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 $0's and 90's and was a combination of a high concentration of strychnine and cyanide an 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 _ 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 r 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 Co®mtssioner. 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. County agricultural-commissioners, and California Department of Agriculture personnel= are constantly'looking for Improved methods',of.�application,and;_to3 the introduction of new,materials;with,greater'specificity.:-:;-Progress:.is_being made through cooperation ,with,-other,agencies=in making :field rodent,,-.control--compatible with wildlife 'conservation:practices:: -. _ . BCONOKIC RBIATIONSHIP 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 commercial crops are produced. Each of these-crops is subjected to damage by some species of vertebrate pests. The following gnizal are of major concern in causing crop depredations: ground squirrels, gophers, meadow mice, jackrabbits, rats, kangaroo rats, mtrkrats, deer mice, badgers, tar squirrels, rats, voodrats, and various others. From 5 to 6.5 million acres-are treated for field rodent control by the county agricultural commissioners annually. Up to 385 tons -of'grain baits and 120 tons of fumigants are involved, at a cost of ovier one million dollars per year. The total economic damage from 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 betveen'tvo hnadred'sillion dollars and three hundred million dollars. Depredating bird damage to agriculturo amounts to nearly eight million dollars annually. Of this amount California's groving starling.population _ caused at least two million dollars damage. Ground Squirrel The average annual loss from California ground squirrels alone is calculated at eight million dollars. In 1918, before an intensive ground squirrel control operation vas 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 meaance due to bubonic plague 16 - 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 Cowissionof 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 asa proven disseminator of the dreaded bubonic plague, and it has became notorious for.its exceeding,destrue- tiveness to cultivated crops." "Ground Squirrels breed upon cultivated or waste land from which they invade the cultivated fields within_reach .as well as :such,other lauds. as,.,are not already populated." 704 "on open range and pasture lands these squirrels:feed largely oa,alfilaria and bur clover, two of the most valuable forage_plants. ,in the-;,state. The : squirrels are then serious.-competitors for-.subsistenceagainst,the,-flocks and herds upon which man-depends for his own support. . Qa.:;cultivated,ground-_these. squirrels Peed upon or destroy in other;xays,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-cheeked by man." OnPage 705 "Ground squirrels reproduce rapidly. In California the average number of young in a litter is 7.2 with 4 and 11 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, On 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 damagetoyoung orchard trees by gnawing the bark. The losses to the grain and grazing interests from squirrel depredations are equally great. In pasture land each squirrelwilldestroy 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 oa the pasture containing squirrels. I/ and Dixon (1918) calculated that 200 ground squirrels "consume" 1 The e , ornia State Coammissioners of Horticulture., Vol. V11, November - December, 1918. Nos. ll & 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, Lo h� californica vallicola, on the San Joaquin Experiment Range- in the Sierra Nevada Foothills about 20 miles east of Madera, California." Reported by John T. Ealen Jr., Division of Zoology, University.of California at Davis and Ben..,,G��lading, San Joaquin Experiment Range (U. S. Forest Service). `/In 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 an 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 Co®mission. Submitted Sept. 1925, by F. E. Garlough and Joseph Keyes and reproduced in Bull. 2025 (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. A pproximately 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' mead6w 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. great -variety of trees and g Any Pkat part of a 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 coir. Jackrabbits near cultivated areas may do much damage to all kinds of farm crops. Vegetables, hsy, '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 0 -tolerated either in large commercial orchards or hone gardens. Its damage is greatest in never orchards because young trees are less able to survive attacks on their room systems. In al.fglfg 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 reminder. Up to 1,500 distinct earth heaps to the acre have actually been counted on fields of average infestations. Enclosure studies in California have shown that pocket gophers say destroy as much as twenty-five percent of the annual-plant, green forage on an area. (Eadie). Rats. (Rattus rattus a1PxanArinus, 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 one ounce of food per day, the daily needs would be about 4,690 tons. If they ate only wheat at $1.00 per bushel, the total annual levy would cost 57 million dollars. It is well ]mown that rats consume much food intended for man and domestic Ard-al that they often take high price foods and they foul or damage far more than they eat. Hence rats are expensive nuisances. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife states that each rat coats $10. The breakdown is as follows: a rat eats forty pounds of food yearly -- cost $3.00. A rat cmtaminates other food -- cost $6.00. A rat damages property -- cost $1.00. Loss from rat-borne diseases -- cost unknown. Kangaroo Bats, Kanga oo rats are a peat mostly an rangelands in drier areas of California. They gather far more seed than they eat and catch for the rest - 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-_ia 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 common; 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 fAl.�, or planted _ 22 _r tree :sleds. ;:Same, of-the:seed;;tsken-,by_.theware store(Lbut few.:are,a.Ugwed'to remain and-sprout, c They.sare:regarded,asthe-,greatest"enewl of artificisXv' reforestation:in'such-_areas.,,. - 23 -- PERTIlMM FACTCERS TO`CONSIDER-IN REIATION-TO VEKrEBRA'I'E 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 on]y-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-agriculturalregulatory 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. 7. Agricultural Commissioners and-Vertebrate Pest,Control personnel of the California Department of Agriculture through.11 their experience, education and association.are naturally,ardent.conservationists.,_-They are in a;position to encourage conservation of.xildlife.to:as.:_great an extent as ._any;similar group of officials or laymen. They,are.doing:and.vill.continue to -do a great deal of practical conservation work. 8. Wildlife is admittedly destroyed by such factors as hunting, _rapping, disease, automobiles on highways, unfavorable,.climatic;sad_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 'unavoidabiefloss to wildlife occurs. There is, however, northing to indicate that this accidental,element; ; encountered in necessary.pest:control operations causes:any;asigaificant losses to wildlife population other-than .the tar -.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.S. 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 Mamrsalogy, 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 Annua konvention. 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. d 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. Quast. 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 i is n ageme n t. 12: 73-78. 1948a. Habits and Economic Relationships of the Tulare Kangaroo kat. 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. :1n outbreak of House Mice in Kern County, California. Univ, of California Pub. Zoel. 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. 1936. 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 Utah's 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. RECEIVED JU N 1^1972 Board of Supervisors W. T. P A A S C H County Administration Bldg CLER�OF mutMartinez, California 94553 °t°°�' Gentlemen: RT: 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, 40N MR AND MRS GEORGE HUBERT 2173 Ptarmigan Dr #2 Walnut Creek, California 9+595 June 8,, 1972 DIABLO RANCH 1453 Northgate Road Walnut Creek, California 94598 June 9, 1972 Hereford Cattle Arabian Horses 1ECEIVED ,�!!�� 1^1972 Board of Supervisors W. T. P A A S C H County Administration Building CLERK a cAS osT Pa°Y1SO Martinez, California cr ""�' Gentlemen: Re: Ground Squirrel control I am completely in accord with the present control on these animals, please do not abandon it:. If you cou7.d 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 DIABL0,R,$P CH (Mrs. ) An-,e Kerley owner AEK/a cl z. anJ c 05¢ay Jg$tin REC{ I 979 eatvan r1�rt. - -i-afayslEE, dali f. 4449 i W. T. PAA $C H ^DESK nn a Or- SuwrRVIrORS ;7,2 E C:y Ot FRA C T C P n Ctrl zy� AZ t r� � L li/� f 1101 Spruce Street Berkeley, California 94707 June 5, 1972 R-ECEITaD Board of Supervisors jtjl i P -1972' Contra Costa County W. T. P A A S C H Martinez, California 4LHRK OA Rn° OF su EovtsoRS. gy Deputy Gentlemen: 01 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, � Q s. R. D. Cleland)' �CEIWD y i N 7 -1972June 5, 1972 W. T. PAASCH CLERK B D OFSSUAPERVISORS DePUV Board 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, Rill. be "taking 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 2 Walnut Blvd. Walnut Creek Calif. - �� 9 .596 �IALNIIp yT 1445 CIVIC DRIVE - WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 - 415 935-3300 RECEIVED 31!m 7 -1972 FROM THE OFFICE OF Gary Bogue W. T. P A A S C H CLERK AOFSUPERVISORS ey Deputy 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. I am very much interested in what will come out of this hearing and shall certainly attend. Cordially, Gary Bogue Curator GB/j1 e .0 B rn,4" a m CONTRAtOSTR COUNTY FA �REA U Affiliated with the TELEPHONE 685-8261 CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION ������" a5554 CLAYTON ROAD nd the AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 94521 May 30, 1972 RECEIVED -111N 1 -1972 Chairman Board of Supervisors P A A S C H CLERK OA DCF SUPERVISORS Contra Costa County Administration Building ey Deputy 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". 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 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 an 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 reouest.- it maintaining both a predator 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, ""#i. r Mike Vukelich, County President cc: A. Seeley, Agriculture Commissioner R. Foskett, Livestock Chairman CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Inter-Office demo 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 9"ll, 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 he insofar as discussion did not become rept tious 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 )6u .% 1972 !1m. dmuzd .Linechei�al, 4 CC .4 ,Lvcc Av Fiadbta9va. 940 Ile=Au Lin &6& :- Thi s popeaf# ameA w.iwhes -& go on Aeco ad ad .in falroR of the COWdy IOWPAWI .& COMf".0 gaound.wguiA" ! Since I will be on Cape Cod on dine 13th, I wall be unable io be pe ervt .in peaeon a# the meeting the SupeAvr soaw wW hold on Ae sub jeci o f caa ico l 4 pteda an 4m.Zs, air. #oweveA I hope mg hus- band., &tq.�e% FAanh YAcSheug, w.i.11 be on hand Out pwpe� 44 A W ed with the sgrtintele and Aeiir ho les. Now I have a ve4y w,GeaUe mare with a dpotained anlde due, do fat ad we and hm vetez.ina O) can kedge, to 4.ieppcng in one o� the many dqu.i and ho. ed. She had beer .lrud up P,% #hese wee}ie, and wi-U pao6- a64 be out o f cmmi mion. Aw weAd mote. Th.i,e .r a not the .such. .in&6=e on out eight acAm o� pawt`uice .lam The cw my ageads have beer cow imm and helpja4 and &metimed succeed in getting Aid 4 the toderr#s Put 4eveaa 1 months. Thea inhe yunt ca" khat no oAeA mum2d, pets etc can be &w aged .in any rain We have doge and ca#e aiw ce&&L4 ante nai aAtected by the 4Aods ;6o contw-1 equi&Wl peata. In addition ;to the po6.-mm .equv=ele c me on otm aurt popetty, I Aujumdy fhd Ae Aiding 4wt lw A4&2ed and wdemined wiA the 4qui&wl holes,ruithin the Pamk area. I have shoran such conditions ;to comfy ageita. C&VAatri&i&,w - arad co merddatiom aote due Ame with a l puUi c .sear vapid pa Ae t e:CP& a -to mhe Contin Coetia a 6et&A place foA a.11 cv- '-3:ew ! I hope AeiA pWgume WZU be 4Upp0&te4 RECEIVED veov -a Alas. F.vrnh �a A Y �� t ' 2 a6arlo�RanrheAO 0 W. T. PAASCH f CLERK O OF SUPERVISORS f Ca' VIS TRA COST%►QQ- b -24'4 d dL D=jl ' GREEN PASTURES + P. O. BOX 42t �? DIABLO.CALIFORNIA 94526 9 r _ Aqu20, 1972 �x i`' Ien'aE it about hnle fox §j Bogue and .Cihe-aunded "eco It dimi a campaign "leave oum .weet itattdeanahee" ? The inked do not � monr� peo pLe ad do on tL-�o ,(,j veanmerrt actividid UAO p barba pLLr'ebl/i7c p&cee, blare o_�f_� 1(4ee heade and leo On. Weante,noi at4wed *w� 14 dl,4CJCLKinate again i 4aidemaked ? 74 ;ek ! r a OIle n�te�e o f pound 4quimteLe Aeee .d&L&nenbali Itd a4e aeml4 < i uninpmeZ 'he .laet cold Of ele id pvroba64 l►l i., x J• 1 rn S Q j cam jhow anyone dop o f the peed D.eablo'e notith peak... rr�e.e . } �, o>z ' PRoP Ii my °*H and Ido no# live on ;&e- noath. pea/4 These .T: ar� .yas - 7 � r odertie.#hAWA n CMbza Caeiia'.e 6eac i L vafte lui th ern. :They V n,j #�rai.Ce eredangeR�cng the -Levee o f mere, usamen aced �t� 'r >•-r r s 7 4/ig, r '` 1. 7 'xI •V.� 'fyPy// , . �JeZ&4e% nat & medim the homed. 'O�tere, 'I cmLl the de- yy Y d 1 s 7 iR� \Y i pa here #o cek Aoa help .ut cont�t Virg AZd menace. They �ier�, but cont�co.C'l #lee bee# #h can ho ti These-.w OMAWel,� no cha nee �r+Y O 7' P 't, 7 ewle co=e riche on .eawig'#ho a dweet na tLPice. ' ffi 9 x he.ce�n'.uw.ite #bene .into ano#hea gandea o� den, .eomedag. t �' ' � •.t \ >. }` tiff' S Jt K F ,yy^.,'�../ f pJ L''1J p} 1t�a r ; To Contra Coe�a Timed, 1Q4tJ IhDiablo ! � alnut�Cn C4•. 94596 <: : } , ... •,' a �, ,� .��-',s...�qc-; v':.. ..; � -:-: s s��_._...w.»arm.. _�.....rn...4.w-..•�.,,n-c _-�..—.--,,,y.:. .; Y x �.�gq,^fK •K. : .^sem x 0 r: y Raising Wild Pets •T)MES i'hundal►,_Aprtl », 1972, __._. Poor ' Reasons Given For 1(illing Sq By GARY ROGUE listics (the rlcpariment's) say used to do-in these little traf- Where have all the Ground that 250 squirrels cat as much fie offenders. MrtM►firomine Squicrcls bone? as one cow. Need I say gas is one. 'Me other is poi- Well, to put it bluntly, what more? Deer also compete Finned rolled barley. The ac- The Alarneri:r' (',runty Tis used to be a comon animal in with cattle, as do jackrabbits, tion of this is an anti. Partrre'.n: a: A:�:culture a r Jowl is IJfitiG:r ,r, ti.0 it Ff hu county. has became the brush rabbits,s, sheep, coagulant In the blood. After innocent vic:Im of the Contra horses, nod even p e o p 1 e feastin on this tree menu for Iicve; ti,at J,ari; are for ui:d Costa Agriculture Depart- Ilummrmnm. That a scary s cvcra�'days, the squirrel life, :tart ;r.;y ail�s,ti r cc ment's very successful ar- thought. (And for how long eventually bleeds to death In. giona! ;,:,rr., :a itently (even fanatically}pus- nre ive, the residents of this temalty and dies "quietly" in .c'i� is lrIL a! 1=str smsir;c,=. surd Ground Squirrel "Coa. counly, going to allow certain his hole. Resorts are that this But in Ccn:ra t:G::a; to 4-a: trot" Program. vested Interests to wipe out method Isn't too dangerous to 'a %c3iona! j:rk Gfiiclal. tier( There are a number of rea- our wildlife?) other creatures because a is `a ro::cy' v, rxlr;I:,; SMS given for gassing or poi- Another argument used to predator would have to cat a evcr•,r last squirrel. ,:n soning this species of our . defend this program is that number of these poisioned an- tiey're going tr,dr.it. Troy:[ dwindling native wildlife. The since man has already )mals to poison himself. What a;mosi dWle is a.'rea,'J T{ primary reason Is a health changed the balance of nature number?. Who knows,, (So Jos: stron,i:r,!d•rf grou r,c one. (As far as I'm concerned by exterminating most of the' pas; the word along to any conJrrels is prr;;aa:y:;i; U:a It's the only legitimate one, L ' natural predators of squirrels, redators .you sec and tell b r�s Nertn Pea,c, and Gr.:; might add). Squrirrcls can he must make up for it by hem not to eat more than beca!:Se it's so hard to ge: let carry fleas that transmit willing them himself. This is one, or Is that two poisoned But T:-n sure'they'll ti;:rk o: plague. There's no denying ,really double-think at its in- squirrels at one time?l scmcli. this, but wiping out a whole •imitable best. The reality of This poisoned grain li also Ivmere have.all.the grou-d Fpecles of animal just be. the situation is that by exler- colored so the birds won't eat .cu;rrel's g-,:,c?' Aren't yru cause of its potential to carry urinating the ground squir- it. What color of grain is this sorry you d_'rcd?.; ;: a a disease is just ne shbcr'a hadiculous wks,* wtssobadgers f foxes ��t birds won't eat? Drop a I" e to Art`See'a j� as shooting So there you have it ani- : + ' y . Commissiore:•of,:A,ricu.t..t kids to keep yours from get- and coyotes that need them mal tans, this practice takes 161 Jolm Glenn Drive Con.- o ting the measles. for [god. p:ace throughout aur county- Cord,,a-xi ask him L`.e�samig The secondary reason given A really Incredible defense On ESMUD watershed lards by the Department of Agricul- of this eradication program is (are the squirrels drinking up quesLlom , tune for poisoning these crew- that squirrels are a traffic all our :vaier? A sudden tures Is agriculture. (What's. -hazard. (So keep your kids on thought.) In our State Parks In a name.) I think this rea- the sidewalks, Mom, and ,• - •' o r even on son is real the rim 'one: make sure to�use the cross. our regional park lands. (AndSquirre s feed on cereal, walks...or .) not without a good deal of re- - grain, nuts and beat. Eta- Two methods generally M sistance on the part Of the t; • •.. , . ti ._,.. park people!) Do you know .� there are few, it any, squir- rels, jackrabbits or brush rabbits in &loses Regional ,.s pant! So what do lbe prod(- - 's lots eat? Few cab? What .: ttort oCmus b tbb? • 'S x�i ` ��J�f'tl✓"'�' � 47.1+�`+�w�M�.-' � . �M/ ,t '3 i aowticao CONTRA COSTA-ALAMEDA COUNTY CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION P.O.BOX 438.PLEASANTON.CALIF.94866 — "PHONE 846-222ARECT IVED 1. play 18, 1972 Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa County �,AY ?;1972 Administration Building W. T. PAASCH CLURK B RD OF su?ERYISORS Martinez, California 94553 'TRn A Co. O� Deputy Gentlemen: For the past several months there have appeared in local newspapers, articles designed to venerate 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 the ground squirrel erradication program. These newspaper articbs were written in a manner calculated to ridicule the extremely useful and important purposes for which these programs were originally intended. A considerable number of our members have in the past, suffered losses of an . injury to livestock coyotes. These losses were reported from all areas of the county. As control measures were put into action, and because, in part, of movement of people to the hill areas, these losses have diminished but have not stopped. We are aware, and have appraised the Agricultural commissioners office of livestock losses and coyote sightings in the Brentwood/Byron foothills and as close to populated areas as Naval Weapons Station, Concord during the past three weeks. It is therefore vital to the livestock industry in this County that diligent efforts be continued in order to prevent an increase in the coyote population in the area. We strongly urge the Board of Supervisors to extend the contractual arrangement with the State or Federal Trapper for an additional year on an as-need basis. The other matter of particular 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 probbems attendant with the presence of ground squirrels in an area. Aside from the obvkvus crop and feed losses caused by these pests, anyone who has seen entire hillsides "pock-marked"' by erosion-accelerating holes can testify to the serious soil conservation problems they create. Because ground squirrels seem to be extremely prolific in spite of the most diligent efforts to erradicate them there is little danger that the species will become extinct. Quite the contrary, it would appear that unless a serious erradication effort is continued the squirrel population will again "take over". It is with these problems in mind that we urge the Board of Supervisors to con- tinue the services of the trapper and of the squirrel erradicationprogram. t �4{.lt.,,y/� Y'.-.!.} �fi�S-'!�."�K�.' ` {.f�.'n'.�a`{ � IV.`I�"..•-,.L.'{''Y Gam../ �V'/°'.'i'�'�J :da4'.-- ��.�+'� V C. 1' +T,3,M �''P ix ,gar_ N It is further requested that a representative of the Contra costa Alameda'County } Cattlemens Association be`given an apportm ty:to relate some .first=hand ex- periences on these two subjects at your June I3th meeting, i Yours truly,' ' N Victor Lund, Jr. Secrefar"Areas " Contra Costa-Alameda County, CatClemen•s: Assoc. a� j` S - F" i^ �n +l H V'1�aA P a - VOL K f + Tt /. jolkt ttY /► l /( ,,C, t t r ` C Lc re, V� Aik- i AAA- !V � OIA- j R Uva W Av Gavla JA Hai2AA9 , r 2A0 )1t1134U,- Y .�f j- F e � 1 —Al '41 Nw— � x_� � J :` _, l =,:� � �,..�°tet.J•.i" .� �. � .�., � =��i, �` :��;�;,_;�,��.. - CEIVED MAY 1972 W. T. PAASCH _ OLERKOCARD OR 48UPARVIEOR6 0yMay 3, 1972 Duty Board of Supervisors of Contra. Costa County Administration Building Hartinez, Ca 94553 Be: Predatory animal Control; County Use of Professional Trapper Gentlemen: Since we will not be able to attend the public hearing on June 1 1972 in order to hear the discussion on trapping coyotes in the county, and to offer our reasons for protesting this.' program, we are attaching the enclosed evidence and ask that it be included in the proceeding on that day. Thant,: you. Mr. r-nd hers. John V. Suda11- 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 ASarch 8, 1972, we wrote you about our experience with the problem of uncontrolled dog packs and the damage they do to livestock, rather than small predators like coyotes, foxes, raccoons, etc, whose chief prey are rodents. Ile Mould like to emphasize this conviction with the following quota- tion from the National Audubon Society's Nature Encyclopedia. Vol 39 Pages X94-5-b: 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 jackrabbits, cottontail rabbits; ground squirrels, prairie dogs, rats and mice make up much of its food. The lest would lose much of its charm if it lost its mild animal life. Puture generations will never fL41y know the spirit of the old YFest 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 shored. You would eliminate the ground squirrels by poisoning or other means, and thereby destroy other innocent wildlife as well as removing the coyote's prey, end then you Mould eliminate the coyote since he must now find other food in domestic animals! It just doesn't make sense. Also the ploy that the trapper releases innocent animals is false on the face of it! ITetve seen those traps: Once caught in theta, animals are not released. and of course poisoning is just indescriii.nate slaughter. dl,-L 6­4 cl_�La - zjuj 3 and Mrs. John V Sudall - 363 Diablo Road, #46 Danville, Calif. 94526 May 1, 1972 Mr. Edmund Linscheid ,...�.�..�� 5th District RECEW D Board of SupervisorsMAY R— County Administration Bldg. W. T. PAASCN Martinez, Calif. C1.9y"K RA or w�vvf Dear Sir-g 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 C.C. Times April 20 edition, taken from the "Raising Xild Pets" column: "It's time for a Long overdue overhaul of the animal control policies in this county. Steel-Japed 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. ifL : Sincerely, r ''�:irley P. Roberts, �a , I. "AV April 28, 1972 Mr. Gary L. Bogue 2548 Myra Dei Lane Walnut Creek, California 94S96 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 Cgntrg- Costa Times, ;and _as suggeste& by Supervisor J. E. Moriarty, you are: invited. to .attend- a' public hearing to be held on June 13, 1972. at 2 p ar. in the Board, Chambers, Administration Building, Martinez-. Very truly yours, N. Ti. FAASCH, CLERK By Dorothy ar ess, Deputy- cc: County Administrator GGsu�..c�,. L���x4cs2 Enclosure 1 in the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California 19 72 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. 1fright Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Mr. W. Tibbitts Supervisors Mr. T. Bozorth affixed this ;l*thday of April , 1972 Mr. T. Appelbaum W. T. PAASCH, Clerk Mr. J. Sudall B Deputy Clerk Q Mr. H. Ileslar Y Mr. Gary Bogue Dorothy A. Harkness Mrs . Gabrielle M. Csicsery Ms. Barbara Thompson Agricultural Commissioner "'° IlTdffhty Administrator County Counsel Health Officer ' PvEv VEb. (I 411t- PAZ t CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - _ By • uty 3D 44- 10 Q C'd jor3 gySyr 3-23-7�0 10- C FORS YOUR INFORMATION grd_of n «uisora . Qonn f an�Bcrnar�ino j.' RECEIVED SUPERVISOR FIRST DISTRICT p p 171972 - W. T. PAASCH CLERK BOA D OF SUPERVISORS 8V Dar Aptit 13, 1972 Non. James P. Kenny, Chairman Cont&a Costa County Soard_os SupervizoAA AdminiztAation Suitding Afa&tinez, CatiSoAnia 94533 Dean Chairman: I wou.ed tike to bhi.ng to you, attention a Saet os which you may not be aware. The State o6 Cati6o&n.ia is the only one os the west- ern states which pe&mit6 so-caned spo,tsmen to hunt deep with the he.ep o6 dogs . Iii the County o6 San Be&na&dino we have had numerous eompta.intz on the pnactiee cS deer hunting with dogs . The dogs nun the dee, SAom the ctozed areas into the open a&ea6 giving the hunter an added oppo&- tunity to kilt his prey. I ee&tainty have no objections to dee& hunting, nor do I advo- cate the c1_'os u&e o3 att Caiisornia Son .the dee, heeds . Howeve&, I do believe that it zhoutd be brought to eveAyone's attention that the tAae zpo,tzman is one who t,aeks and hunts in a diligent manners without att o6 the gimmicks , such as dogs . We have noticed that the&e ane many dogs oS the hunter 6t&ain who have not Aetu&ned to their owneu and have been .gest in the woods to turn wild* and Join in with packs o6 other wild dogs . TheAe have been numezouz comptaints received S&om %anche", both cattle and sheep people, Aega&ding the tremendous hazard to the%, opeAat.ionz due to these dogs. I would appAeciate any comments you have on this mattex to be Zen.-Al- di,ect to M&. Ray AAnett, Dinectoa o K the_ Depajctnlcnt o,C_ Fish and Game at 1416 Ninth St&eet, Sacramento, and to Aft. Sherman Chirhe&-ing, Chai&►Ilan Cae% onnia Fish and Game Commission, 111 Suttee Sticeet San Aancizco. It would be most hetpsut is you, &ema&,z could be made known at the Fish and Game Commission hearcir4z in San Diego on Ayxit 28,_ and Los An eZes on Mail 26. Looking SoAwand to you& comments, I &emain LG: S.ince&ety.., 1 _2 �j WA1. -A. BETTERLFY Supep,v.izoA, Fist D"tfiict WABjcts County Civic Building, 175 test 5di Street,San Bernardino,California 92401 -Telephone 383-1049 "Z runt the county to provide strict enforcement of the law requiring c,.-hers to be in responsible control of.thier dogsx to provide personnel from sninal control to assist vrith emergen— cy animal problems 24 hours a day to require the use of tranquil.- . iter guns for capture of dogs rather than Inmting or trapping wherever possible, t l /0?/7 w Mr b Mst. itobcit E.oriosby., . 1217,_Cetam.Courc Caocord,Ca294518 `„ • APO . CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Of 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 14, 1972, copy attached). The Board of Supervisors, on March ,14p 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 t:at 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. 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 atT least every 24 hours. �C1!J IIED (4) The trappers use no poison. OR J+) 1572 W.'T. PAASCH a' CLE K RD OF SUPERVISORS L• NTRA COSTA c0. MY D.PUW ,,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 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 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' vacaney 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 1 � a ch 21, 1972 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors RECEIVE-1,1D Administration Building Martinez, California tv. T. rn 7^" CLC-Qra"Agn pf• SU,' VI:pA3 or CdJl��i�� r ,�jnx� l'Rcrl. Gentlemen: u '�-`'�u•��er 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 tit 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 U. Csicsery 1145 Garden Lane Lafayette,California,94549 FOR YOUR INFORMATION 26.,16 ar � 63 ALEXANDER BABIN 50 KEM COURT WALNUT CREEK.CAUF'ORNIA 94596 PHONE (415)'934-3267 Xb..-ar j a �F March 27, 1972 Mr. and Mrs. Douglas R. Keeney Buckeye Ranch P. 0. Boa 96 Lafayette; California- 9.4549 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 ' is March 21, 1972 meeting, .on a related subject. Verytruly yours,. W. T. PAASCH, CLERK By u ene.' _. Joseph Deputy. Cierk Enc. cc: Board Members ry;. Administrator Agricultural Commissioner u s{1 r 1 PREVENT RUSTLING, KILLING AND SUFFERING OF. LIVESTOCK IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY .Land which is not a public park is privately awned. You, your children, your dogsMJIY 1N0!' 3111TBR private'Ps'op�tq% Pte ' (Hs�oor,�.Mt:.,'D#4010,, Redr+vod, Lafayette Resevoir, Zas Tsampts,.T11064y'eeiei) atr pe+o�taed'fas your,hiking and enjowlent of the out-of-�dobrs.` Psti�te{pe pi rtq'may sol Dt twespassed.. This is unfortunate but necessary becipsir of lbwa iiwi st■yi�nt.w t23a�, and. preservatior. of t� livaa W13 q Alo =q �;`jLhko wauffm1bg-caused to animalluxury , u aionthl III Iasi" � il�ptti�` Cattlemen:do not have the animals, but financi . y salery= cavi!'are tbri� � Zt: fs not War bul effort or the agony suffered by..ZtvIw6oil* eeleis t66 lac Will help instead of hinder. These are -the facts; thdy happeh not occasiow Ily but &dl# to ,every ranches.�In thF^ county. Each time you 'crairl over, under, or throWh a :fenci or. gate qoo' 1o,<< r`.rizies. With hundreds of trespessoati eacdi months Fenoe main is-a . i:y-faun.hour a day job: s+epair3*i 24ncw tvt lir after;fire as sass'. spots. Motor cycle and horseback riders cmt f to joy-ride.-in.our pestus�. They leave the fences wide open. BiAasrs hums do tAe saris:Livestock ' escaping tpVmgh cut fences-br frightened��t scgh boundary feoaes cause disasterous . auto:accidents. ,vehicles aro'bpzscked,`tbeir oacupdats Asimed or killed, and the animal killed ar so badly Injured he must be-destroyed. Horses and cattle are shot for_ the pleasure of kii;ing . . . two ccs heavy wi th calf shot through the head as they lay clai their cuds- . .. young calces shot for fun or killed and gutted for tbeir seat. A mother our stay* bq bar dead calf:. - for days without eating or drinking, loesng pricious weight. Nater. t"roughs, are riddled with bullets leaving `cattle without mater for days,ar maksj...aait licks ar+ placedin the water maki j it undri kible. Rancbbands haver been threatened and beaten by teenage boys. Cattle are frightened at the sight of a human on foot. They can run only a short distance without ,becoaing =wpletsly"erhau ted, =nntng blird:w.Jth fees in any direction into a creek or gi►lly fraw'p ch they.can nevier *&'cape (Slow ' death or .through a fence which cuts t&W to pieces cows 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 rain(&' quick deathfor.the half born calf and a long agonizing ,death for the crow). ; we all love dogs, BUT . . . these are the facts. Zflova rOVR dog, keep him on your own property. Zf you cannot,` you shooed not vee a dog. Living near a deer area, it will be, natural for him to chase thein. :This becomme.a•:thrilling game to one .dog or a pack, of any breed or size. Past -as.a deer Is,. he too is exhausted quickly. Too warn 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 scieam'of agony as,the deer is torn to pieces (it sounds exactly like a small child;screami*). The dbg is doing only what comes naturally to him, and the only=ray=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. loot just a-few'cattle are `,killed or maimed each year in this county.by dogs; there are dozens. 'Newspapers.."fuse to print pictures submitted showing.cattle which have bean, attacked by dogs' . .- .. "foo gruesome for the public to see." .And gruesome they'are: No find cattle still alive with hindquarters chewn off, still alive with their eyed-dream out,.-their ears chows off, their noses and faces chews til they loaf ,tike hamburger,- their tails hanging in shreds. Or, we find them after a slow and rrue4 deatb. , Can you understand why cattlemen will shoot YOUR dog if he is soph wAdering-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 wheretheir dogs or children go or what they do once out the door are to blame for a major portion of this problem. It must be stopped by Mr. i Vrs. Douglas R. Keeney .�. _� h t0y CETVED P. o. BOX 96 (� or sPRrNWXLL r.�aYErra; Za-`94s4�. r�Z /7, /r7_,7 (413) 283-38" g . . ., SCH BO OF SUPERVISORS O COST Deputy b V 0 March 21, 1972 Ed Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors R-ECE D Administration Building Martinez, California IV. T. PAA$GH BARD EDF SUP8RVi5®118 t CO. Gentlemen: �" 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 tit 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 M. Csicsery ' 1145 Garden Lane Lafayette,California,94549 j �... La.•.e L� zfe !4/ .�.ez"�tale , I'y S"G JW "e -'ca! }f !(L�l t cSY•'+7 .-3`oC P /oK.f In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California March 7 19 72— 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 Van 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 dnd released; On motion of Supervisor W. N. Boggess, seconded by Supervisor J. E. Moriarty, IT IS BY TH3 BOARD ORDERED that said complaint is REFERRED to the County Agricultural Commissioner for reply to Mr. and airs. Van Zanten. The foregoing order .was* passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, J. E. Moriarty, W. N. Boggess, S. A. Linscheid. 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: Agricultural Com. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Administrator Supervisors affixed this 7th day of March , 19 72 W. T. MAASCH, Clerk By �� � . Deputy Clerk Lourette Kincaid H24 11/71 10M 100 Oak View Terrace Danville, Calif. 94526, Feb. 26, 1972 ?Ir. hrt Seeley RECEIVED County :agricultural Commissioner MAR Muchanan. Fiold, Concord till.:T..PA°A!IOM- aLs WNW b a:N,hr ,Jeri Mr• Seelevv: We have long been concerned :yith preserving .and protracting the diminishing wildlife- of .Contra. Costa .....County. long overdue was Gary Bove':s .column :in the contra Costa lines, describing the trapping program. : carried on in our county for the: benefit of the: sheep..- .. .- ranchers. The real culprit in sheep kill' are. lar e. . dons, allowed to roam, not :the native:`wild: predators.: r 1-:a would like to. suggest that if it . is discovered that. . a wild predator is causing a..real problem, the- 'animal-should be live-trapped, not killed and transported. to a wilderness area. and released.. We wo-ild�. also .:encourage a .vigorous approach to control the growing number. of: dog r.., }� allowed to roam free., as they are .not only a' eats. to ranchers, but are responsible for killing off much of the wildlife in our open areas. Sine ex e4y:maa 9n , c.c. : Board, of Supervisors, Contra Costa County .. .... . .:.. .. ... . .. ... ::.:;:. .......... . .... . . . . ....... 521 San Gabriel Court Pleasanton, Cl 94,566 March 7,1972 TBLECIED- Board of Supervisors ►.AWa R _1972 Alameda Count, W. T. P A A S C H 1221. Dat CLEkK BORD OF SUPERVISORS Oakland, California 11114 RA C T CO. Gentlesuns Ls-a-native Californian .who has-seen-a rapid in- - crease in the pppulation and development of this state, I an increasingly ooncerned with the affect on the wild life of California. I am particularly concerned that Alameda and Contra Costa Counties are subsidizing a Predator Oontrol Agent to protect the interest of the people engaged in the raisins of livestock in these counties. As a resident of Pleasanton who keeps fairly current on the local some, I , know for a fact that muoh of the livestock that is injured or tilled 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 recommend that the !undo instead be transferred to the Animal Control AgemW in the respeetive counties. Let's preserve soma of our natural heritage in California! Sincerely Yours,- Alm ours,_-Llan J. Dutra AJD/Jg cot Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County Administration Building Martinez, California �YftJ June 12, 1974 RECEIVED It 97 4 Mrs. J. Russell Clerk of the Board 1. P. O=N Board of Supervisors cwt coARD W SUMN1=3 Administration Building ,vt a Dcputy 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 mW enclosed letter and petition. I would also appreciate being informed.,on. the date and.time. that this F -Trditance will come up for a.Public Hearing. If possible, 1 would 11Fe__ o request a ny letter totem be read as an "Extra Item'F o What I understand "Or .ally-,f -at the Public Hearing. , I would appreciate this and any otHer information you can give me. If there are any questions, I can be reached at 3T6-6861. Thank you Respectfully Yours, ' 47 Mrs. William Ray 1100 Larch Avenue x; Moraga, Calif. 94556 s a t; i .!!'ECIAL XiMAT. CONTRvL ?VIIEW COI-eXaMSE REPORT A meeting of the Special Animal Control Review Committee was hold on Thursday, = Juno 6, 1974, at which the recommendations of all sub-committees were presented •� and reviewed. ! ; The following recommendations were approved by the Committee and are submitted to the Board of Supervisors for review and appropriate action. , i 1. Me County should i.m adiately_proceed to remodel the euthanasia chambers j to comely with State law. udies reveal that other methods are too costly and/or Smpractica. (Co=ent: money has been appropriated,) i 2. The Committee reco=ends a leash law for dogs. Exceptions will be made for working dogs, such as sheep dogs, and for dogs attending obedience i = classes. Obedience classes will issue appropriate"identification cards. - 1! This ldash law would'repeal the' "at large" definition which now exists ! in the Ordinance. 1 3. Ranchers should have price responsibility for protecting.their livestock. Aniral. Control will respond only when practical or when an Aninal Control r 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, enabling them to express their concerns regarding policies and operational procedures. . , 1, ! 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. 6. 'Livestock�, with the exception of cattle, should be held for sale by sealed _ - bid after being held the recuired amount of time. The livestock is to be displayed regularly,on Thursday, and.sold by sealed bid. ' I .. 7. The holding period for unlicensed animals shall__remain at 72 hours. -This t ' applies to dogs only. f 8. County Ordinance should limit the numrer of_cats and dogs per residence, 3 with t:•e exception of saecial licensed facilities. 9. The County should increase the availab lity of low cost.rabies clinics s because of State requirezents regarding rabies vaccination_prior-to licensing. ' Low cost rabies clinics should also be available in the area of .each animal 4 Control Center at least once a month, March_through December. 10. There should be a fiscal and calendar year licensing program. 11. The dpg licanse fee ehould 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. _. Ii 13. A door-to-door-licensing program should be established if the program t would be self-supportineducational and "soft-sell". Animal--Control should issue license tags. Section 30800 of the State Agricultural Code reads- "In-.any-county that does not have im Animal Control Department, the county clerk shall perform the functions assigned to the county lninal Control Department." - j 15. The Committee reconnands 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 could be i ' afforded the same benefits that apply to the licensed dog. Cat registra- i i tion would be contingent upon a door-to-door licensing en£orcezent program. Reco=endations from the Board-appointed Animal Shay Clinic Study Co=ittee ' are submitted for the cat registration program (Item h'4, report dated August 22, 3.973J . 31. Material of an educational nature dealing, V th the animal over-popu?ation ` problem (a problem that the County deals. with) be allowedto be displayed on County bulletin boards subject to- the. approval of each.-depart,.ment 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 anizaails (coyote) -when there is a proven depredation to livestock. This motion supports that recommendation made by Mr. A. L'. Soe'ley 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 regaost. the State Health Department to modify the California Administrative_.Code 'i'itle 17, Suction 2606b(3}.to "eliminate the isolation of biting dogs that have been properly vaccinated or, at least, give ti:e local Health Department discretion as to whether or not sue.'. vaccinated dogs shs11 be routinely isolated. . _ 35. The County Health Department should reimburse Ani-al• Control•for rabies control activities. ' 36. Because it is a necessity that 'Animal Control Officers carry firearms, the Comittee recommends a psychological testing system and a one-year s probationary period be instituted for Animal. Control Officers and Rennelran. 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 j 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 Depar=ent-screen clerical applicants"zs to their will- ingness to work for Animal Control, perhaps by a "box" to be checked on the application form. The certification list.-will tien have only pre- screened applicants. ' t 39. A system should be initiated so clerical personnel at the centers can easily determine vaat.type of animals are being kept. Itis suggested that.a chalk board list such as dogs, cats, sheep, goats, horses, etc. Opposite the animal's type woald be a•check marl: 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 'W ich prohibits guide dogs being trained from ente.~iag restaurants, bowling 'alleys, etc. A guide dog ; trainer was contacted and st"tea `�he . t is not n::cessary for the yo.,.-ia, 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. j /2. County personnel should t,-ork *with the Courts to establish uniform fines and forfeitures for at-large and license:violations. 43.1 The County Aa:imal Con`,soZ Ordinance should be anende&'4o allow cities toJ�,12 --! contract with Animal Control for increased services and for enforcement oD stricter local regulations which may be adopted by individual cities. .Q.+. The following actions should be taken to improve the Animal Control public imago and the commanity relations aspect as a means of effecting greater compliance with ani.7a1 control regulations: a. request the County Plablic Relations officer to develop a public t irfo.r=tion program to increase public understanding of the Animal Control function; f } r i .�iXIAL AN - , COfiTR.vT� R :'IEE CO102TTEE REPORT i A reeting of the Special laiimal Contt'ol Review Committee was hold on Thursday, June 6, 1974, at uhi.ch the recommendations of all sun-conmitteos were presented 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'i=ediately_proceed to remodel the euthanasia chambers to comply with State lax. Studies reveal that'other,methods:sre too costly and/or tmpractical. (Comment. money has been appropriated.) ' j 2. The Committee reco:.Winds a leash law for dogs. ,Exceptions will be made 1 for woe flag dogs, such as sheep dogs, and for dogs attending obedience ( # classes. Obedience_classes will issue appropriate identification cards. This leash law would iepeal the "at large" ,definition which now exists in the Ordinanee. 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. 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 anira]'is inefficient and inpractical.- Owners will continue to be notified if the animal is identifiable by license, name and address tag, etc. 6. Livestocky with the exception of cattle, should be held for sale by sealed ► _ bid after being held the required amount of tine. The Lvostock is to be displayed regularly on Thursday, and_sold by sealed bid. • } 7. The holding period for unli=sed. animals shall.:remain.at 72 hours. -This applies to dogs only. ' 8. County Ordinance should limit the nur!)er of cats and dogs per-residence, ' with t:le exception of special licensed facilities. 9. The County should increase the-availabw; vyrof low cost rabies clinics i because of State requirements xega ding rabies-,vaccination,prior:to:licensing. s ' Low cost rabies clinics 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 programa 1.1. The dpg`license foe ahould be, increased to six-dollars ($6) for unneutered ' dogs, and three dollars ($3) for neutered dogs. i 12. License tags should be di,strio-ated at the rabies -clinics. 1 Z _ 13. A door-to--door-licensing program should be established'if the program' , i would be.solf-supporting, educational and "soft-sell.". - 14: Animal--Control should issue license tags. Section 30806 of the Stage Agricultural Code reads "Tn.any-county that does not havean Animal Control.Department, the county clerk shall perform'.the functions assigned to the county,Aninal Control Department.". 15. The Committee recommends cat registration which could be handled in the, same manor as dog licensing,' with a fee of four doll-ars 04) for un- neutered cats; and two doll. ($2} for neutered eats.- the cat 'z,ould be iafforded the s=e benefits that apply to the licensed dog. Cat regi•stra- i tion would becontingentupon a door-to-door licensing enforcement program. Reco=erdations from the Board-appointed Animal: Spay Clinic StudyCoimzittee ` are submitted for the cat registration program- (Item jF4, report dated August 22, 1/7_�) + 16. If cat registration is NOT enacted, the u u aly cats that ,should be.hold for s ► 72 hours are thoad that are wjaring identjfi.cation, appear well cared for, appear owned, and those':cats. .caught-in cat traps. ' i 17. The County should establish a self.-supporting County maintained low.cost. 1 !, zpay and neuter clinic. The Bc.:-"d of Sc2crvisois shc=ld I'..1ke 3 f;^ ' i effort.(with a deadline)- to meet.with .private veterinarians to try to develop a spay/neuter progran..utilizing the services of private:veterin. arians. The agreement urlih the veter•+narians should be renewable yearly.. i Fee charges should be.low„enough.to-indicate;n public service,. but such: i that they would insure:the co-operatiag vetPr+na*�ahs a..reasonable profit. All this to.coritinue' while i iiibers:of. a private group work to -obtain funds to establish`a low cost spay/neuter clinic as agreed to previously by the Board of .bliporvisors. . 18. Mhen a dbg is on his oamerts property, but not under control (the owner is nearby, but:not visible),: a warn;g„notice should-be issued. If there is reason to believe the animal has caused.a disturbance, is a.problem dog, or wibecome a problem, a citation'should ll be-issued. . 19.. The 1,nimal. Control Centers sho::ld be.open on•Sundays. If the Centers are-not open on.Sundays-and.holidays, these' - days should not be' counted in tye hoidiz�gg time,but the daily fee shall. be - -included in the impound charges. 20. Establish an ordinance-restricting, . . . ting ,the holding.and keeping of exotic, animals. Linits would be-�laced 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 shift. .If approved, itis recommended that adequate staffing.be pro- vided to allow for improved coverage. 22. There should be.no.change.in'present procedure..that animals impounded bjr law enforcement agencies. shall be' taken to.the Animal Control Centers. This would-ripply to all police agencies who impound aniaals for whitever.:Treason, The impound fee should be'paid by the owner of tae animal. The Committee sees no practical alternative. 23. Improved communications between Animal Control and the public should be par:, of*the licensing program: . 24. Publicity would be most effective if it ehasized such areas as the f advantages of a neutered pet, responsible pet care,'funetions of Animal Control and the citizen's responsibility. ' • •'25. An education program should be provided to-the 'general public and elementary ' s^.hobl children and one full time representative,.fr6m*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 ani:al 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''rospon sibility of the citizen to release,or,Aispose .of the:-animal. By. signing • the-loan form, the citizen accepts.-this responsibility. ' 28. Cities wanting to-.provide:ni.ght deposit.cages.at 'vdTious.locations within -' their city be responsible for buying, maintain ng.:and'eleaning-those cages, • and properly caring.for.'tha.animals.-confined.therein. Anizma7. Control will make pickups during normal working hours. 29. Animal Control should continue oto respond.on.a'high-priority basis:.to calls regarding initial packs in areas where people.W.be. endangered... 30. Penalty fees should be revised.as-follows: the second offense fee,-..68; the third offense See,. $16; the fourth offense fee, $24, (Comment:-:there is no penalty foe for the first offense.) ;!,.A'�!-.4m ,. ,T . 31. Material of an educational nature dealing lath 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 Vertebrnte Pest Controlman in the .skill of predator control for the nurpose 'of taking target aninmis (coyote) whenthere is a proven depredation to'livestock. This motion supports that recommendation made by Xx.' A. L -Seeley on April• 4 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. l 34. The,County Health Department requost-the State Health Department to modify the California Administrative-Code Title •17, section 260ob(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 routinelyisolated. . 35. The County Health Department should reimburse Animal Control -for rabies 1 control activities. 36. Because it is a necessity that-Aninal Control Officers carry_firearms, the Coaittee recommends a psychological testing system and a one-year probationary period be instituted for Animal Control Officers and Kenn]man. 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 as effort to offset increased costs of the service. An exception would be made for on-call personnel. i " 38. The-Ciiil Service Depar=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. , The certification list..-will then have only pre- screened applicants. ' r 39. A system should be initiated so clerical personnel at the centers can easily determine uaat.type of animals are being kept. It is suggested that.a chalk board list an'—'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 aniral.is,being held. 40. No action should be taken to change existing law which prohibits guide dogs being trained from ente_riag restaurants, bowling 'all,eys, etc. A guide dog trainer was contacted and stated t.s'a�.it is not necessary for the yo-ng 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 s.-ork frith 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 toJ�� contract with Animal Co ntrol -for increased services and for tenforcement o stricter local r e-Ulations 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 anima] control regulations: a. request the County Public Relations officer to develop a public • information program io _:crease public understanding of the Animal Control function; s t 77 b. provide for.:an on-going,.,co=nmity:relations trainingprogram<for a71 An j"I Control perso=el, 1 c. seek fundtrain n program from.County appropriations, CCCJ grants and/or iron the ,Stata•�through_2egislati' providing special prograas in this field-state�+ido;::and. d. encourage the'League of;Ca3.ifornia:Cities~to.support'legislation to provide for such a train:.-*program.: , 4.5. It is recomnended;:that two additional facilities, one in -'.,he'"Pittsburg � area and one in the Danville area, be constructed as,a means of increasing i< • the ,figld-effectivenessof lines] Coatrol personnel and as an iraproveirdht in.sere ;=l 'ice;-to:sarge p¢ Mori of -th6-1 Countyrpopul.ation: .. Warren$.-Boggess, Chairman Special Lna=al Control_ Review,Committee�:; Dated June ll a. - - • 1 i J' In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California December 24 , 19 74 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, 14, 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. 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: Board Committee Witness my hand and the Sea( of the Board of Mrs-. Barbara Poppins Supervisors Agricultural Commissioner affixed this 24th day of Decembers 1974 County Counsel J. R. OLSS011i, ClerkCounty Administrator By Deputy Clerk N. In sham H 24 5/74 -12,500 • THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JAMES E MORIARTY "JAMES I'. KENNY, RICHMOND • 1ST DISTRICT CHAIRMAN ALFRED M.D14)3.SAN►ASCD CONTRA COSTA COUNTY WARREN N.BOGGESS 2ND DISTRICT VICE CHAIRMAM JAMES E. MORIARTY. LAFAYETTE JAMES R.OLSSON.COUNTY CLERIC DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, ROOM 103 AND EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD WARREN N. BOGGESS.CONCORD P.O. BOX DII MRS. GERALDINE RUSSELL ATH DISTRICT CHIEF CLERK EDMUND A. LINSCHEID, FlrrsBURD MARTINEZ. CALIFORNIA 94553 rmoNE 220-3000 STH DISTRICT EXTEMSIOM 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, 15, 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. % J KA 1. orA. LINSMIEiD or �- ictII 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, 125 14, 15, 215 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. :•103•'1aT'�V. 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 ofEIce. and that It was passed .l` adopted-by the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County. California. on cc: Board Committee the date sho-n. ATTEST: J. R. OLSSON. County Mrs. Barbara Poppins Clerk&ex-offlclo Clerk-of said Board of supervisors. Agricultural Commissioner by Deputy Cleric. County Administrator �� 011 DEC 17 1974 Al1Y�11 Tt`1` l THE HOARD OF SUPERVISORS JAMES P. KENNY,RIcHMoND JAMES E.MORIARTY IST DISTRICT CHAIRMAN ALFRED M.DIAS,SAN PABLO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY WARREN N.BOGGESS 2ND DIST.IICT VICE CHAfl<YAN JAMES E. MORIARTY. LAFAYETtE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, ROOM 103 JAMES R.OLSSON,couxr r CLERK 3RD DISTRICT ANO EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD WARREN N. BOGGESS. CONCORD P.O. BOX 911 R E C E� USSELL 4TH DISTRICT MARTINEZ. CALIFORNIA 94553 c EDMUND A. LINSCHEID, PITTseURQ P 3 STH DISTRICT EXTENSION ]t DEC /F 1914 «s1,1 OF SUMVWn 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 Board on October 15, 1974 and October 28, 1974. These reports recom- mended that 10 of the 45 items be acknowledged by the Board 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, �f�rS'��¢---✓- 15, 21, 30, 35k 36 (portion) , 37, 38, and 41. Committee determinations on the items recommended 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 animal 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. fig RIAS E. A. LINSCHEID Supery �r*ctII Supervisor, District V i In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California November 6 , 1974 In the Matter of :j 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 o true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the dote aforesaid. cc : Supervisor W. N. Boggess Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Agricultural Commissioner Supervisors Public Works Department affixed this 6th day of November . 19 74 Planning Department County Clerk � *A'�J_ R. OLSSON, Clerk District Attorney By Vera Nelson Deputy Clerk County Counsel H 2 s/Ia -!2.500 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, 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 recor:wndinR that the following 1_ terns, 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 , 19710 b@rom tly implemented: 4, 6 (Ordinance Code amend- ment may be required), 7 B xCoun`�y Prannin Director to review for report), 16, 18, 20 (new ordinance requiredl, 22, 23, 24, 28, 31 , 34 (possible interpretation of State Health Department regulations needed), 39, 42, 43 and ; and Tha Board Corrmri 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 Corrrnittee, 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 Suaervisor Dias, seconded by Supervisor Linscheid, IT IS BY TH✓ BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid recommenda- tions and request are APPROVED. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supsrvisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, . E. A. Linschaid, W. N. Boggess. NOES: None . ABSENT: Supervisor J. E. s•toriG^ty. c c : Board Committee CERTIFIED COPY Supervisor W. N. Boggess I certify that this is a full. true °a correct copy of Agricultural Commissioner the ori_'.^al o'.orament which Is on file in ray mace. County Counsel and that is wx :2% rns:xadopt:-t b: rh? Bnnrd cf Superri rr r: Cc: Costa County.' C•'i:b.s. on County Administrator the rite s.'in •n. ATTa-3T: J. R. OLSSON. County Clerk&ex-offido Clerk of said Board of Super7bors. Director of Planning by Deputy Clerk. County Clerk �►� c_/J`�- �f 9'� Acting County Health Officer Public Information Officer a JAMES P. KENNY, RICHMOND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS� JAMES E.MOR►ARTY IST DISTRICT CHAIRMAN ALFRED M.DIAS,SAN PABLO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY WARREN N.BOGGESS IND DISTRICT yl=Ch"It"Arf JAMES E. MORIARTY.LAFAYETTE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, ROOM 103 JAMES R.Of N.COOMTV CLINK 3RD DISTRICT AND EX OFFICIO CLINK Or THi/OAR& WARREN N. BOGGESS. CONCORD P.O. BOX 911 MRS. GERALDINE RUSSELL 4TH DISTRICT CNIIF CLINIC EDMUND A. LINSCHEID, PITTSBURG MARTINEZ. CALIFORNIA 94553 PHONE 228.3000 STH DISTRICT .. EXTENSIOII 2371 i RECEIVED I 1`y ^ � October 28, 1974 GCTaf }974 REPORT J. R. oLsscv OF CLM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE COMMITT B CO 1 COSTA Co. ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF SPECIAL AND11AL 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. • 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 Afiikmipi report on this subject shortly.LAS- E. A. LINSCHEID y t s✓' Supe orstri- I Supervisor,: District V w f J 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, 197 ; 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 45 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 krill 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, 5, 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 Clerk 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 :forks Director be requested to review the revised cost estimate of the Animal Spay Clinic Study Committee 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 Special Animal Con- trol Review Committee ifhlch require action by the Board; On motion of Supervisor A. M. Dias, seconded by Super- �li soi'• J. P . �eL?i^_Z*� IT !C ORDE.�D that th- afore'said �''eco:"men.^_at'_on3 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._ Co-, Ieert!t_- that the 0:1r"=:! - t Copp cc: Administration and Finance Committee and th.'a ;. 'T ' - -, G .,. Mrs. Patricia Sippel `, .t ,;• : ~, the i'i`r! Fi:73.•ii r - -r7 Supervisor Boggess c!er!:r- -�- :' - .•cf, Agricultural Commissioner bysn�==:�o.. County Counsel UG j jc- ,. County Administrator . . THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JAMES P. KENNY,RICHMOND • JAMES E.MORIAATY IST DISTRICT CHAIRMAN ALFRED M.DIAS.SAN PABLO CONTRA COSTA. COUNTY WARREN N.BOGGESS 21,40�DMTRICT ' VICE CHAIRMAN JAMES E. MORIARTY. LAFAYETTE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING. ROOM t03 JAMES R.OLSSON.CoUMtt CLERK 3RO 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. LtNSCHEID. PITTSBURG PHONE 228•30W STH DISTRICT - EXTENSION 2=1 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 DCTf51914 G' - 2. It should be noted that the Animal Spay Clinic Study Committee has submitted a revised cost estimate to provide facility and equip- went 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 takenregarding pro- vision of a county operated low cost spay and neuter clinic. JI M. D r E. MORIARTY Supe or, District I Supervisor, District III RECEIVED To: board of Supervisors, Contra Costa Cotuity, Administration Building, Uartinez, Califon_ OCT jO PT J. O::'.Oi i Gentle-men, CL= =Baa o: EU.?ZXf SOZ �t1 A B Referring to the animal meeting on Monday, Sept. 30., in which th time livat ran out for me to be heard, may I mention a few items which I believe will be quite bene-ficial: 1) . The controversial issue of financing the further operation of the ani- anal execution centers has Fn extremely siMple solution - so simple and ele- mentary that it is appalling that NCBOBY seems to have thought of it before: Mr-L.-GL QUI THE r3'tT1'IC1TS: : '::nen taay _-ip.ve to F.AY for it, people will think twice before having their once beloved pet executed. The number of animals will drop, an expansion of the execution centers will not even be necessary - and of course additional revenue ::-ill be gained. Any services, such as bts transportation, water and electrical utilities atc., 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. Although 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 lase" aYplied 71ITHIN 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 ovaier' s property, similar to automobile license requirements: if an autono- ciie is stored on tht!e o.-.ner' s property, no license is required - and so should e COBS, .�i0 ay 1 !?J an Jam}v �:��a�Is - .+i}+ > �:'` . 4) The controversial - and expensive - animal birth control proble-m has a ridiculously simple solution - so elementary that it is incredible r0?30TJY has thought of it: .13FA`,RAWN!! This is the simplest6asiest and cheapet method of birth control, it is 100' effective and does not cost the owner a single penny! Just keep the female confined, and there will be No put-,pies 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. ',Yho cares if the neighbor tants to keep 10 dogs, snakes, alligators - or even canaries? 6). Any form of cat licensing t..ill create unending new problems and is not worth the trouble. If, as has been proposrd, a collar %-.rith a license tag . similar to the present dog tags is used, it ==.-ould have to be of the break- w..ay t,-.%Ta to prevent the cat ' s strangulation if it should become caught on a tree branch etc. ; but glen -.-,-e -,,.,ou!6 have an unidentified C"-t which Mt ,,O,'nt be picic-nd up as bllnu-nlicansed. 2-hink of alnxiatuy and frustration of ,he ower .-..-ho would never 1-Mow %-:hether itis pet mer -i -aking an extended •talk or bee: in an accident or has been picked up! 'Tot everybod can im- --ush to tLe near-3-7t snip l execi-.-t-ion center (at night?-f?) , hoping ,,o find his pett, still alive: 12sl la71 "his _�roceduz e sariouk-f affect ti.ue. o . . and ;k-Ohe cat, if :5,ilL rjiv� 7 is 1i .ply to be pregnant or in=ec"ed wit"L-1 fleas or .-.,O_-se from other in-iates 6f *Cohe execution cen- ter. -L-'!-,.ose cat O.-Tne's Who are living only their pets for companions on a limited income 1.!ould be Ceprlived of the cats' companionship, since they cannot al"ford dogs because of the license cost: having nothing else --orth living ffor, -ahat 3re they su'.-_,osed to do t:aa-,isalves? Wen that se=,-ns to be PA 11-7 lac= Diamond Calif. Elde 'art Martinez, rive f" '•ry � Martinez CaliforniaCa..�. 0 94553 October ll, 1FR"'Z' u� �iu.I V_' rSupervisors Contra Costa County W4Administration Building !`�Martinez, Californiao��.a94553 o: SU?ZWISopaTA Co. WAY Dear Sirs: 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 powers 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 a strict bash law the County probably should add more trucks and personnel. However, I understand the trucks are not air- conditioned and that freqxently 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':2s situation, either. S-udv right be done to sc-,nir imroven vehicles. Cie ,.� . rtl Y, rel � _?!?_!� { • - 2 - • 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 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 reouire 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. Eben 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 pressureq 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 do-s outside their fenced yards, promoting a mobile spay truck, and forming that study panel - the other problems could be worked out carefull.* 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 lac;-- of them, that you consider the animal control subject a lark, or at best arotner meaningless project involving a group of silly broads, when i-- actuality sactuality people are literally taking up arms over the results of long- 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. Si cerely,, cc: Mr. Alfred M. Dias Mrs. Patricia Sippel • 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 Rom: 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 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 written 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. Finigari; 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; Air. Don Goodman, West Pittsburg; Dr. William Hand, (Veterinarian) San Mateo; Mr. Ralph D. Cozine, Valley Action Forum; Pis. Patricia Jackson Sham, Vice President, .SPAY; Mr. Ray Taylor, Martinez; Mrs. D. Farone, Pleasant Hill; Mrs. Judith Romley, Alamo; Ms. .Virginia Handley, "The Fund for Animals"; Ms. Arlene Spurrier, Concord; . Mr. Mick 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, E1 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 Air. D. G. Finigan County Administrator Agricultural Commissioner County Counsel CERTIFIED COPY I certifp that this is a full, true & correct copy of the orfginal document wrhich is on fill in ny otflee. aa3 t at it :raw Passed & a-lo,Md hF tha io:trd o: S::a_rrisors of Contra Geta County. California. on the date sho«-n. ATTEST: J. R. OLSSO`, County- Clerk&ex-officio Clerk-of said Board of Superrisors, by Deputy Clerk-. on SEP 3 0 1974 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 23, 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 organiza- 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 Commissioner, for a brief statement; and The following persons having appeared to speak on the matter: CITY REPRESENTATIVES: Irlr. 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 B1uhm, Diablo Valley German Shepard Club Mr. Thomas Johnston, California State Horsemanis Association Mr. Nick Calicura, Contra Costa County Kennel Club George Eberhartp 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, hit. Diablo Dog Training Club INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS: Mr. James Allen, Concord Ms. Carole Strauss, E1 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 did 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 Linscheidp on motion of Supervisor A. M. Dias, seconded by Supervisor E. A. Linscheidv IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing is continued to September 30, 1974 at 8:00 p.m. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny,, A. M. Dias, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Lin.scheid„ J. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: Noneo cc: Supervisor Boggess Agricultural Commissioner County" Counsel CERTIriEa CUPY County Administrator I certify that this Is a full. true -'�- mmet corw of the original documant vvb!!h is on We in rir nffiL-e. and that It was pared Z. r mpt-4! L: the Hoard of Supervisors of Collin- t'rj:.-. Coniar, crtifan—a. on the date %hown. ATTEST: J. R. CI SSC`. ro::aty Clerk d ex-orf lei*Cicr::of said Board or supervisors, by Deputy Cleric. IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF 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, z: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 time 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 ?•inscheid, seconded by Supervisor Dias, !T IS BY lr". 30ARD ORD .RM D that receipt of the Special Animal 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: •.Supervisors 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 .vots: AYES: Supervisors A. M. Dias, E. A. Li.nscheid, 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 By1�- Vera Nelson Deputy-Clerk cc: Board Members Agricultural Coimnissionsr County Administrator WC SPECIAL MUM, CONTROL REP3EW COI�IlriITTEE REPORT Ayz �02 g meeting of the; Spee alma1,Control Review Committee was held on Thursday "!- June a. which the recommendations:of all.sub-committees Were presented �►�,T` `and reviewed. The following recommendations were approved by the Committee- the ,Board .of, Supervisors: for."review and appropriate action. 1, The County shoulds3mmediate]Y proceed to.remodel,the euthanasia chambers to'`cly t�r3:th State Iaw.: Studies reveal:that.other methods-Are costly and/or Impractical. (Comment: >money bas been appropriated.) 2 _ The .Gommittee recommends a leash law for dogs. Exceptions will be made- for:v6rki4,;dogs".`such,as sheep.dogs, and for dogs.attending obedience. classes. . Obedi ence classes"will issue appropriate identification cards.. This leash-law would repeal the_ large".,definition. which now exists,., in;ahe Ordinance. 3 Ranchers should have prime responsibility for protecting their livestock. Animal.Control will,respond-.only when practical or when an`Aninal.Control DPficer ;observes a dog :harassing cattle in which case.hs hould get, out and shoot the;dog. 4. Suggestion.forms will be bide,available to. Animal,Control employees: enah�- them'to , express .their. concerns::regarding policies and operational "procedures. 5. 1 Lost and Found.Card-File should.not.be.kept.by Arumat Control. Telephone identification of;an animal;is inefficient and impractical. Owners will . continue:to.be;notified:iP the saimal.:is;identifiable,by license, And:address-'tag, :etc. 6.. =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. 7.' .The holding`perlod;'for unlicensed anitnAl•s" shall.remain,=at:72 hours. This applies-to'"dogs only. 8. County Orchnance should l;m;t"the number of".cats and:dogs.per residence, watt the;exceptaon of eciaT"licensed facilities. Sp 9. The:County should increase the availability.of low,cost rabies,,-cl nlcs:' because;of State requisementsregarding:°rabies vaccination`pnor to -li:censiag. Lox cost_rabies ,clinics:should also, be-available in. the area-, eachrAnzmal Control.Center at-least-once `a month, March through December. (Cost.analgs s submitted.). 10. There should.be a fiscal`:and cilendar-year.. licensing program,. Il. The :dog license fee should,be creased to six,-dollars ( 6} for unneuteredt 1.dogs, and three: dollars { 3} for,neutered dogs. 12• Li nse -tags should be distributed at the rabies c33uics. . ' r i k `„ 1. "'}}„;, tI 'A'•TX'f �.}+s.,�,,.Y -�° t rte' Z page 2. (f 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.) lb. 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 ownerts 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. (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 present prcced e that animals impounded by law enforcement agencies sh-_111 be tom_=-en to !le 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. 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 Bill 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 animal. 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, maintal� 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, $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 skull 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 disc=e-ion 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. • ` l 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 animalts 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 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 tra,� to be 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. 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 tragi program for all Animal Control personnel; c. seek funding for a training program from County aparogriations, CCCS grants and/or from the State through legislation providing special programs in this field statewide; and d. encourage the League of California Cities to support legislation to provide for such a training program. ... . ..A is 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 I and as an improvement., . in service to a large portion of the County population. Warren N. Boggess, Chairman Special .Animal Control Review Committee Dated June 31, 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:OO. 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.$0 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 • , + 3,135.02 — 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 $ 7P109.42 cost COST :fir L'_5=S :OR IM.1 a • 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. 1r. That a door-to-door licensing and cat registra- tion program be established. a. Registration• fee for each cat over the age of ibur months would'be $2.00. b. Wearing of tars 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 to -obtain a cattery, cat fancier registration permit, paralleling the Ordinance regal.ating the kennel operators and do- 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 incividual who ow,1s 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 cabs . $10.00 f. Establish in the Ordinance that individuals ovming or possessing more than. 20 cats or dogs are to be cons:.de.ed a commercial establlsr=ent. Definitions of co=erc4 al shall. be the swae as • the defizition now shol-51 in the County Ordinance. 1 A-'U`ention: _C.Le"I �. Eo-t•.*is h .'In the Ordin-ince a permit fc0 o ::50.00 or 'appro�ir.,aLc cost• Tor, commercial . establishment for cat:: and/or. dory. h. Establish in the Ordinance that the regula_ tory aut-hority shall be razponaible for specifying cat fancier, cattery and commercial t permit regulations: I i. Establish in the Ordinance that violation of ' any of the reg alat ions relating -to the required conditions as specified in the,, cattery, cat fancier and cormercial 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 COST A,Y.ALYSIS FOR ITEM # 1 k Costs Do Not Include Fringe Benefits (25% Additional). Assuming approximately the same number of cats held as stray, - biter, i 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 fed, watered 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. �-Day Week Cost 5 added Kennelmen _ • $43, 680 . one building 26, x 18, - 16,380 one building 16= x 161 - 8,960 130 stainless steel cat cages personal equipment, lockers, etc. .- 1,000 X86,400 114-101, Work Week Cost f i t 6 added Kennelmen - $52,416 one building 261 x 181 - 16,380 one building 161 x 161 - 8,960 ` 130 stainless steel cat cages 16,380 personal equipment, lockers, etc.-,-. 11200 X95.336 . COS: a ix= s n::�l'SIS Fu "r�G�"f 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) - $ kennelmen - 17,100 . (2 -kennelmen added) 4 supervisors 11,$00 (l siipervisor 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 , $1039264 Centers Open Sundays Add: ' 2 more kennelmen $17,100 2 Lead Clerk III 17,196 1 Intermediate -Typist/ • Clerk 7,566 1 Radio Dispatcher El'808 $50,670 Salaries , $00 Two typewriters 1}70 Two typist desks 140 Two posture chairs 400 Personal equipment, locker, .badge, etc. $52,4$0 $1033,264 Closed 52,4$0 Open $155,744 First Year Cost COST ANALYSIS FOR ITEH # o2.I vuJGS Lo Not Include Fringe Benefits Approximate Cost to Change to "4 — 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 — $629.0.12 (7 officers added) , $ kennelmen — 17,100 (2 kenneimen added) 4 supervisors, 1 added — 11,$00 $917312 Salaries 60,000 Add $ trucks w/radio (one spare) initial cost 11440 Uniform Allowance 27000 Personal equipment, lockers, badges, etc. 12,$00 Annual cost $ trucks $167..552 Centers Open Sundays ' Add: r 2 more kennelmen $171100 2 Lead Clerk III 17,196 1 Intermediate Typist/Clerk 7,566 1 Radio Dispatcher = $,$0$ • $50,670- Salaries $00 Two Typewriters • 470 Two typewriter desks 140 Two posture chairs 400 Personal equipment, lockers, badges, etc. $52P480- $167052 Closed . 5224$0 Open $220,032 First Year Cost -ij 1 t COST ANALYSIS FOR IMM # Costs Do Not Include FriTA Benefits Five Ila-f Work Week-No Change Procedures, Would Need 7'Kennelmen (No Change •• P.T.S. ••per SB #4005. Six Are Presently Authorized But-Not On Staff Add< I Kennelman. Centers Open Sundaxs . Add: 1 kennelman $ $,550 2 Lead Clerk III 17,196 1 Intermediate Typist/Clerk 79566 1 Radio -Dispatcher $1$0$ $ 42,120 Salaries $00 Two typewriters _ 470 Two typist desk 140 Two posture chairs 200 -Personal equipment, locker,,, - boots, coveralls $ 439730 COST ANALYSIS FOR ITFK , Costs Do hot Include Fringe Benefits Staff for 114 - 10" Week;Same Field Areas and Procedures - Partial Swing Shift _ 2 Tien Until 10:00 p.m., Then One Until 12:00 Midnight - Supervisors Added To -Provide Proper Supervision Centers Closed Sundays 34 officers-7 added $62;412 $ kennelmen-2 added 17,100 7 supervisors-4 added 47,200 $126,712 60,000 Add 8 trucks w/radio (I spare) initial cost - 2040 Uniform allowance - 2,600 Personal equipment, lockers, ._ -badges, etc. 12,800 Annijal. post $ trucks $204..452 Centers Open Sundays , Add: 2 more kennelmen $17,100 2 Lead Clerk III _ 17,196 1 Intermediate Typist/Clerk 7,-566 1 Radio •Dispatcher $,$0$ _ $50,670 Salaries $00 Two typewriters 470 Two typist desks 140 Two posture chairs 400 Personal equipment, •lockers, badges, etc. • • ' $52,4$0 $ 2047452 Closed ( 52,4$0 Open f $ 256932 COsi EJALvSTS FOR ITr i # p�f �i',t �• 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 $1?.,$32, 15:000 Two trucks w/radio (initial _cost) 360 uniform allowance .100 Personal equipment, lockers' badges, etc. -3,200 Annual casts 2'trucks •$361,792 •t I i COST MATUSIS rOR Ind ; Costs Do Not Include Fringe Benefits (Estimated 25% Additional)' Public Relation Program in Schools; Directed Toward 4th Grade,Publie Schools — 10,556 Children (Per' County Superintendent of Schools)`. l A/C Supervisor $11,$00 Salary 5,000 Van 950 Radio 200 Personal equipment' lockers9 i badges, etc. 11600 Annual cost vehicle 2,500 Coloring.books $220050 COSI ANALYSIS :'Olt Iii 'f oe J IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 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►sunicipal 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 Iemorandum 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-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 Employee Relations Local 1, asserting that law Officer and Agricultural Com- requires meet and confer missioaer-Sealer of We ghts and responsibilities on certain Measures-to-see that-legitimate recommendations of S ecia county meet and confer respon-si- Animal Control Review bilities are properly discharged Comma tee. 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 hit. 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- J0_ R. OLSSON, CLERK . By Dorot1iy,7Lazzae3d1i Deput Clerk cc: ✓Asti Diablo Municipal Court Delta Municipal Court ,/Walnut Creek-Danville Municipal 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 A Irs. E. Aljets . J. Sher a. a fayette School District akley Union School District Mr. P. A. Dixon ✓Contra Costa County Employees Association, Local 1 ''Mr. J. Roscoe i4t. Diablo Unified School District 'County Counsel 'County Administrator Public Works Director 'Treasurer -Retirement Administrator ✓ irector, Human Resources Agency Acting Personnel Director '"Auditor-Controller . ✓Sheriff-Coroner ,/Acting Health Officer Agricultural Commissioner ✓Planning Director /Office of Economic Opportunity NO \., r PC— tyw. - 41, w. �- L, Y Ir -,*:'ci4 jo 0 ; P tJ xev eye �F�4` p rJ'} g' �g ''4 m 3. v U` san izamon homeowneQs association Q.O. BOX 54 - SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 October 18, 1474 RECEIVED OCT Al 1974 Contra Costa Comity Supervisors J. r o+'1MON CLW BOAR'S O: SUPRViSORS P. O. Box 911 8 A - oc Martinex, Calif. 94553 Centlemenc The San Ramon Homeowners Association has voted to sup- port the proposed SPAY Clinic of Contra. Costa County. in light of our overpopulated, stray dog and cat population, we need a more positives effective approach to controlling our animal. population. The present "dog catcher" approach only, attacks an existing problem. A low cost SPAY Clinic would help prevent the problem and ultimately be less ex- pensive to the tax payers. W6;1urge ypur, financial support for this worthwhile clinic. Sincerely, JLN1/mi j John L. nelson Director v ' FOR YOUR INFORMATION 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 MARTINEZ. CHIEFCLERK EDMUND A. LINSCHEID, PITTsouRO CALIFORNIA 94553 PHONE 218.3000 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. RECEI�TE D OCT1S19T4 J. N StlP£Rt/!01 iA 115 Bv.. _ S 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 spayand neuter clinic Along; this line, it is further recommended that the Board direct the Public Works Director to review this matter and to 'provi.de"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-"regardi:ng prd- vision of a county operated low cost spay and ,neuter clinic. M. DIAS rf%J. E. •MORIARTY Supe,xvj,sorr District I Supervisor, District III THE SOARO 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 Y2=C ODU RIAAN JAMES E. MORIARTY. LAFAYETTE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, ROOM 103 JAMES R.OLS SON.COUNTY CLOCK 3RO DISTRICT AND EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD WARREN N. BOGGESS.CONCORD P.O. BOX sit MRS. GERALDINE RUSSELL ATH DISTRICT MARTINEZ. CALIFORNIA 94553 CHIEF CLCRK EDMUND A. LINSCHEID, PITTSBURG PHONE 228-3000 3TH DISTRICT EXTENSION 271 October 15, 1974 d 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 0CT151974 J. SUMVI R$ f 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, provi.de 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 regardiing.pro- vision .of a county operated low cost spay and neuter clinic.' , M. D17M 1I9E. MORIARTY Supe or, District I Supervisor,-` District III' THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JAMES P. KENNY, RICHMOND JAMES E.MORIARTY 1DISTRICT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHAIRMAN WARREN ED M. DIAS,SAN pwBLo EN N.BOGGESS 2ND DISTRICT VICE CHAIRMAN JAMES E. MORIARTY. LAFArETTE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING. ROOM 103' -LAMES R.OLSSON_couHTY 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. PITTSBURO PHONE 228.3000 STH 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. R CSI' 0C T f51914 J. SU?ERVI Rs 2. it should be noted that the Animal Spay Clinic Study Committee has submitted a revised cost �esti.mate 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. l yt i%YG . M. DINS AJ. E. MORIARTY_ Supe or, District I /Supervisor, District III 1 a ' -# SPAY of Contra Costa Cou* ter E C E I V ED P. 0. Bos 5261 Walnut Creek, California 94596 C 0 T 9A 682-,3873 J. R. 0:55011 530 Odin give, CLERK BOARD RA C ST TUPCOISORS Pleasant Hill. 9423• B October 7th. 1974. The Board. of Supervisors. Bear 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 how close are we to getting a Low Cost Spay Clinic also ask if they can sign a petition in favor. People tell us their pet problims, of neighbors moving away 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 9-11 years stopped and gave the donation box a few pickles 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. '.1earily 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 you 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 Lots Cost Spay & Neuter Clinic. Thank you gentleman. Yours truly. - -- - - FOR YOUR INFORNIATIO4.1 F- 4C ,k. Wiilfam H. Vattw RECEIVED 635 dim Street ;'r' ' B Cwrtto 8, Coltfornie Ufa�3 z , October 5, 1974 0 C 7 g 1974 Administration and Finance CommitteeR,coNr^� o A co. _.00DU Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa County e Oartinez, Calife Dear eirst Ant Animal Control I am keenly interested ip your efforts to solve the problem caused by domestic animals out of control in err .County. Or sympathies are with the animals, nearly all of which could be well- behaved, IF their owners would jolve them adequate training and supervislone The more 1 think Wkmt the probliem of frN.raming dop " even when accost+ ponied by thele masters-w-. the sore I an cowtsCed that to neqd.lepsh fats. This ntwvld be a hardship on dogs, that.need to ran (bovaose of their very nature), and who ars cert i f i ed to have gradwlted frog Wadi am*,Salnool.., 1. had such a dog, Oso a l ways ran In figure eights. I woo l d take her off the leash where it nMs safe to rune On the other hand, sunny dogs, supposedly obedient and elide mannered, who wa{k,_.Nee-roaming, with their Pastors, caw do considerable ;damage before their Pasters can stop thaw. It ,1s a torrifying. w"rieme to haw moats dog attacked* AV.Sheltie has boon attached three times by,t lode d i fforo�t dogs since ebomt the middle of JMM, Trice the attacks ,occ rred while she was walking leashod with moo 1 !tare to carry a stick whits waf king hor, and, when convenient, a neighbor boy accowpatnles ma* 1 can no longer chance a confrontation by walking my doQ in 4ART!s EI errito Linear- Park, an ideal ,Ilromene* for an "enimml onelk•e 1 propose that $*ash laws bw imposed throw#hwt .tha,6OWntyj also ttwt a special "exercise permit" be made available upon application by a dog voner for a specific animal that, is .thoraughly obedience trained, so that it may engage in short runs under strict supervislow. Because there are more dogs sending homes than there are suitable lames available, and such suffering results frost the fact that there are so mpq un• wanted animals, renege that you set up i SpWlag Clinic*, Wattwer funds are row quired would be well,,spent, in my .view. This Is the huffew way.. to treat the . pet explosion. In time such a policy should tighten the burdens of the Animal Control Agencys i oppose allowing the Animal Co+ttrsl officers to carry sidearms f also oppose permittitng. thes to stop ow. private property to take a dog that is in Its own yard, unless it has attacked a person wlthio the past, 15 minutes. This practice violates our most sacred property rights. There are better ways to handle questionable sitrationse i belie" animal control officers should stay at their statiotns, not patrol the streetse They mould be sore welcome if they responded only to Wise ise Although I do not here a, copy- of the 46 recommendations that your study committee made, 1 appreciate the effort that wwnt into its roporte i hope that the Board will make a wise decision that will be fair to all coace►nede e. .q Ff tiaspectfu l l y your*, FOR YOUR INFORMATION RECEIVED OCT 17 1974 J. R. OLSSON CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTWTA CO. AK�ae c�awuhlvdl �� � mT-Q ltc[/ dm 711fL✓1�-LI ��07v.P ,Pqf U4 t4l ,q,xd ,j6L ���. �'nuc�i - 2pe eth �ie4au� � ,� 6A ate 00&--s w" " 67L'9TS �ry c Y4" I&At�-att �an¢Qe�ed Chu A�rtwa � iggy CEO a ti/�„w • OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRAT• CONTRA COSTA COUNTY - IND FLOOR.ADMINISTRATION BUILDING MARTINEZ. CALIFORNIA 945511 ARTHUR G.WILL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR J.E.MORIARTY.CNAIRMAM PHONE 228-3000 _ olsTSlcT s r • W.N.BOGGESf„VICt CIIAIRK M - J.R KENNY.DISTRICT 9 A.M.DIAS.DIsTRICT a G A.LINSCHEID.DISTRICT s- 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- a Anima 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 $35,0.00. 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- Control 3`. v veterinarian assistants -to administer euthanasia injections (allowable through state legislation, effective in 1975). Answering the concerns of several speakers about the, connty'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 CREEKR E E I V E D TO THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RE; COUNTY ANIMAL ,CONTROL SERVICES- PUBLIC H ING,` o 1974 SEPTEMBER 30, ;1974 J._R: OL=;J CLERK BOARD O.,SUPERVISORS CONT COSTA CO. Depdy 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. - Z - In order to, provide cities with 'the right to- contract for animal control services with the County' it-will- be necessary to amend i the County Animal Control Ordinance to allow this procedure for expanded animal 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-.detailsand 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-- Ordinance should 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 official's appreciate' --, the interest.andefforts- 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. fsoard 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 maser animals running 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. T t T n 2: We feel that the exceptions of this section does not go far FkR 1 �/ ly enough. These exceptions do not take into account that dog ,� � shows, held in this county, must be exempt from the leash I A laws for advance obedience trials. Also no provisions are made for individuals training thier dogs in public parks, due J. R. OLS.`.ON to the fact that many homes do not have large enough CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS to pratice in. N COSTA CO. B """ oe � 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 fanciers license, such as, a C license would allow the fancier to keep two (2) dogs. Proof that a person is aeesfancier 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 residance license. Section 9,10 & li: 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 not visible. 3. Under this section, if we own a dog we eather bring the dog (s) in the house or we stay outside. 4. Themis 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 dog 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 Ardnal Control Depart- ment, at least two (2) persona 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 ren►iw► ' all firing of side arms by an Ar>dmal Control Officer. ......�...,.,..... � ,.:. -..,�.�„ ...µ...ms.,,'-'-,-;*�---Y'7'-^- "--r-' ^..0 •� .:Fti:i�?"`S'� r M Page 2 he reason for thin recon m—r is that the A nal Control:` „,. officers'do not coati ally train in firing fire arms or in it's safety; Law infarcement angencies that have regular pretice vdth fire arias, have`such boards to determine if; such; firing of the fire arm was necessary. Section 40&42: We support these section. Section 44b & 44d: We support this sections. Section 4,5: We do not support this section because we feel that this mordes should be used for spayed/neuter clinic. n E. luhm Chairman, Education'' Committee AMY RECEIVED vz� y ? 1914 J. R. O=e0s1 Valley Action Forum CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PO BOX 993 DANVILLE CALIFORNIA 94526 COSTA CO. B D° STATEMENT BY VALLEY ACTION FORUM REPRESENTATIVE AT THE SEPTEMBER 30, 1974, 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 raising 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. 1 i i f CONTRA COSTA COMITY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEARING ON: fULL NAITE; Yeba; A& �C St"5Ys '►C ) DATE: �., - STREET ADDRESS: tc As n Ali -JQ(nC� P1tOT:Es CITY: F s MPRESEll"L M (FIRI' OR ORGAVIZATION, IF AS Y): ..._... ti .aZk S. (S-IOL2e r + p �,�t:,sC est� s_ Pon po .� m or hand to clerk) Speech before the Board of Supervisors . , . . .30 Sept. RECEIVED �tP Ja 1974 Chairman VN& and members of the Board. . . . . . . . J. R. OLsZIoN CLERK BOARD OF SLIFERVISORS T COST CO. BY-,--- Even though my physical condition, temporary though it ay _ , vk-,ouja preclude my attendance here tonight I feel that I must speak before you, so great arc my concerns . I'm not going to remind, you_ of tht'' statistics dealing with animal overpopulation: 1. approx 125 killed per day at animal control . ,165% puppies and kittens 2. a 50076 increase in the animal control budget since 1562 3. less than - - of 1 of the county budget requested by SPAY 4. untold dollars lost in destruction of property by s.enucr-ing animals. Itir_ust be assumed that these and other statistics are well .known by yaru crudiate gentlemen itur government. There seems no need to belabor the point that fcr three years the county veterinarians association has been shorn 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 F.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 crust be taught abstenince. Really gentlemen, have you ever tried to teach animals "Abstenince" when somewhere around t`+ere is a female in heat. You have jeard Or. -:and, a licensed practising veterinarian, t,-', 11 you hot:* a spay and neuter clinic can be profitably run. This is not fiction but fact gentlemen. And the doctor would welcome a visit by yourselves. as he did by the board of SPAY, to see his efficient and sanitary oE!- 22222222 ti eration 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. 2.3gr. of the LA.Animal Control, attributes this to a number of influences and states, " of prime importance is public partici.ration in the low cost spay and-neuter clinic Program." The time has come, in fact it has been delayed too long, to have some 1 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 fec.- 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 expressigg a need for low cost pet population control measures. VOW! In June of this year SPAY offered documented statements that a clinic could be Put into operation for a one time initial exrense of under $50,000.00. This data has been ignored with one excention. . .trat tired question. . .what about the $80,000.00 that you promised to raise% The point is gentlemen, that even with spiraling inflation, Sr_iY �_as shew-n that $801000.00 is not needed to provide the desired service she people of this county, in these times of shrinking wallets, have donated over $20,000.00, 9 half of the needed amount. God help us if the shot ._.1,01 �C`C.�C.. Com'-�.c:-l..c.�... (1-LUCQ�c�.� c�►�.�C't's...� ,.�sC. C.O�v�., �.. c)c:)o 1,9 0333-2333333 dlir_ics provided by the county, not to mention the T.B. X—ray units, 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 '.a 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 tole, To what ultimate end I asked? That would be answered after the Board received the committee's report. z Gentlemen, I can only draw two conclusions since you already have two committee reports endorsing and recommending the establishment of a low cost clinic. One., .that you wish to delay even longer in making the inevitable decision; this in the face of a rapidly growing problem of epidemic Proportions. 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. It distresses me to think that taxpayers money and animal life would be wasted by such irresponsible governmental tactics. :e 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 thar. SIW,000.00 of the county's funds to build the low cost clinic that your constituents want: And, gentlemen, will you do it nova? To further delay merely reinforces the current belief in irresponsible goverrient and is at the expense of the entire community' s well being. ` ,a. -Z CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ANIMAL SPAY CLINIC STUDY COMMITTEE TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: September 25, 1974 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'$$1,000 to approximately $49,500, was submitted to the Board on July 9, 1974. Additional consultation report prepared for the City of Berkeley by Dr. Brundage at Marin Clinic on August 24, 1974 gives a complete equipment breakdown at approximately $10,000, far below our estimated � $22,000 which would reduce the cost another $12,000 from our estimate 1 of approximately $49,500. Attachments RECEIVED SEP 2 61974 o R. OLSSON C�-�- S OFU7cnV15ORs COSCO. B 111RK4ARDRA __Oepu l �: I ^ • CONTRA COSTA COUNTY • ANIMAL SPAY CLINIC STUDY CONMTTEE RECOMMENDATIONS On August 27, 1971, the Board appointed an "Animal Spay Clinic Study Committee", comprised of representatives of various organizations and county representatives. (A list of the individuals serving on the committee is attached. ) The committee's assignment was to "work out a proposal for the mechanics and procedures for the operation of a low-cost spay clinic; following the acquisition of $$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 hos itals 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 (Attachment #2). 1 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". ($219950 plus sales tax of $1,317 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 $1+..556. Total estimated cost reduction from site prepamUon-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 $3,$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 Associa6ion 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." RECOMMMATIONS 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 in cperat ion due to Senator Ne j edly'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 f: be. zonsidered a_commsrcial. establ shment'. M Definitions of,commercialshall.�be the; same'..as definition now shown'in..=the' or. count .d nance. , Y` K a dY r .. d. t z' g a 3 ry } c r .5., ,•a:: aw, .,*...iYw "dam''wu.�"'�' '��:{:�"<,_'',..,u?-t' i.+ �r«rdr 'f�i w�,r'.�'.""'....t... ,V .,_ .,.'C,.,. »... .an si;�' Attr.chment #1 ANIMAL SPOCLINIC COMMITTEE MEMBERSOPOINTED BY THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS District 1 Vice Chairman Mary Lumsden District 2 Harris Stone District 3 _Nancy-Col-e District 4 Alice Jeffrey District 5 Joel Jern, D.V.M. Agricultural Commissioner, Secretary Arthur L. Seeley i Contra Costa Veterinary Medical Association Repr4i5emtative Contra Costa Kennel Club Nick Calicura Animal Protection Institute, Chairman Barbara Poppin (NOTE: Named changed to: SPAY Stop Pets Annual Yield) t Contra Costa S.P.C.A. Cecily Bradford Board of Supervisors-County Government James Kenny Operations Committee Warren. Boggess ., hr�CP .VGQT ? •� , �► o N -r�s �V O f- �L � a COp ; IS N. fall b I ++� L-- r AE • K � _ Attachment #3 , CONTRA COS COUNTY SPAY CLINIC STUDY COMMITTEE REPORT ON EQUIP1tOT COSTS TO SST UP SPAY CLINIC Surgical Lighting $ 688.00 Anesthesia Lighting 197.00 1 Camplight 20.00 Surgical Instrument Pack ($400.00 ea. - 10 packs) 4,000.00 Hydraulic Tables ($420.00 ea. - 4 tables) 2 for surgery - 2 for exam. 11680.00 I Examining Tables (Anesthesia) 108.00 i Guerney 360.00 Sterilizer 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 e Electro-cautery 600.00 Ultrasonic Instrument Cleaner 200.00 Laryngoscopes 45.00 Anesthetic 1,500.00 Stapler (optional) 500.00 Panse buokets, and wastebaskets 150.00 Small Refrigerator 80.00 Desks, tables, filing cabinets, and record-keeping materials 1000.00 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 very as much as 20 to 50%, according to supplier. Respectfully submitted, Dr. Joel Jern, D.Y.X. Allen Jeffrey Jan 1974 r aR Poppin Attachment #4Pittsburg (AC 415)439-2091 :-DOVER MOBILE HOME S#ES • Fairfield (AC 707)429-1440 WORK SHEET i NAME S.P.A.Y. �wTE 6L13/74 ADDRESS Rny 5P61 . WnInut CTPPk- Calif. SHONE MAKE MODEL LENGTH WIDTH YEAR 0 NEW Mt.Valley O USED STOCK NO. COLOR DELIVERY POINT ■CDROOMS 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 CQUIPMENT s OPTIONAL ACCESSORIES 1 0.00 OST OF SET UP TRANSPORTATION SUB TOTAL 21,950.00 SALES TAX IF ANY. 00 (A rox) LICENSE,TITLE,ETC 150.00 DELIVERED PRICE TOTAL s 23,417-00 TOTAL DOWN S PAYMENT UNPAID BALANCE........„..„....5 1 MONTHLY PAYMENT 12 YEARS.....„„.. S 4 MONTHLY PAYMENT-13 YEARS........„.„.S CARRIED TO OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT $ .........,..„„.......„.„. S 4 ton air c onditi cner installed 1 200.00 2 steps with handrails installed 2 0.00 BANK OR FINANCE CO: ❑KVE ❑ UC■ AP/ROVED: FIRST PAYMENT DUE 1f MONTHS•S CARRIED TO OPTIONAL ACCESSORIES S 1,450-00 /y Attachment #5 ; '• ;"VICTOR W. SAUCR OUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT • R. M,RYGH . PUOLIC WORKS DIR[CTOR OEPUTY.nu1Ln1NG3 AND G1IOUND5 VERNON L. CLINE CONTRA COSTA COUNT' ROOM 115. COUR7110U1.[ CHItF DEPUTY ►•UOLIC WORKS DIRECTOR J, E.TAYLOR GTH PLOOR, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING OtPUTT.IL000 CONTROL R. D. DROATCH 253 GLACIER DRlvc DCPUTY.0US1NESS AND SERVICES MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94993 MARK L. KERMIT TELEPHONE 225.2000 OCPUTY.ROADS D E (9 V May 17, 19 74 - . MAY �� � XTIED 974 Our File: Building Projects CONTRA COSTqAoAnimal Control Spay Clinic QCln PAnTt:.zr r,� COUNTY tiICULTLKE Ms. Barbara Poppin, Chairman County Spay Clinic Study Committee 3157 The Alameda r Concord, California 94519 Dear Ms. Poppin: ! i In accordance with your request I am sending you a list of items covered in the estimate which we prepared on June 30, 1972, a copy of which-is attached• for your ready reference. c . r The estimate covered the following: 1 r I - r Clearing and Grubbing Paved Pad for Trailers Paved Parking Space for fifteen (15) Automobiles 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. i Please call if you wish to discuss any of these matters further. Very truly yours, i Victor W. Sauer Public W k Z* Ctor By .Z ' Ted L. Smith Supervising Building Projects TLS:ds Engineer Attachment cc: County Administrator's Office - Mr. D. Bell Department of Agriculture - Mr. -Ken Danielson i Attachment.#6 Dr. Schwab's Pro o , 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 ;1 On dogs and cats: Proof- of distemper vaccination prior to surgery - fee not to exceed $4.00 *No refund if lost in surgery $/13/73 0;a to ci E- E- E,., cn cn En -.O'I- =. r, �,,, .0 �, - :y 000 a 3 3 WW Yom`✓ v �:, U - .,w Cf) CI]� 9) � �_= � w��'� Ci Cl O. .� '�3 � O� 4 ow Z 0 ... ►�_ P-, W _ Or, V bo y. r a 00a 14 l�'tk a • : y oo a' :� m • F r, nV i 45 W a)' m.a� y ^O o ¢ y"` 41 rrs 82 DQ y U_ 4i Yb Ci, U r "'� O by vi 08 00- .r CD 7,1S .= - .�.°' �.ti a � o ° �Fac $vim'*" o; cn o , a ^Cj`• p . v u� � t oo �' SZ' o 0' 1.4 .. i a a„ ¢ U` i't y, C7 ii a y c3 4 i+o _ .0 3 ¢ ,. t+ a a 'o Cj �► _ `a 03 ++ Sit— s .o ,a a a ec v a �' O $'+ 01a l mobU bQ�s � a, G ya� ^� cs ,10 tiCL a �.v, mcv o> > 00 10 cs 00 X 043 0 ca r i. ck 14 U�.." r' 4 c: Ora Q) �, �. .+'n Q, bo W r� C� V: V�• n/?'/��`.i� 1.r• U �+q "�'.C`a` U 7. Sy Z' ti, Ot} LS .S� 'Z1 y U 3 Qi O O ir' CT �i � H••� .� "' CCIIII Cl�� �° }+i_U"- .� a, 1� F�Iy+i fQ. Jr C�. Yid i S ` L may. Q, niJ U {,}S •?fp+�Ml Qa_ ,� �"'i1' .( `.. cr V. > � t..o- •'•�w�..ti ' 4)f i» �t'fl'•��m C3' CJ� TJ 3-t, -. O� Gt � -.^� 7 �'i,�, �„ �� , CQ��7.�: Q��;, rr� � 4� �},,"��f�i bo O� A91 m ni - k oobo a.� �+=' art°' c a a a ab c�»r.' rc a U N Q) � Q)_ W S' 0:.�' ,' � O �. Q3 �"Ci ���.'' � •� "i cas' O� � =,.p�: �'3�' `� U g + O. C7 �1 g .�•� � ..... gi 'Cj. �. rte", h�!_ r _ ~' v E, O ,; t#. m � y�,.a � - s: vy��' �� cv O; t�0 ��., a-•- s0.� �0� � �- :13'.ax; r � j'G �g ' m `, T' 'Q3' ctt= Com• C I �+ w. d.r ►r,` ... cz ..,_ .. - yy + C4T m eta 10 Z t- 00 O �Gti2 c1c'S,�:c'Yc7_�c�T.ch,dr �r N tzS 7' oLor•�"Oi+_4) cz 70 ;` ;a["+a+ `4»MAL) a .fi w; 0...* `O Gt:, :: O d ca, 0: = i• -cn -..I1" ^�c .m O. �"'+ a � y0+ O7 O :d p _ Q (n W CID Q c y � � a o ;. - . 0 i :a =ao � v ,-a � ,+-� a ��•� ��=�b.� t+. a- fi cs ��> ,U Yy� >.-:.? > ta0:a,,Q,cS `s.. ;� a cz \ bo a b: a Geos - U .0;a o4) Zc°,.-� ., .o o+ :E . 'O w m �,"�7 �:Qx.Z1 O w y .,+ o bo ;a H A7 a c,, "~ ,: a.+ a ti 1"r .CS"' �y Myrj CJ �'i -� V •��' �, a�x -.. - :a a�-a v Rn "' ,, U�4) - v w ,,c .a o- .o - o o a 'E `z a7 C _a o . , E_ a .r,. .c c� F c� co C` a_ '_ cu E o n b- ,5 os . Oa a- ceU O•4 t- p O O= O =U =U b0Op a ,> . �. v U O a > ty cn c, v•D . cv 'C) • �+-�+ ." i �• uz a'-" :C >- . O as C C 4tr^C a a b0• O m as a,.. U O r� Q "a' va ,, .o -- s, c� Sat. .-.r .. U �+ p pq C4cn "T (cr- Cornc-4cqcovko cr- 000) cac� � 't3lAtq-AA53 '� cl `r A °A -i .-t.,-.t ..1 ,-t ..-t .-t tocz on- v cts U b0 U a. .0 `` a•'C cam:. _ 4 "' sem'rn wz- 4n Q, to Z3va � %yZ G3 G p`.s 0.g ,>.0 a � � C3 a> � ,:;;�a-rt m�U.xr �.u_ ..•-•, ;V .. eQ �`H ter. cw crcr:. U .�_ � p. U j�..�1. ". C�•O ;cU' "�y 53�. R7t�y,yv �.a.� U -'l1a»4 p Q "a �a - � cc 'fit R^�' p, .= t.` �' y, ` di p G ,'� ca �, �+ + 6. � '•'" .13• �.g bc C N` U ''U .• �* "'[' t3. ��r; � +y�► r{,�. .41 ¢� rt3-11. blD Q, cx; cv;rs ter' C4: - i I 17 45 �.. �. U (�'Ri'pp�• 4`�i ��y >� ,Cd: : Q3 �_� �i `Qj_t�i}`�'c�.� "q� p�'•a�.,.Q)t„�;�`_ _a�f So ."Z jpj -� "o ,r.. u U 4)r' o. zn u ti v5 DO q� ^t7 y ? Cjy LI N �t� ��y }{y�f� ,•�M V F� 1 /}/MdMr_"�,.W C• "oW 'G �/�'M[ y �.•� -� •`�_-W Yo�� ,- 4 • ...iyM, 1�' 1 f•i .� [' -. .Y�w1.-^Lnyl�.� ..0 V •►y �'" .� `` •Wiv} inQ� •rw iw W -F+ p cz 71 E GL7 T7:Qr C/]"amu i+.Lva f: _ ��4� tLl �3+- .v�G/� -"o A+,u .0 J� -� cq c'7'-'r Vr to t- to CA 0 ^� t J C'S vt tM to t` X0 = �j r �y }+ �»j �p Cp •-i 4U c� �+ '- �p tom- &p p. C17y-be __ r:• ply� y,�� O � '�, � IS to 00 V. c3 to 'G tv w 011 O U s;.y ai I• .G O G 7^-y- G t� UQ 7z. �p Q .60 ^tS ca O S ,,., su'b �p �,,���- _� � v `�' �..._"µ �� G ;���' � 4� G "t7 ►� ' .p`O ;, N T D? rC Co *xy OO o 7. �.+ _G Q, •r•�•�+ „ O U O 'r O"d3 y rr � O O� _~. �O� � `. - 33 '"d �a a� ..,. U Its � V �• �, � a� s�• ,. O G tv.tom y, : G , , rO.G ee u: .G �► '� .;_ t� e wci y�y .f j� 4V `,►C�j „W 'Y[') LL'i1-- +" � L? -.. TW � 7V •-' 5 _ �_Q6 - �-j 1,i -':bO tk CD Cj 6ce) „Cas +C4) ° o aCi a�aa�i � ° 0-0A-# 3oavom CGS yam• U v �. ov ' O OA�+ od w ° o w 4D A, .� oGey-B � ma " � o�' "d^�3 Ow '17 d` ^CS "U vCC v v � OU +�'' .Cvs U > U w D vr 04,1 ar�irow .0cll v.v �-' •� U ' CQbO w �U.. +' ice+ DO t+ Q+ p v, y ++ cs .0 .!3 � o `s c�. ,� � � 3 •�cs a) ” ptt C 0 + � a v �► 3 � as Ci d.+ O 104 o o c" `ss • "�, �.. ci a Edi p, aCa v > Q y H10 QD C4 0 10 v� 19bo C . . > 1 1 4 G� N ai ya r7 dl QS .O Q �• •*r fJ Qi'a. " O i: }� r1y �.. o as >1 c p, °' m^a43+•+ bjp "a o C � '� G y• C *+ 03 � . C + o C 0R .ai Cm� pr * Caw» `' �` Q a0 Q:� '� M�`. ° `c -ti. Q+. O aCi w 0 U Ci �.� -- g a.0.o• •d c: ce o o '�b �•C aS _°�' Q v '.�3= b� >" Oj pp4 .C+ m F. �W xU ° , oC ° y��� � ,; � c pa • fn •o #iO. �''+w� _�v 9 � utl�i{C��d.0 a:+oo,U,LC ii � p.-� t` r3' C � Qvw (D � `�u�' •�,� � U u:� r; OO ''' �° wi' ca z Q� fkO"°�a3s.', `O t" U�' R�iQ. V ^ 0+ yc+U�+ y O,p ,° 4) v Q w 'U.0 U.d Q C3 cd�•, rA Al L. v H.— *» m ,7 0 card e! 00 r-4 G3 c"7 moi' V2 k SPAY CLINICS ARE* INDEED, PROVING THEIR WORTH #' Vmx SEP 2 5'197 IMPOUNDMENTS DECREASE � :OFA" • r CLE BdARt3 dr St1PERtJiSpRSst�,., C COST LCi• ~ Ft' ?., " B _ - +t Neuter Clinics Credited E .; Spay, With Reducing Pet Population.. TAY ast;i:tt _ n •�''!•.'Y R Jk C.I.lwsar 0.01t con"Sice fiom Third Pitl�l .lttgcle•+` ltlancettn2 Wil,fic for ..ltereul, a :stricter enforcement:' - `dj the 39,a0Q licenaa }, .•tt,.t -p:,. atetl neuter tdinic Nru of the 1r::Oh lacy and "a dt�e}ler:eilzsec plications received from t 'r.•zt1 i• �t+trt t'tlin, in it;go:d tt(rt`- of pet owner:hip r.- ponbibllity sit- duly thraugtt they` that � , �3lzrtnti:t,r tin;.tt1d vat Pollid.ttion to nittlated by public education.* rvCeli in AU St. ;40wr9L �;s tike 1ut'ttt,ix,ltt:a, 4rca, it t�'a,t•c},u!t-){� ;alt g.:�"; ttrcrca.t; in anintal lm.!--. were for altered dogs;ow°i }} $A tvi '1t+t'•tl.,t'. Vst1 +inent. was Tecortlea in 19#1. official Said, }{tt±r.t t t. iter t1. ,ltccai 1t1an:; t'r -a tit •1n i.1t_•c.,a O nom, •jf that ratio COttti#itiel.s'� �n< ,t' ir'•• tilt I) iritneltl of :ltlintal. .he said e}the noted. 'then I.os:,Ati�+ 1�t't;!ti•ttttttl. �.,i.t:tt:.t `:int'f.' ttzt• Pro The•e t:tt'n rtrtllel decrea.cs' - gelen is well ori tate cc'811 LO r -. f.it! 4;.:- In�tiit.lt t1 'sit}zroalnl:tl,'r� /'i i lite number of .znDiu z 1 becoming 8 City-with ! f ++ . . t -tim-i tvar- mhtcbce!ta-}iOSa T altered-clog `popula ,f r-intat,tt�rui, in .:tusttal rhrittr iz1t- '71zc ret tzlut r - tion, which would f4r ex,, }v:1:ltinu,tt�• t� . and 197.:P7-1,!J rt, coed our most optimistic- In terms of nu11 er., i-t't.o.,0 atti-• expectations. ," , a,• lt.:. b eu t,t' clinic aat *'' z,in•the tentr rwn ebrtiar,, mal' were impounded in 1970-71 and , Ali estimated .2GQ,Opj? »)l•.a',Ill.Prn1 raw 11e4:nt,until 125,90-i during lite la-A fiscal year---:t dog licenses will be Usued torr '.J. 1'.t7 t. they numbered i:,, drop of reported. this year,he_o,,t,t,-Ru.lt said.' ° t 7-*1. bt -aid. That included 12.::Ki The number of dove and rats de- I'h e clinics, o p eII4�d%4' � . stroyed fell from iliNL in 1870-71 Monday,through Friday TKA ' ,pay (Wileration,;tion: sold :,,:;Ca neuter to 58,330 in 197^.,-7.1. a.m. to 4 p.m.,are Jocaigd z n}x`tasi-nt-, Rush Suitt. The first munielpally-operated, at the Ann Street Animal )t "i't4,ple ire taping )letter care of tiitelter, 15 1'l. Ann-St., tttcir pct=" rte said. "'There is les clinic—also the first in the nation--, ' ` � 1,ac':r;trcl breeding." tries opened in February, 1971, and • The llth Avenue Sl elter. two additional ones began operating_ .'{ill 11th Ave.. and the" llu>h .aid that rnalr• tzther :}►a� la,i tear. Last Valley Shelter, 23131.' �.,,- `t' .intl neuter surreltic; ttxtl: l,lace at rarglcat fees are$17.:,0 for pa}ing Sherman Argy, North I101 pt'ii'atc veterinary ho4},}wk. and Si 1..-;o fnr netztctin•� 7ycvood• In odditiotl to the Spat alcute r r,z u- y gra-al. the illi trovetttettt !n at�int:,t G'rotrin}; public acceptance of the 1 tunics is indicated in the current._ t-onttul. 14t:h -«:ill•al.o cal) be attr} tilt**-lieett=inG pro8t:tm,Push paid. bated to the dog licen--e fez struc• luxe t$7 for unaltered dogs and$3.,Ao Please Turn to Pare 27,Col.21111 } SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS, CLAIM CITY AND COUNTY RUN LOW-CAST SPAY/NEUTER CLINICS, "DO NO GOOD f TO REDUCE THE PET OVERPOPULATION" IN FACT, THE NUMBER OF ANIMALS GOING TO F, TNG DESTROYED 541ELTERS AND 8E , HAS BEEN REDUCED IN ALL AREAS WHERE LOW-COST CITY «* t AND-COUNTY-RUN SPAY/NEUTER CLINICS ARE IN OPERATION. 74;i G.. +* Animal Control Tops Cities' Complaints Ct The nation's mayors and city councilmen get more complaints about y ` animal control problems than about anything else, according to a recent survey conducted by the National League of Cities. ihr •urvet results, printed below, were based on the responses of 519 .. r mavous and 5t: city councilmen of communities of all sizes from all parts W file nation. V, NtiUS sugMts that humanitarians use this information to convince their s r»,n municipal officials that animal control is of highest importance to their rrinsi+tucxnts. tisuS wilt,,be glad to;supply literature and assistance tar any �;� j.Y ;corrsrnututy ltlttbted in Improving its anrmal control program r r T. tMA CO CITIZENS FREOUENTM.Y .- s;4 �a r ;;V PN BOUT �r}��/�•i� �y� )j'.^. ijaffiZ,I117C1 ' � Cs'� s• � _ ' i��.I Mir ii(i7�ir.7 �+S�RI GJ�a l7 tiSl+l�J �• 1'K��'l ,�'; •+n k i^r 1 71r� � r �4t a.�� � I k' + • � cit" r+tE Y t �� '� h matt' IV end-other �T$t a control problems . tyEiO 7. r signs& lights;parldng) 40.7 •.t .53 5 3 Rezoning' problems 30:1 46.3' _. :c"`�`?d =" '' r' :� i • Y f' = 4 Potholes,iri si e 6 32.4. 5 Tax rates A 22,0 260 6 '~ Sewer service. 23.1 ' j, 19.3tIN -4 7 n Cleanliness of streets, neighborhoods 1P.5 +" 19.7}y 8 Crime - x 17.0. 14.5 9 Housing` = '`; 15.4 14.3 ;. x•{^,[ f 10 fJther' ._F414.1 15.6 11 Water service 10.6 5.9 12 Drugs6.2 4.3A, : . 13 Health care, 3.3 k_.2 1 a t "��► t ;_, x-i �'� f,tt;•ra y r 2 tr 3t 14:. `Fire protection o. : :tt 2r9' �;,Fr�..7f�rp�� RECEIVED • SEPa?77974 �Rmi_ OLSSON Sept. 25, 1974 qr su�Etty�SOPS B c Board of Supervisors Administration Building Pine and Escobar St. Martinez, Ca. 94545 Dear Sirss 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 otber volunteers get 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 aff ord. This population explosion affects the whole county, not just a small group of people called SPAY. Itis now time for the county to assist SPAY in getting a clinic started. Thank you, Mrs. Halon G. Rice 2049 Walnut Blvd. Walnut Creek, Ca. 94596 Please read this latter at the Sept. 30th meeting. cc: Supervisor James Moriarty AGENDA (TEM e.e, for zn�2 04. (date) September 20, 1974 Mrs. S. Nomura 880 Bates Avenue Rl Cerrito, California 94530 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 Committeewhich was appoint- ed by the Board to study all matters related 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 'espress your views on the matter. Very truly yours, i J. R. OLSSOA, CLBRK s; u enc osep Deputy Clerk AJ:ckt Enclosures cc: Supervisor W. N. Boggess County Administrator Attns Mr. C. -A. Hammond V,; ct• w r-I 4-' .moi m • Om O-ri� m • Cd S Z m H-H a�gyp, �' �+ a P W w ,aZ uZ CHS OmmLn o a oA r � $ CD -P Ra ti $4 O Orn W M rH-I CDP H bD co `CO CO W obi ry+ Fj-i m -H moo P m d '-1 $� m9 � m A� Pm -Hq:l IV k Oto cs Fav •-> CH � PCH +o 0 m r-i ,-i ai -H +12 m w m k 0 4-. • 4-1 OOrrnz F5 -PW 0B0m ' •F' �r�-a d' a-t r!M m O L , WU �M 0 3 0H H9 Hic H ci � L 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 Committees George Eo Eberhart, D.V.M., President, Contra Costa Veterinary Medical Associations had submitted to him a written proposal of the said association for animal population controls 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. Vaidap -M.A. , Ph.D; and Supervisor Boggess having recommended that the material supplied by Doctor Eberhart be furnished to Rso A. Lo Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner, and Mro Nick Calicura, Chairman, Animal Review Control Committee's Subs - Committee on Population Control, with' 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 lows-cost spar and neutering; On motion of Supervisor W. N. Boggess, seconded by Supervisor A. M. Dias, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recam endation 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: Noneo 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 Superjisors on the date aforesaid. cc : Piro Calicum Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of i>I."o Seeley Supervisors County Counsel affixed this 13th day of August- - fig 74 Acting County Administrator ,Q J. R. OLSSON, Clerk Bya& !i ct-ru , Deputy Clerk Arline Patten H 24 5/74 - 12,500 r` r ,x. July 23,, _197'4 To Board Members Mr. George Lamb, 430 Mt. view Drive,. Martinez,, called and wanted you to know- that he is .strongly i n favor of .the' Leash law and he thinks itwould�be:a_goad 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. w -s L 3 ti t r ..„.._....,.>..•....,,«. .:•:.vir.`»«.:.'i., 'r"+u..i�arav+a•ar;++.:o_sa r.K:'n"'.:L. *,.: 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 Jud 23'9',Y1974 At 'i-:3:0.�p�' `=m :, is fixed as the time for a public hearing on the aforesaid 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. cc• Congressman Jerome Waldie Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of • Mrs. William Ray Supervisors 2nd Jul 74 Board Members affixed this day of y , 19 _ County Agricultural Commissioner J. R. OLSSON, Clerk County Administrator B T Deputy Clerk Arline Patten H 24 5/74 -12.500 t Statement befoilWhe Board of Supervisors, ntra Costa County, July 23, 1374 by Mrs. David *uch of Danville, President of S.P.A.Y. of Contra Costa County, an all-volunteer organization with paid inembershii 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 -ori l.y a small part of the iroblem--the ti-i 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. Prom-it action is needed, not only for the sake of the animals, but also to meet our resionsibility to -,rotect the health and welfare of the community. Animal control will cost the taxpayers of Contra Costa .County almost three quarters of a milli-:)n dollars this year, ui from one half million in 1971. A large percentage of this money goes to imiound and destroy animals. What S.P.A.Y. is suggesting is an alternative: an imiroved method over the present Rystem. 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 noiulation control. Man has reilaced the natural ecological factors that would normally function as controls. Slaying and neutering are the only effective methods of net ioiulation control available now. Exierts 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. nroi oses that the county establish a low-cost, self-suioorting Slay Clinic based on the successful Los Angeles Snay Clinic Program. This will be suinlemental 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 an-)roved the conceit of such a clinic and committed the county to its oieration 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 irograw. 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 program for school children. If relieved of the burden of raising the funds for the clinic, this group could organize a more extensive educational nrogramnto comilement t e cli is and could reach many more n eoile in the county than the ironosed u b.. 4 animal control -iublic relations officer; AND, it would cost the taxiayer nothing, because S.P.A.Y. is an all- volunteer grouo which would function as an auxillary to the clinic. Y The imiact of this iroblem is county-wide; no sector is exemit--urban, suburban, or rural. The solution requires the cooneration. of all. Pet owners must be motivated to neuter their -)ets--such an a-r)eal for action must have the irestige of the county to be successful. This is a public res-ionsibility; it would hardly be fair to expect the private sector to assume the full responsibility. Individual nractioners are hard pressed to meet their own medical demands, . have invested considerable time and money in their iractices, and are entitled to exi ect a return from their operations. A iublic clinic would not be faced with this requirement and is the only viable alternative that has been offered to the citizens. The iet over-noiulation n roblem 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 k powerful force in educating the iublic about the *problems of animal control. It is important for the county to set the exam-)Ie. It is the forum for reaching the greatest Page :.4. ox_ , portion of the nodulation. Private nractitnoners would r also benefit from the county's stimulation of the nublic. A cooperative program featuring a county o,)erated, self- sui-iorting Snay Clinic, and ax- educatio al program using Z4 the resources of private, interested citizens through S.P.A.Y. together with: the continued dedication of private veterinarians, would have exciting -)ossibilities. We urge your affirmative action now. i SPECIAL ANIMAL CONTROL REVIEW COYMTTEE REPORT 1 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 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 j to comply with State law. Studies reveal that other methods are too costly and/or impractical. (Comment: money has been appropriated.) I 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. c Animal Control will respond only when practical or when an Anima] Control Officer observes a dog harassiisg cattle, in which case he should get out and 'shoot'the dog. .� 4. Suggestion forms will be made available to Ani-al.-Control emplo ees enabling them to express their concerns regarding y Y ling exp g ding policies and operational 't procedures. ! r 5. A Lost and Found Card File should not be kept by Animal Control. Telephone identification of an ani—l'is inefficient and impractical. Owners will continue to be notified if the animal is identifiable by license, name and address tag, etc. + 6. Livestocks� 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 tdisplayed regularly on Thursday, and.sold by sealed bid. * 7. The holding period for unlicensed, animals aball-..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 one's month, March through December. ` 10. There should be a fiscal and calendar year licensing program. 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. + + 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 nod have an Anima] Control Department, the county clerk shall perform the functions r 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 ($!,) 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) j s . . 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 most 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 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 ori 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 comaunications 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 i 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 animal and provide advice, and should respond in emergencies.. (Danger to human life, or if an animal 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, 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 :mere 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 25, 1973, to the Board of Supervisors on the subject of Predatory Animal Control and Squirrel h adication 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. 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 Kenaelman. 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 r 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 .existi,ng law which prohibits guide dogs being trained from entering restaurants, bowling 'alieys, 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. z 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. lit. County personnel should vork 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. 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 animal control regulations: a. request the County Public Relation officer to develop a public information program to increase public understanding of the Animal Control function; b. provide for an on-going' co==ity relations 'gaining program for all. Animal Control personnel; c. seek funding for a t*a n�rsg program from County appropriations, CCCT. grants and/or from,the State through legislation providing special programs in this field statewide; and d. encourage the League of Qlifo3!ni.a Cities to support legislation to, provide for such'a traiair*'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 .figld effectiveness of Animal' Controi personael.and as an improvement. ; . in service to a large portion of the County*Population. ` Warren X.-Boggess, Chairman Special Animal Control.Review Co=Ittee . - • Dated June 11, 1971+ 3, t s 4 _ - z • HEALTH DEPARTMENT Contra Costa County TO: N*rr" Boggess DATE: , UX7 220 IS74 ervisor District 4 FROM: pr%&k j. Ike' ge1U SUBJECT: 4441064 to $uj�tY�3,� g8#�tJRt.�an � tloi is�e;e Rrticl* 06-4.4 s�coii�s Add "2 a arsos o ng or passessiot w OWI s1 x4intt#u the g�es in ma unclww or unsaait r eenditiou." FjA l be or Artiele 416-4.4 �isaell�taeass Add Section 416-4-641S of Promises "No person vvaiaS or pessessing muw mal MW pmlt any preaises belonging to him'- or oe pled by b6,0 to became law"* f"I or offensive by tk* sca-umlatfen of filth said do Ea Aae�sa3 escram"t. lie sh"I be. notified to yrammet essd abate such aaisaacs withfn 24 hours. RECEIVED JUL. 974 ), R. OLSSON CLERK04D OF SUPERVISORS LL;q-�r�IZA .. GA-9 4/74 2M *DEPARTMENT OF AGRiCULTURO I rn 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:.,-,, rom:./�Af L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissoner—Sealer of Weights and Measures o - o 0 Subject: Estimates of Costs Proposals f 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/nw attachment �3rxa.idG��ac .! cc: County Administrator .r-- Clerk of the Board RECEIVED JUL 161974 I R OLSSON CLEW AhAM of SUPERVISORS -CO. 8 .Oe u 7/73 (500) August s, 1971 Mr. Vladislav Bevc 51 Hardester Court Danville, California %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 Commnittee, 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., In such instances, we do not schedule individual speakers Vary truly yours, J. R. OLSSQN,_ CLERK By Geraldine Russell Deputy Clerk GR:vn cc: Members of the Board Agricultural Commissioner Acting County Administrator . x VLADISLAV BEVC. PH. D. 51 HARDESTER COURT 27 July, 1974 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 REC VED � JUL 311974 SON C� a SulMORM RA COSTA C¢ s , o . DO YOU IQIOW -MERE YOUR DOG IS TODAY ? CASE AGAITIST THE SACRED COW. Anyone who lives. in a city, suburb, or in the country knows that dogs are a nuissence. Just how great a nuissence has been documented in an extraordinary little book called The Ecolopv of Stroz Dogs by Alan N. Beck, based . on fieldwork he dId in BeItImore w i e 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 homes. 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 cans, making it easier for the rats to forage,. and Dr Heck has watched dogs chasing away cats which were chosing. rats. Rats, as well as pigeons, con. 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 Alon.M. Beck York kress : 9.50 101 East 32d °street, 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 c c: Mr. Curtis Gray Supervisors Supervisor W. N. Boggess affixed this 2nd day of July . 19 74 Agricultural Commissioner County AdministratorJ. R. OLSSON, Clerk By 9tt- Deputy Clerk Vera "Nelson H 24 5/74 -12,500 June 25, 1974 Board of Supervi s ors PC Box 911 Martinez, Ca. 94553 Dear Sirs: Of all the laws we don't need, a Jog Leash Law is about the worst I can think of. That would make a late-breaker out of every dog owner. All dogs need a chance to run and play once in a while. I 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 Mr. 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, Curtis Gray/ 3257 Tulare Av. Richmond, Ca. 94804 REL..E1 V ED C, C• a _ JUE1P.LP1974 LBJ. R =tj OOr SUPERVI RS CAST De a C� FOR YOUR INFORMATION In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California June 24 19 7L 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 condider �,a�r.-, : 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;, 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: Supervisor W.N.Boggess Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Agricultural Commissioner Supervisors County Counsel affixed this 24th day of June , 1974 Director of Planning J. R. OLSSON, Clerk County Administrator � By (i/,/_xn-,. Deputy Clerk. Arline Patten H 24 5/74 -12,500 Tune 13, 1574 RECEIVED Supervisor James E. 211oriarty 'UN /71974 Board Chairman, County Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County Administrative Offices J. P. ousov Martinez, California WARD of suarRvisoas 6 . avTRA A Co. Dear Sir: I have read an article in the Oakland Tribune, Junel3, 1974 in which animal control recommendati ►s were made as a result of a County Committee "study. This article promped my letter in which I would like to ea:press these concerns and personal convictions. -- Mary dog oVmers, such as myself, believe that leash free areas should be available in all parts of the County, and within each city to exercise dogs, free from leash control. Specifically in El Cerrito I would suggest that the "green area" which accompanies the BART route through El Cerrito should be designated in this area. -- The "green belt" area along the El Cerrito hills should also be designated as a free leash area. -- Both areas in my judgment shculd 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 as the BART area. In total, the newspaper article suggests restrictive and punitive approaches to pet control. Hopefully the Board of Supervisors and the Committee will develop a "balance" in their reccmmendations. Part of that "balance."is to designate doe exercise areas which alloy, the animals and pet owners to function without the restrictions of leash laws. 1 lvculd ar reciat.e a response to thz ezncern in which your reconmiendations regarding free leash areas are expressed. �t d Sincerely, Patrick Eallian 7104 Potrero Avenue +•1 Cerrito; Califortia, 94-530 �, 1V June 12, 1974j J f,j Board of Supervisors Admission Building; 7OARD OF sur«vt;oz; P.O. Box 911 COSTA CO. 8:.. .f)cRu 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 PM. 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 remainn 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" when the front door is opened and in particular when children are running in and out. 2. DOGS THAT ARE OFF THEIR Qin.. 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 p �� porches.) 1+. The Animal Control Department should take care of all the dogs running up and dOVn the streets. Admittedly "dog catchers" have a difficult job and catching these dogs rather than the-one sit— on its front yard Would make itmore difficult. Concentratingon the dogs running up and down the streets would Keep them. mare`than-�b=y and certainly be a better use of TAIPAYERSI 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 andcontrolled.' In conclusion. and in consideration of this petition, adding EXCEPT'09 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 Maraga, calif. 9+556 ri 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 to t e 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 ERS PROPERTY" tote appropriate sect n 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. It 9U.-t-e Mpi DY"j, CALIF- j ,; ,41Z ,��, r�, {� !'��y ,t,�..ti- J G ?' � LLL—r�.�' �; ��.�c' ...s�;•�`�J 6-4 Jcul r dig � 3 3! ?2"744"zv 13 y AIWI -1..i1(4o 6 3 Cz I q,() At Lv i 7 f A/�4 y i/ _ t 'C�Gr�-a yrs ati►a a 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 "EXCEPT ON PROPERTY" to a appropriate se is on 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. � l � 1� f' f y JOU .,..-� •�Jr� ! ,"� , 1 rLAI L7 A a `L 7-7, 2'. ic 1� a A CIN 314U vim✓ 7 �j<<t���c� � i " " !a"�UW[ �• jai `-�^.i-C-Q��. 37/ �iL�'�•t _ - �Jc-.�.,.�'� ���-!x� tjloo -7Ax A�� r 17s��.dlC 'O �' tLt�a- 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: it. . . .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 "EXCEPT ONOWNER'S ROPERTY tote appropriate se is on 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. MOO . 4-_at �--6�3� /Ago 603 ` c ^� � � �=K - 3�Fie ld6ta k 1 ltd WA6A AA 1- ak `vis It r AIr • L- -.rte-i.. l ( ; 42� s , vV � i �u a 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 wor i.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 Adding the words "EXCEPT ON O ERTY tote appropriate se zc on 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 A CMWA� *aa,��J'f CCi .l.l.. 11.E ;V� (�'L• y��V4/1i "v �1 c - Aon, - -sI`( 2? � �. ,;; ,r . �-� � y� 6 ___ a-7 � cEpl• CONTRA COSTA COQ A. L. SEELEY • ' "_,�;. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER •• i :rte ' 161 JOHN GLENN DRIV[ SEALER WEIGHTS AND MEASURES • � Kms.• `�: �1'.j; '• K. E. DANIELSON MUCHANAN AIRPORT O: - ".'moi �:• - ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER -r7 CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 04520 AssfsTAHs w►Lftn 4' ��• • '.� R 662-7330 �STw coiir+ !RANCH OFFIC[6 100.37TH ST.. RICHMOND 04005 1420 HIGHWAY 4.BRENTWOOD S/SIS 233.7050.EXT. SE55 SSi->WIS May 20; 1974 RECEIVED Mrs. Warren Knight MAY 2 21974 4241 McDermott Drive Pittsburg, California 94565 J. R. OBOXN OAP.D OF SUPERVIS92S Dear Mrs. Knight: s M TRA ACO . utv Your communication of May 1, 1974, which was directed to Supervisor Linscheid, was referred by the Board of Supervisors oa May 7, 1974 to me and the Special Animal Control 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 "last 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 homes—, Tor 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. FOR YOUR INFORMATION Mrs. Warren Knight -2- 5/20/74 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. 8.* 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. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner Sealer Weights & Measures ALS/nw attachment ccs Supervisor Linscheid perk of the Board t May 1, 1974 pl C I V Mr. Edmund Linscheid IMY 7 1974 County Board of Sunervisors Civic Center �• R. oi:.4:1 Pittsburg Ca 94565 CLERK POARD o: SUPEa+c;. n CON-RA COSTA CO. Dear Mr. Linscheid: My family just had a most upsetting experience with the Ma*rtinez 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 "ole may have impounded your dog" and giving a number to call BEFORE 4:00. The notice 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 `.� 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 te:ndn to be necrot dog extermination. Nowhere, on the 1:`S7 not-ice was there any warning that the dog faced summary execution in a very brief time. At no time during the 'k1 b telephone conversation was any impression of urgency or dead- line in picking her up given. ie were jeft with :he impression 7, / that her card had been marked to hold c4 her owner would be in. Actually, no record that we could find had been made of 1 1 � ou. call. Nowhere on the papers with her license- or any other place was the warning of the extremely brief chance a �2 clog; is given. However, livr_stoc'c in given five work-T. Also, during the hour I spent with Ivt=&*jxxnaaspaxri mxx3vi=%k#x .znkxsx*x3 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 pact of the dog's death. None of the notices say directly J 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 wnsn'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 Icor one city but totally innd-_q:ate for 2/3 of a county, the moyest bu4cat and other pressures make it difficult for a dog to be given any consideration once the owner suffers a lapse in vigilance. �fHowever, the least you could do is wake sure that .every possible / contact the Animal control has with the public shouts ;t.':e message loud and clear -that your net is counting his time in seconds once the inp. cundment procedure starts. Certainly people who are ss supported by and supposedly serving Ow public have an obligation to let their practices be known. . r t Also, Mr. Linscheid, since we could not have picked up the dog on Sunday, it wns unfair to count those hours from noon on Saturdat► 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, T was informed that I had been given more consideration 13 than most pot owners. Notices are not usually left because cost "strays" are not obviously living at the honse where they are picked up. If that is the case, I would suggest that the local newspapers and the Aninal control pt together and follow th- practice of the Marin and Sonoma Humane Societies and the Independent Journal. Each day the strays are listed - doas, cats, livestock, others - and the lintinq is published for three dzvs in t}-e duly paper. This would be slight additional paperwork but would probably improve your retrieval tate. The Paper volunteers the space as a public service. Eriefly, then, I have three suggestionq to saki 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 unclaimed animals will be destroyed in ' 72 hours. This should be clear and unambignoais. 2) `enapt Sundays and other days the pound is closed from the 72-hours. Try to set a policy of slowest possible cl:arir_g 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 :;•: are dangerous pests and should be exterminated. I would like to see that changed so that they beliwe 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. Mr-3. '-rren knight 4241 McDermott Drive Pittsburg Ca 94553 d(2 . i „gid t./):L•'•�-L '.U.ste t:.�li _,. ,.,.r yc.{!,c•,.��•u.�/ ��rit�rtuscs�.ssr In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California Mav 7 19714— 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, 4241 McDermott Drive, Pittsburg, California, 94565, relating to the operations of the "Martinez Animal Shelter" and offering certain suggestions concerning operation of the shelter including extendigg 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 ?tt, day of May . 19 _74- County Agricultural W. T. PAASCH, Clerk Commissioner By ilia, . �,t},c,C� De Cierk County Administrator -� 'WY Charleen K. Travers H 24 7/72-15M r V May 1, 1974 R.`C IVEP Mr. Edmund Linscheid MAY ', �Sl� County Board of Supervisors Civic Center J. P- 0L=;s Pittsburg Ca 94565 aRK ROAM OF SUPERVISORS COCOSTA CO. Dear Mr. Linscheid: My family just had a most upsetting experience with the Martinez animal shelter. Briefly, our dog bad 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 and 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 JSft with the impression that her card had been marked to hold epi her owner would be in. Actually, no record that we could find had been made of our call. Nowhere on the papers with her licensee 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 withidgcxttasa:y 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,/71211Si3*4y you are vaguely informed that the dog was probably "claimed", d� 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 impLoundment procedure starts. Certainly people who are sw supported by and supposedly serving the public have an obligation to let their practices be known. 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 get togethei 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 unclaimed animals will be destroyed in 72 hours. This should be clear and unambigdous. 2) ]3cempt 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 pubbfshers. 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 wee 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 is i 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 , 19 74 Special Committee �M R. OLSS N, County Clerk Agricultural Commiss�6li� County Administrator By /-6L-7y6Deputy Clerk D. Harkness H 24 7/72-15M RECEIVED APR ?11974 a sv ;74- 11�2L a x 1 - • 1621 Everett St. E1 Cerrito, Ca. 94530 April 25, 1974 RECEIVED Board of Supervisors APR�(,1974 Administration Building _ Martinez, Calif. �' O1'"O'�� ARD SUPERVISORS 9 t SUPERVISORS 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, Tommye G. Welch cc: Animal Control Dept. 4849 Imhoff Dr. Martinez C� .e. 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 ne.ighbors.', 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 communib- '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 wo der why not?) I must apparently continue to tolerate these animals in my front yard but 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. 4/17/74 Sirs; This seems to be a good a time as any to let your office know how I feel about the Animal Control Center. It is by far my least favorite. I live in E1 Sebrante, where it seems as though there are were dogs than there are peopte. Somewhere there was a dog in heat because our place Was over-run With dogs during the night, memo *von stayed during the day. I called ji# their office every day. Nobody cam out. On the fifth day in a row, I called again. She asked me if I had the dog tied up. I told her no, it's a German Shopard, and I didn't know if it would bit* me or not. She informed me I'd have to have the dog confined before they'd come, not 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, as they refused to come. I told her the dog has been laying' in my frontifor days and just come and got it. I finally called back saying I'd tied up the dog. Whom he finally came out, it was still laying is 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 bites. 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 so much to be desired. They also insist on calling their procedure.adeption. I adopted a little girl, but if I want a dog, I'll get a dog. I resent both dog and child sharing the word adoption. I do not own. a deg. Than lr you for your time R CEIVE 4'-) 4339 Santa Rita Rd. APR —1 74 El Sebrante, Calif . I R OLMON CLERIC LOAM OF SUPERVISORS (� COSTA CO. -- , .� CL& ;� In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California May 7 19 74 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, El 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. NO$S: 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 r: Supervisors Special Committee,4 , I affixed this 7th day of May , 19 74 Agricultural JAMES R. OLSSON, County Clerk Commissioner �J County Administrator By V4S-. 4".,Z Deputy Clerk D. Harkness H 24 7/72-15M SPORTSMEN'S COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION DEDICATED TO PRESERVING THE SPORISKAN'S RIGHTS THROUGH INFORMATION, EDUCATION AND REPRESENTATION ANI 2633 Yuba Aves"m 0 Cwho,California 94570 Telephone (415)232-AM OFFICERS PRESIDENT April 15, 1974 Bennie Wright.Richmond VICE PRESIDENT Don Mossested.El Sobrante ECEIV tE E I SECRETARY C.N.(Bud)Hill.San Jose Honorable Board of supervisors TREASURER MAY I - 1974 Harold R.Seksa,Berkeley Contra Costa County R. OLSSON LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE aERK RD OF 'SUPERVISORS I James H.Welsh,Sr..El Cerrito Martinez, California 8__ RA WVA C:O. DIRECTORS —Do "2ZLI Donald Batten.Tiburon Gentlemen: Lane M.Currie,ElCerrito Norman G.Foley.Orinde George Giannaras,Pinole Christopher Lee.Sacramento The attached resolution drafted by S. Ce Oe P. E*9 Clarence M.Olson,El Cerrito R.D.(Red)Riley.El Sobrante approved and adopted by the Western Houndaman 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 in JAMES H. WELSH, SR. LeL egislative Representative JHW/me APR 2 61974 0.clb AwuA >,j�(Q IP JAMES P. KENNY SUPERVISOR, WSTRICr at C097RA COSTA Couxrr 12 • SPORTSMEN'S COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION DEDICATED TO PRESERVING THE SPORMAN'S BIGHTS THROUGH INFORMATION. EDUCATION AND REPRESENTATION 26M YWm A.«rn ea a cwrla,cowwril.94Wo Td.vlioNs (415)732-4614 ORDINANCE No 69-16 OFFICERS PRESIDENT Bennie Wright,Richmond ARTICLE 6. REGULATION OF ANIMAL ACTIVITIES 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 Giannanss,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 Svoin,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 SPORTSMAN'S RIGHTS THROUGH INFORMATION, EDUCATION AND REPRESENTATION g2aas Yuba A..n m a C.rrho,California 94530 T.i.Phono: (415)7] -AM OFFICERS RESOLUTION No. 74 - 4 - 18 PRESIDENT TO AMEND SECTION 51-2.462, ARTICLE 6, ORDINANCE No. 69-16 Bennie Wright,Richmond REGULATION OF ANIMAL ACTIVITIES VICE PRESIDENT Don Mossested.EI Sobrante SECRETARY WHEREAS: Residents in Contra Costa County owning dogs .as pets C.N.IBud)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 to iniate or support an law ordinance or regulation, which could Lane M.Currie,EI Cerrito PP Y t g , Norman G. Foley,oriole cause harassment to the citizens of the area represented b those George Gisiannaras,Pinole p y Christopher Lee,Sacramento legislators; and Clarence M.Olson,El Cerrito R.D. (Red)Riley,El Sobrante Jerald L.Swain,Richmond Walter R.Wiley,Alameda WHEREAS: The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa Count should Edward Worlund,Sacramento P y 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 51-2.462 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, n 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 IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Authorizing ) County Agricultural Commissioner ) To Provide Predator Control j 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 Nr. 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 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 ORDEIRIE'D that the County Agricultural Comissioner is AUTHORIZED to train and utilize one of his treed 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 follo*•ri ng. vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. NOES: bone. - ABSu3T: i4one. cc. Special Animal Control r ---r:**- ;:;:,r. et;:; . . a f:�t: tt.:c t rorr_c: cony of ori a e.r Committee :I of -.oun J ..-r cul-tu?'a Co=.,,ai-ssic�:.3r :� ^..'?:-t::cc'•'�::::.:: Ott .Y� t In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California April 16 197LL - 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 s, 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 of oresa.d matter 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 an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the dote aforesaid. cc : Committee Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Department of Supervisors Agriculture affixed this 16th day of April , 194 Animal Control JAMES R. OLSSON, County Cler Division County Administrator BY Deputy Clerk Charleen K. Travers H 24 7/72-15M COMMIaflONtlt3 AY OF LOS ANGELA DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA ANIMAL REGULATION MS.JOAN PECK ROOM 410,CITY HALL SOUTH PRESIDENT SAUL REIDER LOS ANGELES.CALIF.9OOt2 VICE-PRESIDENT MS. NANCY AVERYrAPR RECEIVED [ 777��� �-1 �"� 4B3-3771 MS.DORIS SILVERTON ( `( }- I j r '- DAVID F.LEEl\/ V E 1„/ �, ROBERT L RUSH .� GENERAL MANAGER PEGGY BODFISH hDlDa, ROBERT W.PHILLIPS SECRETARY �Q71� EXECtJ71VEOFi10ER T M BRADLEY MAYOR C16K BOARD Or- SU?EQVISO'a A 'TA CO. April 5, 1974 B 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 fast 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 3 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. �. Yowijru ly, aan 'D. Pec t C MW4L My"� ,y"g•+M.+^�,�.>�s}ly,�n�lfl'�"y �+' t` �eY��„p A 477 "-"^'. .�.a .�' ` 1. "". , .irk wa rw+ gK' w"'""`I�"°"„a• k"�:Y4"'R 'k^x �wam3.. .. .� 'fi,"++. ti- a s. ,. z o,y, "�`S`C"`.C,,.rs: "��„ur��c�""J '„1G �£�'"# ra ��„ � ,.*w'.+f� ^�ts"`�'�+ •-^'"�•'��' 1R" "'�`>:,�-' e hkEusi ^.r� 5;,, S.w tam"zo i '.k.-.: � �y �a� ,,,!�, r,y�" ^+ z r.:>..K.� 5, 4 .•w..��c.K+su wr��'��..�"` "c";a"�'��""`'���•�� ,e, aw-' .'�•.,�'.0.'� � V,,{" "TM x$r"m� rn,�•�:..r ,°},�i" ,wx"r'• �A s„a" � r'4""r,.+, �"� b{� „,�N t� r > yr n�", +l��, �.' „�• �"µ"ms ,�� a n � �'"' �"'�.�» �Y � ��' '� w i.-� � W1 .!? >'w r r Y •�Y h a j �£'�t� # k r. . "h' ..{Y a#',h ,f� � M ,/� us,. '�' �r � � ',s4 a--n.�� .�y„"�"" rt�'A^�-t"z'' 7`�''�. �''"`"t,dr "' ��•s,a,*�'`��1t<_rYr'<,b L» !"'�'` h. � �� r *�1'�'1 ���k�*'•ti."�'A X.r�� #rw n.n,,,:k.. G" #.�pr-;k.i5' �, �. �,�,''��.' a r',�.,R..��,� � �` 4 3s t^•^rte xa.k S� "'� +4".'+':.b� +1"��`,�'��' w ' -: �...,. ,a,.. "?;~" ��,r �.., 4r a^�!'"�,',,. �,-^^; t �'^.r� ��• r°^ y F^s.C""�, M::c "x � .aha �'°�r kirk `T".wt"�,n '.�fi1 .na� ry '^rorr +, ,�a�4 '�T C'F. s� a K t z r r !a.�t` {y '.-• y"rK+`wa '.w I>� •€ �` a`"�""y 74 vt'tC` 'a.., .Wu,,yiyw5'r,,,-' ,+ w7 k� ..z5( WE '�`a""'L'."w�a q � ^ c ,� `A,�� K� rtR'` '*�JF �'�.:* '� "7.^'�r x.... 4.t•r ra'a",+-'+i-k.^i r.4° k ¥"'.+, '� r .. qr�-., d° y ,Y,�r..f�.r 1r ..w•n 4`i M1CO .r^_.......� Ry -tib ,a}"' P`w"`M`� r— U'sr '. "'^, A• d k 'n Yg m - "- � n:�-"�• as ,,,E �t+...,-Et r �C�` "�"H tk *t �+ 'r x,. .�+'�.+w�r?'."� K.. �Za ' - R .° ✓. w-� s� V r:a N rs".7.,,r c '.� ,f,yt�a:^s",'' ,+,„ .Iyr all a M ?N� ; Lanz „, � � Cu x C*^'i'�?' +'�, „y m 9�'„"�� ".=' ��'",�-t•i. 6.. � �, a -"'a,�'y� .iw 4e�.Y •�• �. C."^ s i +, r t �. is�+ 2 �.',-gid�e�Arr��'�'"�',Ms�.,���.Cs 1" .,fir a' �` � '; A s E���".". �"' � •. ,�4 � -, ,. ti' ' •r� ��..k`,'7,a""'"'.c«x ,,Y? ��-�^S''��m�"'"'�� �'�n��„w�^�3 f 3:» .�.a....t '` - i a mh T 5 t ✓ �y�pA"Pa r jj +x .V ROP 0 ic yyyr M• ..v b mow,[ - _m.� � '�i ��:". '� j.„,; ?-� FS : i � :` ; � � � �� 06 3 •:.y. jA V UUG ii ; E y [:N Y 3 tcp O: V .'�- may. A.. y,, ,� r ` ', •` ' - a r i o ui 40, qb AIL -i � �� .O N [� 1�.,O.�-:111�► � � i '"� •� � � �'� ,, ^' �s. 5'c..a� .�. ' a . � � �.A,.,��.p�� .. ,,-r S/ 3'Ci. .- L 'q'�L" ,n .�'- ?,-�., ;� �",1�►' .. � ':x r �� �",,,rw ,F•'�.`'�,., 4 :, ,�x=� a� . a - �• 1 L s yy z �� _ .ter j r � 3� � +, �'� � ��� z'•��.-it'�''GM-'��"t"t a' ✓'�s, '••{ �� � - .- +. ,� ! ISS � 9^ax'��L 4°.-+ s'-"fi`��� �,t t .^ R � .,.� i :. V � "ter:: n � �,,' •..,-�„ &y��;Y���� 77 4 c i i 1 �` �, � � � � Q S ! �Pie � ' s ��•� a �� I , z - , •. t. .♦ '. .. ., fir: ... ,... Y :%k' r3aY'r h ! zY x , • i s. �i .. .. <.1 �i�,t��ai�rY�'y�,�'�.,�.y� :�� X 1}1.+� „�dr.d�+ `� �� �d'•�. t'. ` .., .s ...rµ4. rr f.��q p t z.•. i� r � ��,..��+y�r � � s ��� rxa�skru`�_. 'Rl ., m. Yw� s r Vtsy5et. ¢y Yt" I . ,.... .....llr ,yI'l ,-... ,,. _,.,-, r' ';s r '` :.,,:: e-4 rf `. ``" ,,,n,�',r _}'"' 'G,'� '4`n.,+,,..^yc.^i�J� c �,,"a*`,;` ',-:t;"„,w h*'•;ta'.";;'r s s°'.,^]; .:t'a.. L.. i� .,.: .r:.. .� ,,. ,.. { �..:4 c^�1.,.. : dr;'t�w.'t+7 �a' w:.,. ter°' t =xa h'yZ ,r� s ..t- -�';+R�'r,�-r-' ,.,. i. .,.. t-..' »::.i,. ,,-.. - a '�.. A '"R.a_. Y `^rt. .: �+':. . .-�,,i. a `L,. r: yt,'-- p ..x:" a..-ra. ,a,• � d+h.-. ......, ,-.,..,. r ,.t.:...,-+3. ti F.z.s�,t^-';,,,.r, �,:�._ ikn.'?.+.r,5,rer ., Y r -r Y' .bs, x 4r t� J3,'.Y_ .'^4'w.. ,_,. .r:,- .,. ,.,. _.-. �_- --,-, ,�,. n '?r:i a*R'n.'• a 'did ,,r:.,g�,,,rar '`,: y4 '^' ;t+w "'✓".:. :la V ,. x ,, ilw -":'� '•:": ':?" ,.LL ,.:;.:: .xK.,,,, ye,�,,,zru.yx� a." ro 3 :.. ,� k e,�„.,r, r . .,, ,„ .. .., r .... 1. r' r.r�- '�"_'- ``��,r�M%c !',r,Er'i✓;,?y�'C: 3 .-r n J$ - C r` 7"s'+ t yT _ rte, �_ +s' t 'p -'.a.« X'�u r "Y S d z r 1 'I R '•'u"�S r4/S ,'i` 5 * t. wFkr, -'r t wt T't t s 7 r a ' n a 4 s a ry x r� x �c 1 , d�� 5 ^3" c fi Tr " : �t s 1 awt 4�s ^i% ,x`s "+ Y i * 'r na^rrl x a 7.. .. ..,,. „i •, s Fr x"C 9'x.•';�'. ys.r'A -y�, a,.'ko-'" s `ar'k,. ^Sw�E t "-I."'wa.5 ,w.'+� 1. C C +" t , x - 11 w !'W + s'1 c `sF',e .t4 ".k:.z�.+'°` hn"p l',y jfCt,,, 7 y *C Y4kr^^ a d '+Iat .. 'Sy'r,. ,�•t5n q, 1. .x ,+ S 'y 5k b•' sr� �I r,'' g `?'"'�'r ^s'n' t .M rr>�":r rya p,n: r,s c .. ' 11 ,.J�7..(���>'�'„�' �I _ » �i K:,. 1 4 A dw 3',, ,T Y � '�'�.'Xrh 3i r r M k % Esti. 3,. A_ "IY- ^a!k' F""',.�.` �' - - '. , .^.r w.�`Aary."'+ur :.ttt"�''9"r ,p 2F��" :i'i x+ r,.+. %1 + w y r+, �I: x y,'r• ; ' - ... a i`.,. *' a'r;a r'r,`.r r1,, ,=..r2 - r: r '%e wr >ry� F:'•.,,'} ., `.. a , R+I�.,,,+.;k-M, .s,t ".::o- 'wr xr, t:,a .�, ' t '� t �` .,s:' r >; r;�1. ':z, r, '.,.,._'." ,., - .:.:, a:F.m;r '`.z,a '�,"zdr<.',:,!? s:l." 's ks+.,: i a „r �'� ,. 1 s t Y.­11-....�✓«S`.rl ,... .. .:-: ",G .� 1 -i� rI I a..?.{,�, 3 �'J j:.fit K/`-_:..ti%y'.. 'i♦:'.:: C,9 W `I:r :�{ X Y^ f .r {+,..., ',_ -. st u .:. `,'7. �rh :]a« a' y¢7 ' qr :f ?". -, e doL` ry tti� * r� s.� s .w� h s, ., - ..., .,.. ..s- .+' O 1.w.': k: ,R k�• :'+.v'�', rear.'," -s>"._�; x s. . �- ti.., {:. ': .y �,�,j 7r■ ,..,xy,,,,.. G .z#-^r'+»'u .r'.r.,.. -°++'r fit'`"* d '.�.'i, �/ a .:,"MI 1. Ni g,;:41"+•k Itis-G•'' .} , • ;r, t ��y«. tits;s�rvic of ip�►k�p` arMd, Mw �F sM F.�° . �t Y i Hy .k 4 !" H' 9 'C'�1Oi t I ilill yy �y�� + r G,r;:. ' Idwsalioo ltt r 1.:5 .. r"� yC,F, r"`i k i'S 13�h*fG�,F 6'•' 1. Ile q x w., 1 �+r' t r.' .s ti i 7 rr> rp Yi.n 3 z�.g .'.{ .u.. .~" wE t ^C', a-..x,,, rz». -,'z a k�"n K su:.vyR E sa �M- a u. `' {may µ{�t 3. , 7. • y I'v; jt :ES r�c#ald 'c1 r Y �aI�M� � �� ��� $� 'u'�a.! ' IM �I //y�_ __.J -. y 1 ,T�7. ��y n �1 -c t,�' ry 1'i7 - "MSI�*,r`F d' ,::'+• �t ,�,,..'. w,>t .x y:':;�'a-.`t�' '�«6'r k '.u3'�,v s i.:� :.h ^: :, .,,.' ,:i ,5 d- ".:" ,".:* +' ` r t �''+;z."; s .n. ,.I :X, k.-i 4' z x :. . ' .tL. .�iu� -11 .-..: :,,.,. , -.. .,. ...;_ ,MC �' f N 3„y.A 1 yw. at4 !: "24"5 f Y' 1'x'1 ::�'< Y•"�,` Ort}'.».,. ,..,.. .. . .'.,: -' - .--,:: '.:. ,, ^r .t q!Fa'"�L`.-,-.r �-N «p'dT ? s'x 'mY C � `°`� �,„s .. ' It OCNS 1J '' z Ki. rzM. "F sou a"<+�,}'rs '' " > .r' t ^" , as - ]�4 `` �''.:- d g ,d to 0�t r' C,P `,"^«ywy�'p tx-� r .�.'k'°' +. �:w`>r µ a Y, +k�' ..I. -',Vim+view^ S7 .�y.:-.. f�1 is a N F 1.-'-v t a '7r � rr f ,:; f a -< .. 5 M 11A , . . x. ,.f'•- t S ., . .. _ a fi,4 s'rri"``'�, ° Cs^lt `k k ;. aha ,t y e,• % ,,,,�,. "` 7 t« 6 ' f s r a'T y r � �.; s �. 4ly i� i a `�' ,a,k a'W°ks1 ?y' 3 i z «" ws 4 f„ ! -c - r. a4�. -E' - ti "" , y„�M+r tom :;: t> -.,-'=r'� Ir3 .f"W,°x ( '-t"'i'b'v,..x ,.JE R�r' h .,c x Sk t '.,fi'.n..'a,'!,c'.j a y : h .,x •�' '^z.y.sy�: ,a a :.7.4. ^-+f, �', F ;y,- J :+ i a x y. 2 P „ }?' y,.."; y ,.p _ a.,... S,r t,,. :+:,�...�"' 'a+,y t: 1"x , _ d K rti^ ! "9' r 1 �� .L�:'t" �. 'i'. I 1 1 y 3 F + ] "A�" -i "1.yY' -- J.' *",� �i t �,,�N P pf�Qi .. � e f � ... R ''' .ri-1 4 t } Fi 1 ,�1' ACs '•' I7 Y h r -.1 .. ;- ��i%� _ - ; .., ­ , �' ' ' ,,,k t 1 .a Ac.s�'4' • ti'`" .r7� �>}�"'.,�w".... '�:k :.y r r c x:" f,k ��". x M�• ib, 5.'. •T ,.' �' , .N_ - _ - .. I., :,� �� '' Iv1. ti­ � ', ,t .?:. i w F�,5 t+:9"ys�A"c,,w 4-.�,.& :2 ,�" a,C ;>r r r ,�'sv 14 I I I'�r, ­�"_-,, _­�'-' ,, - ' ' I ,- - 1 ,y_ y 2 z `"h s•.v r Ik. s•.'•.'d `4.{ '+: "`':r,W I'x T r r,v ,p ``h rt" r. ;� S'+",y - : . � , '10, m -1 , 45 t :1, ,"- ��lim- t 't" � ' Y �I ry ',i" D y C � .^ 1, zA ''RL'4°.*C�� rr -T' L ✓ R . Vt�,'4'_-�,- i °^. _ ' .. '"7<`. F;.F 'C w', 2 r e -,'s d Iw 1.. ,�, _... f._ I. -,Most vffic6v nm of .I s i� i 4 `�" �� 1j� -' . VSI1t! r t y��,� j s xa,,' - . I !�1. r^ fan+sle. ai s 5Ow ya , x� • xr.-'. =: :: , :: - ..;: - !" xw x3'' R .µA rr # ^,x—�s'-"r' ''.��I a� s,',w.�Y`r¢ 2:` '��1�iU�INl� t1f�',�tt[ Cl10e1 :1 «n r ", r r : i"', fr`+N r ll� p y `' - - - ,, .: ._ �,. r'M r ''.^�� .h4k.• R M-n nisi,]�.G,11 f :n > "r`' 'r 7 i y.},5 Y7i.q>f'�S�� 1 tN�flt� 1M1w�1E-'afll- .,/, 11 Mlfi�i .;COf10siQf!" % ; r )4 r �� Nh�u i# ,� ^ e_t .,.` .' .., .. .-• _ ;:� ><s x' 114 �. `4 � "rr.� �'%r ,, , lv, .. ...<:. 'c.r••.�_���, z yam__ '4' �T 4'S+ . „k ` , '.L',,,".gyp 'RT'r ',r a•. .',''ar S„�w`�* E' ,y �„t t r r:;. �r�tt s .. '. Wilx:, v s µ.+ss r ss a.. '� (�,� - ,,( ] ,Y v k� y'7r 'k,.: t1.�z 'vt' k "�,^ k Ski+' * . fid*{ ��o r* .^!7*'•'� �� of: r-i"3I„x,,,�..'' {,. '".,V*i•y^�.'^ ,.. � -, '. ,,.:r.1 s. .-*.,,,,r u.:Ya+l w.w,,,,r.+?y.W 3•.,', a { u, �R!��C ,� s ,,,C." Mi'` '!ry..`w a+ ._titR ��,7 �"�T�"R 'r.rl'�R�S �, a ¢ ^na,. , '!',."; .,:,>V, T,^ '� ?3#J o-�^s ry^ 't «.:a ..7 s.r.RR '<+ -s �� ' r r> r t ,c-"I' f,y ,�-ys.S�k 4 -•^t«`^> Y ut, U: _1..s.. rcy S z ,.r A x a„a!'.. 'r"°'E,I.. 4'�1c'�j-{Y"w 't° t i' x � n ug 4 ,-, , " s ; ��- a �^:'s�.u,� r :..e� `, i' �".''.'°R?'��,rr ' Sr }a x.:: c r' s k w' :,s r a..-.,� s, ,+„ ' h ?a `4r+zea, r..,.?>'i"'aX, r�.+g Tri"_ C' : R ,. yap t: as.r z,4 ,w i r t4 >a ..mS h w S� r. u S 3 4 h" ru '4... +U 'n ''�.9;�i,4+n c5-P ,n, 9,t,.:i',' 'tsws;++:+ �h x.+7'::a i+'a..+•k,. t �,:-:. r I.�s ,ate«. y„ 'z t ,- >f m a°.,:r. .ha"`E k fi x'*?'y r+iv 3.,0.!I,a �. "l. 'ar M'I 11 -.t �"+',. Y;. t r,x ..`?* r r,,,?:a. 't ` 'r*:, ,?,°,I. ':.' : '` -'«.n,+'.* h to arra, s,a���•',��y�19GC'' � 11 4, �z'S k..s . �n� r't , :. ,.,.:, iti .-s x<+< x',e w' ��"s'�'i •`°§,a t'"t''' kR a' .r:;.s5 'r+7 •. '. - - ,;`: ..:� " t ,c: -u, x.:.: a ,t, '_y Tr a.. ;'A sr 't`-xrr, ., ,t"g`r-1� <.. :��M��-�P 'x ¢r.r, .S":. y ...,: - ... '. .. : :,...,•.. r ,%,; w rl 'v'J' ,�" v: !', '"Y''.�r t L.:'4.. -P .t_ ]'4:a { as h .e ^s w. r :"" .,� 4. "::. '. ::'�. .,. .. -.: .. " r t Y ., y r r ,� .,�;. 5 , ' y.,,Knpy"4 .y'aFx.�" 5 y' .i Tr"^r7f ^b .. t 4 :tr,;,. '',s,�,r,am u` `^f;. .. ,- "i. R s ,t-w..�41 .`t :- s`.t` PEi?r7 r(' °w'•t`�+ w,:r., �,-""y .s+,rf-'Ftp k n a- .,.3 s . .». s y' ,,L ''I"5, "-aE''G m% "'$ kK -':sr +'� r M 1 tir�d7 4{'=",^><'.;`a'- h``�r'n�°F nr r� L? r `s�S�TrrdG.''L-ck .�,r •tt ^r ;'"k'• r'i'.: v Rr^,•„�`i:ijti�?tii' +, ,, - y t h..';w F ] � 1'w {" �' r > .. � •si ,{. -a . ., X. 1 � .'Ia ,,, f t s r ',r„, ..'n'r-n'r$11. 'r-a•,3,r Sr r µw„ c y•,� +d ['" ,r �" ° ':.r•+ta 7 b<,. 6 '.,r's.R s+ .' 4 !- r r tr y 11 2 3'.; _1,4 : I. - a y�1 �-S r i { rr, d " .� I _ ,,. T,y„Y' � _�c 'r.e !r d d ..1: L..,F?. ,mS:,u; r ,•r, >:"� '+ •*a •s.� imri`NY k.:,-vr.y h j .. '. ..«.r ,r:.a '3 ,..,� a Spm:�. In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California April 2 1974 In the Matter of Problems Connected with the Impoundment of Cats. As requested by the Board, Mr. 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 'Ar. 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 Boand 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, '.d. 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: Special Animal Control Supervisors Review Committee affixed this 2ndd day of April , 19 74 County Agricultural JAMES R. OLSS Commissioner N, County Cl -: County Administrator By Deputy Clerk Arline Patten H 24 5/73-15M • HEALTH DEPARTMENT • Contra Costa County TO: Supervisor Warren Boggess DATE: February 1, 1974 District #4 FROM: Frank J. Angelo SUBJECT: Suggestions for animal Supe✓ in� 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 assigned to the Animal Control Division. All other agencies now involved could be utilized as secondary resources for advice and consultation. FJA:bc cc: Environmental Health Martinez Planning Animal Control Agriculture RECEIVED � a. vK. t, . FEB 111974 J� J. R: OLSSON RA OF SUPEFV1SORS TA CO. GA-9 10'72 2)A 'I WON ���� FEB .�' 1974 J. ILADOWN a q jm i f.y rG 2 o 1974 fi �� y ? MY— ot %4" F� hs6 1 ♦ ��h�.y�.�.` � �,rw,�"'�,s* -t''���`.E.�{t'�"�.�'k?�;..4�.�t'rG� C f�j.�c■,3.'��r>?}`-� ,n(4^.'�` '�[,� �n t�`/�,��•/?A 'Xt„�,-.«"n g"�7r.,�r '` ,} 4 v�• i'.i�rNiJi.. t *rn, .9` ""»`b, -��'Sa',vrr .R �rF �`"o-��114��►�i 5�. Ctdt.tQfr. il�i Y.1.�V+►r"z.L1�. . � rv qt � c3 .7is xetars w k fr :u fr x d p W rj a r & w V '+^' k ,,-r^ss" .s.: r'� " 'C �5�,' rYl^3a's�,1 .,�2a,,s Ask '.'4 Ti,, y .rte' - ,t< ✓z; � ,k` 'Y i "rtGrr +v -5 w{fa� ,,.aw ': e'�`' "r•,'ar`'t �'e+'xy'"+z,^ �#w` ;ti4"!R"�"TM�,..-v �� r ^rt. tas x`}S N «..urs,^.� �"•sr v rare., a d '> -�,� w � :.� � � .�� Qfl�tliaJar �13, 2914 letter sof- u -SAY .„e... r ^,+<n(� 7r r-a '.op j r� I�V" $' ys."'"1'X � w �Y cayn tai, nCrol Center; ars cot o01 a w a ws� auS 3 r a Y,VIV, r x 5 s i.♦ «w Ct,. Cs .5 z'ti:u.ChEd�:n`"` x .' r-ar d zr: r4Y7' S"°s`�' 3 k � j?�`�e'v���°',a�y+S�'�+ci"� ' e .9?� 3 ? bat �coCains $ICi7,OQ4 for rereivnaT � ,. t� .:^ �; d e �C es atad 16 be aeceflsary for compli�in ;`° rm xt .spiir3.nLed cies3.rle t tie etre tee, be. ivaa Che o rt: t �ts'Atf oreslat laa_�rior to uzy fAm ont � ��ts� {.qtr Q cons�ruc� own pro jest• y � } :e arG prepar '--,t ' d diract t1m Public t�orlm, Department tb " t�iti the roject or on C�iQroect tritl� a differentk � nr , �l,, - h dare p . of recc�ma:Qn ionW from Cha A a=ltt ConL•ro n z y -06A''V car `-'"'""�--"+,t :"rA"' 3 2`'"`� 4'y r ".. �.i xy cs s s ` »�*'�., i tr;5 't rs r:i z _ r-•4 t-.f'd a .-:,a a>''�tJ�v^.." +�i*: '°� `w +�. baa. ,��-? ">}'-�'a"` ink!'..a' .r .e ;�.�oRt " `�z' z.'y�1✓`�3,a"',`RE, aW"* ;- .-"� ,RE'' £ , r a� `✓+'�* "' T _7"q� '+r fi...'ic�♦ - t � s� r�.-'..e:^'���:, s�i'`�'• er�3radord 3r. Presidctpp� t*+Y, *F -� Gostrar Gr�stu Society for Che Prauctiot� tiIrLtC3. V► ,LG �atf£crbla 94804 r k ti f � r t ggg bt'is" �• s�• .�iendricksoa a '" b t .�,Y-�`'��t¢w���.��r j ��s,.r,�� �. -� �✓ m } �,� 4 .` y,. li.+r u. � r� 5'n' f✓n'E�a?.' � i=ay+-" '^r-,�, '+v,{- L4 N�T��•f'{J '�,a t���.. `�:m ,r ;r � �,a �,a'*`F.:"<r`� .'� '*.f' s�"� " �t°:-...,�C� ,�A",��`�",- �7'f'�b .r'". w'��'x `["'`�`'�-:���`��W� �`Cs �'�'�4• rml a rpm,. AS -A *1 tz 0 THE CONTRA COSTA SOCIETY for the PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ]622 Santa Clara Street Richmond, California 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 ECEI' ED JAN 16 1974 Of lts 30 IIWA Z� � � .�� Ste, ��,�.� ,�►.d �� - _ t Nva% CA- 5a- a -.o�� _ ntJry•� �jJ� ��yg7 �Vy���S� • r _ In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California January 28 -' 19 7_4 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/oijup3g6s§ppervisors Agricult1 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 RECEIVE ary 9, 1974 JAN-,�P1974 rr� James E. Moriarty1 3338 Mt. Diablo 1 haat s ���s `✓. Lafayette, Ca. 94 SUPERViSC;R Dear Mr. Moriarty; I have been researching the problem of the DoE Leash Law, Article 6, Sec. 51-2.462. As a dog lover, I feel, as well as many others that this law is unfair to dogs and their owner. The one problem of the law is the meaning of "at large", which restrains the dog from it 's freedom. Presently, the meaning of "at large", is that an animal not under restraint by leash, not in an enclosed area, or not under the control and in the immediate presence of the owner. By this meaning dogs do not have any freedom of doing anything. 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 leash at all times. The favorable pbints bfwthia ger change would bring, less crowded courts. Some people, who get fined for dogs "at large", go to eour� to fight the Pines. 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 lkweltselff the 14120apdropboadephange. Thank you, Gary Graumann .'r 11 Ea s two od Dr. Orinda, Ca. 98563 :c ., • CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A. L. SEELEY • DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE •.• f{ �.,��', •\`• AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER 161 JOHN GLENN DRIVE SEALER WEIGHTS AND MCA6UR[R BUCHANAN AIRPORT K. E. DANIELSON CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 04320 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER '�•• y` ~ 4• 662-7330 ASSISTANT SEALER 1 cou BRANCH OFFICES 100.37TH ST.. RICHMOND 1141105 1420 HIGHWAY 4.BRENTWOOD 114313 233.70110. [IIT. 3293 374-01116 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 4428 Taft Avenue Danville, Calif. 94526 Richmond, Calif. 94804 R. R. Reynolds 3629 Wren Avenue Concord, Calif. 94519 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: The Board of Supervisors on February 26, 1973 referred your complaints andr 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 24 1973 „1 �,- ,, Arthur L. Seeley . — J. L OLSM Agricultural Commissioner cum OF SM�r*M Sealer Weights & Measures ALS/n 7-' r att iit Clerk of the Board of Supervisors f ' t• • WARREN N.BOGGESS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SUPERVISOR FOURTH DISTRICT � b 1331 CONCORD AVENUE. CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 94520 • 687-6900 December 18, 1973 RECEIVED DEC 2 0 1973 OUWN Mrs. Chris A. Kenyon, Jr. CLM A0AA0 OP SUPENVISM 281 Castle Hill Ranch Road CoSrA CO. Walnut Creek, California 94595 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 Supervi ' C onBuild_ Martinez Hopefully the full Animal. Control Review Comm ee will be in attendance, and this will be an appropriate time for citizens to comment on any of their concerns surrol,nding Animal control procedures in the County. Thank _you again for your interest. Very truly yours, Warren A. Boggess, Supervisor Fourth District, Contra Costa County M:dcg cc: Animal Control Review Committee • f ,�.r,.:�.ct.� lam. f��� clt� ,. dl /L <' r�y^��..�� •yam— �, �. {f t 1'Z,,' r / � �'Z/"'R.,,�f a•tin.\... �-�iM+•i���•y./�+./��I+'�� f Vim"+/ L fes'..{•,r s R" � '" s H 1 e, t,L 1i '+i�'�L•'✓ �•�/•i.rt— ..�"..•7�::L:'moi:a�''a•...`�f ��l•E.-�.� _ ../G."..[• ` �iR/LLj�'�....c. � .'-V 017 ..�✓'•t" rJ-� _ �,�!w.�:•-t�•E.l:. �•�.c.-t-!-.� ,�^/.,.c:•G�-t.� ,,•L Nom'==`f.�'..�.. �!/�-�''�``" C,�• '�s'G./:..t.s�c.''.,f�'-f.�:� G�i,,,�,�.a'ti•..- /�3+-�'-'? �..`""'•/ �ft-a-- /�2R+.L..�-o - v Yll 0' juv • n Y . ,.�/� �`r Lam,.'•, f-'�fr,,y.%+''/ � � ,,.d . t r �4' b it/ •y�V • I• G' ✓v' �'/fes'/�V) •�� w / �� � �t)� 1 0 �� uc 'AI • (jf;� � tjjYf�� � +J'(f��j`�rt .� 1 //fff���� r . .t, fj/�'�� I j ��`+/ r jj ., iv �. rr In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California August 14 197-4 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. 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 : Mrs. Goldman Supervisors Committee affixed this 14th day of August ' 1973 Agricultural Commissioner W. T. PAASCH, Clerk Administrator County Counsel ByAf4k.60- Deputy Clerk Lourette Kincaid H 24 5/73-15M . �IT4 C" J : rD AUG 31973 W. T. PAASCH c�cA,c QOAaa OF suPEr�vIsc 514 Arlington Ave. C NT RA ' STA CC. O. oepaty Berkeley, Calif. 94707 August 1, 1973 Board of Supervisors P.O. Box 911 Martinez 94553, Calif. Dear Sirst 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 long do You keen animals after they are delivered to the Qenter?" "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 silhoutted 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 animalst Why is the county of Contra Cosh in such a_sweat to exterminate ese un or unate creatures? The pound in Berkeley keeps them for g 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 -E-oo-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, Respectful yours, Mr Ruth l'. Goldman CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Intim Office Memo 6 Sun ,. ate: .*larch 2Gv�9�To: ttee €orpm t s AimalSpay Clinic, C/o CnisFrom: Clerk of the< B 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 `x r IN THE BOA- OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COMITY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Referrals of ) Board County Government Operations ) 2.1arch 26, 1973 Committee. ) The Board heretofore having made certain referrals to its County Government Operations Committee (Supervisors E. A. Linscheid and J. P. Penny) ; and Said committee having reported and recommended as follows with respect to aforesaid referrals: Referral Date Item Recommendation 2/6/73 Conments of Cities of City of Walnut Creek opposes 2/20/73 Walnut 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 commissioners 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 Citv of Lafayette. 12/26/72 ProDosed 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 Law Enforcement and piling comprehensive report on Probation Committee. recommendations of Grand Jury cor Attees. 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 a_rocedures. establishment of a Special 3/21/72 Report of Supervisor E. A. Committee to review the entire Linscheid on dog problems Animal Control program. These in farmland areas. proposals and suggestions should 4/24/72 Suggestion of pis. Judith be referred to this Special Morrill that high fines be Committee and these items assessed against owners who 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 Animal Control Division. 12/19/72 Letters fron interested Request Clerk to acknowledge persons pertaining to letters and retain on file for reco:nendati ons of 1972 reference; remove as cor+.nittee County Grand Jury on County referral. Plannina Denartrent. In discussion of the aforesaid recommendations .Super visor J. E. Moriarty having advised that with regard to the last iters he wished to state that he, for one, took exception to the report of the County Government Organization, Planning, Public T?orks, 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 Planning, because in his opinion 'Mr. Dehaesus is doing an outstanding job in a controversial functional area of county government; and Supervisor A. "I. Dias having stated that he concurred with the conments of Supervisor Moriarty and suggested that it be made known to the aforesaid 1972 Grand Jury Committee that the Board had received a nu*:iber of letters from organizations and individuals indicating_ their staunch support of the Planning Director. r:OT7, THEREFORE, on the motion of Supervisor Linscheid, seconded by Supervisor Kenny, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED; that the aforesaid recommendations of its County Government Operations Committee, as amplified by the suggestion of Supervisor Dias, are hereby approved. , The foregoing order was passed by the folloi•Ting vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, J. E. Moriarty, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, A. M. Dias. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. CERTIFIED COPY I certify that this is a full, true & correct copy of the original document which is on file in my office, cc' City of Walnut Creek and that it trus pare! .°c adopted by the Board of Citv of Lafayette §uperviaors of contra costa County, califo.-nia, on City of Martinez L4 nate shown.-AT XST: Mr. T r4.AZcff, county Personnel Director 's �"cOO� �Ot or supervisors, Chairman, 1972 Grand Jury by, don� �&'" Judicial, Lata Enforcement � SAAR 2 6 1973 and Probation Comm ttee ( Mr. David Roberts q 0 Agricultural Commissioner J The Contra Costa Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals `-Is. Judith Morrill Ms. B. J. Davis County Counsel Director of Planning County Administrator V/ THE CONTRA COSTA SOCIETY for the PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS 1622 Santa Clara Street Richmond, California Phone: 525-0566 February 1, 1972 ECEIVED 3, /gra- # W. T. P!lA1f1%;; Supervisor A. M. Dias, Chairman CLERK MAR:) ONT County Government Operations Committee r.• - Contra Costa County _--- -. —...._...._- P. 0. Box 911 Martinez, California 94553 Dear Supervisor Dias, Res Board of Supervisor's Investigation Order. .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, 1972, 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 4, 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 3A �73 To: Supervisor A. M.Sas, 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 pet 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, c� c � Maryf7�Mj msden Statee Officer cc: Agricultural Commissioner County Administrator (2) 'ani.iaal Control Procedures .j { Telephone culls regarding lost do s. F 1,,;e do not take lost and found reports — ask tr:e person if the dog is r wearing a current license and/or identification. If so check the stray board. Advise the citizen it is the Owner's responsibility to core down and look for. their dog. Even if the dog had a License on when first missing, advise them 5 that it might have come off and they should come to the center and check for 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 i-1art�nez which ever is applicable) r DO NOT SAY "I'm not allowed----", say "we do not----". r J Citizen at Center looking for doF. Give the citizen the "Visitors Instructions" slip. ! 4 4 Yi VISITORS INSTRUCTIONS attached. The part "or at the Finole (I-lartinez) Center," is being added to our nes: printing. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION r VISITORS INSTRUCTIONS To see pets for adoption or look for your lost pet please � L Follow the yellow line to the kennels. i 2. Inquire at the desk if your dog is licensed and you don't see it. 3. Inquire at the front desk if you do not find your pet- it may be in toe sick animal section or at a Veterinary Hospital., or at the 1':invic (riartiriez) Venter. 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. r Arr - --1 its _. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Inter - Office ' Memo Date: January 11, 1972 To: 1972 Counts Goverrmnent Operations Committee (Supervis ors A. M. Dias and, J. E. 'Moriarty). From: Clerk of the Board Subjact: 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 prpcedures: As soon as Mr. Roberts submits his questions in writing (as requestedby the Board), we will furhish. you with same. 3$ cc: County Administrator January 17, 1972 Contra Costa Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 1622 Santa Clara Street Richmond, California 94804 Gentlemen: t The Board of Supervisors on January 11, 1972 ado. ted the enclosed order pertaining to operation of the animal centers in the county, Mr. David Roberts was requested to subunit his.:questions in writing to the Board.` As soon .as these have been receives' we will forward a copy to you. Very truly yours, W. T. PAASCH, CLERK 4 Bye Doro y� Har ess �. . : Deputy Clerk v Enclosure / ? � 4 In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California January 11 19 72 In the Matter of Animal Control Operations. 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 llth day of January , 19 72 The Contra Costa Society for -- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals W. T. PAASCH, Clerk Agricultural Commissioner By .. r Deputy Clerk County Administrator . Joan R. Schoettler r W74 1/!71 /flu ?�7 Z January 4, 1972 l/ W. T. PAASCH Lafayette, California LERK 60ARD OF SUPE ORVtSORS t CON AG t peputY 94549 ty County Soard of Supervisors Martinez, California Dear Gentlemen of the Board, We acquired "Babe" our German 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. Phis -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 been brought in to their center. The clerk informed me on the phone then that there were several Shepards there and if her choke chain bearing license ano rabies tag had been removed they had no way of identifying her, and I should come out end check their kennels. On December 20 I visited that 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 ice 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%; She informed me of the Pinole A.C.C. but assured me if "Baba" had been taken there and was tagged they would notify me immediately. I inquired-fifsshe thought it would be necessary to call them and she stated "sometimes peoflle 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 with nothing then check here agar. 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 the Lafayette area were in t:ie Pinole district A.C.C.- During the following ten days I made ttwo,- 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 the 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 aestroyed "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, Director 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 him. I also questioned Mr. Chemycz, Postmaster at Crockett on reasons for delay of the notice, and got his assurance that no piece of mail is held by his office for later delivery. He stated " If the letter was dropoed 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 119 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, Patricia McHenry �f • AMINAL Co,:iroL CENT . ONE 790 sADT YABLO AVE. 235-7bbb FINOLF.; CALIFORNIA, 9450 IMPOM' NOTICE --- tr,_ P. i"scIi,=n»;,* Date 12116/71 '3317 i Jjldrcd Kennel No. 18 Lafayottc, C-,1if .. 445119 You are hereby notified that your dog(s) was impounded at the Animal Control Center on 12/16/71 7h8re is an impounding fee of f .00 and a board fee of $1.50 per day for eaoh day of confinement. Please arrange to claim this dog(s) immediately, 1'f your dog has previously been CHARLIE C. CRILL impounded, there will be a P , penalty An1,:3a1 Control Director fee in addition to the other fees. Revised * j 71 3M By s L. Cowart ON _ w C.A ss c u c7 Ni 0 rd 0 .. 43 4-) , t W�[ M 0 w N V O oz VS.-V ;: � tZ •' �o z �►a O March;21,_ 1972 County Government operations Committee {Supervisors A. M: Dias, and'Jw °B. 'Moriarty} Clerk of the Board Dog Problems in Farmland Areae The Board' today, approved,the, recommenda ld " of Supervisor. Linsche i that the.-Dog Problems in Farmland ; Areas be referred. o. yourcommittee ;Por, continuing` revie : and: report to the Board. cc: County Administrator abs ... .. .A _ ... r. s .,t n...ti.4 _ .. ....q`'_ } ... _ r. . ... 3 r.. ....r ♦'f'.�i'. 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 Lns,che.id having suggested further that the committee study the possibility of developing an education program in the schools and for the general public through the 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 _ I'll-a"L oade-'6t Aulen B. J ep Deputy ClLdrk cc: Committee Members County Agricultural Commissioner Personnel Director County Administrator Supervisor Lincheid .. V, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 'JAMES P. KENNY, RICHMOND EDMUND A. LINSCHEID IST DISTRICT A.- A CHAIRMt ALFRED M. DIAS. SAN PABLo CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ALFRED M. DIAS IND DISTRICT VICE CHAIRMAN JAMES E. MORIARTY. LAFAYETTE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING. ROOM 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 4TH DISTRICT CHIEF CLERK EDMUND A. LINSCHEID. PITTSBURG MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553 PHONE 228.3000 5TH DISTRICT EXTEN510H 237t March 20, 1972 R ED T •�r W. T. PAASCH CLCRK BOARD OF SS:UpERVISORS To: Board of Supervisors RA jr,�1- E'C - n Ll. DevutY From: Supervisor E. A. LZ.cheid 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 donsiderable 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-orrice Memo Dater April 24., 1972 To: County Government Operations Committee (Supervisors A. M. Dias -and J. BeMoriarty) 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 In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California April 24 , 19M 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: AYESs 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 24th day of April , 19 72 Administrator r ;� W.-T. PAASCH, Clerk y l ' Deputy Clerk Lourette Kincaid W24 11171 10M - :e .7SUPERVISORS! cAssA - ;= puty 77 - S _ S.: • � : �, �. `� ���-cue _ � .= . •� �� -- s i, 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 Ms. 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 Mav 2 19 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. c c: Board committee Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Animal Control Supervisors Administrator affixed this 2nd day of May 11972 County Counsel W. L PAASCH, Clerk t ,y By � Deputy Clerk Lourette Kincaid H24 4/72 10M Contra Costa Board of Supervisors County Building Marti.nez,, Calif• April 25, 1972 Dear Sirs: Enclosed is a copy of a letter to the County Agricultural Connission requestion a formal and public investigation of the County Animal Control Dept. We would appreciate your support in this matter by direction the Agricultural: Commission to hold such an investigation. In addition, 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. 'AY n „ ,. - 972 W T PAASCH LCLCRK'BO D OF SUPERVISORS RA C CO. De-ti'y ae County Agricultural Commission 161 John Glenn Dive 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 Monday, April 17th a young animal (dog) was brought to •the\An;mal Control Shelter for placement. The following day, Tuesday April 18th the party bringing in the animal returned to the shelter to determine if a home-had-been found. They were informed that the animal in question had been liquidated'. Since the animal in question was not injured, infected with a dangerous or communicable disease, incuurrably crippled or iafirmed because of advanced age, its immediate 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 Commission, 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 p Contra Costa Board of Supervisors California State Dept. of Agriculture` Martinez City Council ! , State Senator John Nejedly State Assemblyman James Dent Contra Costa Grand Jury 4CIJA— k9 lir l � - tlV1'1 n L 'Cc r � � �� � G ��: �, �� .��� -`� - � � � �� �� ��� ���� �� N��A�f ahR�� `7?w� 7�...C.,,,� i� �j�..�, do's �r��eC����° 9� CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A. L. SE£LEY BRANCH OrrICES AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 100.37TH ST,. RICHMOND 64805 SEALER_WtIGHTS AND MEASURES 161 JOHN GLENN DRIVE 233.7060, EXT. 3255 K. E. DANIELSON GUC14AMAN AIRPORT 1/20 HIGHWAY A.BRENTWOOD 9/313 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 04320 634-3318 .ASSISTANT SEALER 602-7330 May 2, 1972 .RECEIVED Ms. Betty J. Davis 610' Green Street Martinez, Cit 94553 W. T. PAASC4 CLERK BOARD OF SUPEi;VISORS RA 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 #5281 shows you to be the owner of the animal surrendered. The statement that you signed reads: 'II, 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, 44 dogs were "put to sleep" and two were pure- bred poodles. 3 . Section 3110$ 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. 7 s • , 14SBetty J. llav' -2- � I•lay 2, 1972 4. Section 51-2.473 deals with animals that are impounded under :article 7 of the County Ordinance Code, wrlich 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 _stra_Y and unwanted animals to provide a better chance-or 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, ate••`°,/_/���"~ Arthur L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner Sealer heights & Measures ALS/ed cc: Board of Supervisors County Administrator California Department of Agriculture 16artinez City Council State Senator John Nejedly State Assemblyman James Dent Contra Costa County Grand Jury CONTRACOS'A COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TORE ANIMA ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISIWORW ONo. 05281 AREA IMPOU.ND ED IMPOUNDING AM. DATE IN:r f t-�` t� — TIME PM. KENNEL NO. DATE OUT: P.t. E. E. — t STRAY ❑ Y R u R SURRENDER% SITE QUARANTINE O REL a A.E"'- OWB YES _ NO IMPOUNDING FOR 1:1 CHP � SHERIFF OTHER AGENCY: BITER r-1 F] OTHER AGENCY OFFICER REOUESUNG YES NO•{7 0 E VIC iM'S NA e'"' ADDRESS PRESENT OWNER tht Gam!S l ��" y"/: l`i"�✓1 l ! E NAME ADDRESS +CITY PHONE NEW OWNER �tjAME ADDRESS GITY PHONE BREED �L G 5R-- = O COLOR DETallEO DESCRIPTION House Good vith Dist. NAME—4/// r '°? SEX _AGE LI Broicn SPAYED Children Shots I, the undersigned, owner or having control of the above described animal,assuming all _�,r17zC^ tasponsibility and releasing the Animal Control Center from oil risks and damages which IMPOUNDING FEE $ PTS DATE may prise from whatever cause. do hereby surrender the above described animal to the PRESENT OWNER Animal Control Center to mo4e such disposition of os the Center deems advisable.Unless BOARD S j IRETURNEDI G noted on this (orm,i certify the above described animal hos not bitten any person during c NEW OWNERp the past <doys j),g day cop/ f r dogs at c ! PENALTY OR TAX S 1 {SALEI GENERAL RECEIPT NO. REASON FOR � SIGNATURE TOTAL CHARGES S i At URGE Q GIVING UP ANIMAL AS THE NEW OWNER OF THIS ANIMAL i HERERY NO LICENSE Q AGREE TO THE CONDITIONS ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS FORM. OTHER Q 8Y SIGNATURE (13-22 REV. 3-71 30m) IN OUT - In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California February 20 ]9 73 In the Matter of Letter from Senator John A. �,Iejedly related to Animal Population Control Measures. This Board on February 14, 1973 having received a letter from Senator John A. Hojedly expressing concern about animal population control treasures, 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 BT.L THE BOARD ORDERED that said letter is REFIRED 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 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 Superiisors on the date aforesaid. cc : Senator John A. TIe jedly Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Com.-ii ttee Supervisors Agricultural Commissioner off;ced this 20th day of February 19 73 County Administrator , , W. T. PAASCH, Clerk By_ �.� r Deputy Clerk Elsie Pott H24 7/72.1S&I 'PLEASE RESPOND TO: • COMMITTEES f DISTRICT OFFICE NATURAL RESOURCES AND 1393 CIVIC DRIVE WILDLIFE,CHAIRMAN \YALIIUT CHECK.CALIFORNIA 94595 AGRICULTURE AND WATER (415) 934.4558 JOHN A. NEJEDLY RESOURCES EL SiCRAVENTO ADDaESS SEVENTH SENATORIAL DISTRICT RTEA►►ORTIONM[HT STATE CAPITOL SACRAMENTO.CALIFORNIA 93814 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENr (DiG) °45.608] SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PENAL INSTITUTIONS.CHAIRMAN • CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE ;1 .= E t u at to CIVD February 8, 1973 •-ten 1 d 1973 W. T. PAASCH CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVI'.,WH9 �O TRA COsS1+ C97 By Deputy Mr. Alfred M. Dias, Chairman Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County ' Administration Building AGENDA ITICA ��115Q' >79 Martinez, California 94553 Wr 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, ohn A. Nej edly Se tor, 7th District Gl�.!�.�G)ITiL.' iL/V��//�%�'✓r��,ti1I�.L JAN:cjr CONTRA COSTA COUNTY J CLERK'S OFFICE , Inter-Office Mesio 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 depredalion of livestock. Enc. cc: County Administrator . J r . IN =1E BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Animal Control ) Problems Pertaining to Depreda- tion of Livestock. ) February 13, 1973 Mr. 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 pack,s in the county and also to submit recommendations for the. control of dog predation of livestock in the E1 Sobrante area; and Mr. 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 Mr. 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 ir. Seeley having suggested that perhaps consideration should be given to increasing impound fees and penalties to deter pet owners from allowing pets to run at large at night and having indicated that a more forceful approach on the part of the courts might also be in order; and Ir. Seeley having further suggested that the Board appoint d special review comnitree 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 male a complete analysis of the entire animal control program; and . The Board members having discussed the matter, and Supervisor E. A. Linscheid having recommended- that the aforesaid suggestions of ­r. •Seeley be approved and having also recommended that the County " Government Operations Committee ( Supervisor Linscheid and Supervisor J. P. Kenny) :study and recommend for appointment by the Board the comuosition of the special reviews committee; On motion of Suparvisor 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, W. N. Boggess, E. A. Linscheid, A. ?•I. Dias. NOES: hone. ABSENT: Mone. CER7VIED COPY . I certify that this u a fuii, true & correct copy of .,C: 1 the ori..-inai document w!iic% is on file is � r�y oftico .. Om*ii tee :and that it was pa,se3 a ad..,:t_.l Agricultural Commissioner S� Coatr;a Costa C�u::t.y CIr —Azors of _ i:oacd ai 3 p C_:'unau, o:1 County Administrator t::e t:atc saowz, a;r_r j, iw•. •�. �n_1: L cat:t:,y cieYt&ex-cfficlo clew::of acid Boari of Supirvtaars, /�,, u '/!%•�. —4a2•te1 by de J CLty ' ., - ,P ty clerk. T'% f crty FD I� IIVI r�7� DOFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR MAIC �. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CONTrA COSTA COUNTY oCrAgTMaNT Of A01imPktutttt 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 :-.is respon- sibility for supervision of the county rabies contrcl program. JEH/aencl. RECEIVTED encl. cc. A. L. Seeley ` MAR /, _19713 W. T. PAASCH CLERK F 4UPERVI ORS T A COSTA CO By _ �' Duty -. . a r �i N x �, y, , ,R s ,tea e ( . � , , ,,,t--r" �� ,� r . I rr j� v s r t u y'' sax ed �+,w+'ak z, r, - 11 �. 1 FtSih�L' '# h S T S'sAG-Xfi f ,a zl"t y �.y3 x�;,r 4i., F py r:...a.,..,,L `$"as"Kti Y# 2 1_ 2 t 1 rr max:. t; n3''� '^ '` 'r t x ^ -- '. ` ` '' �.r •r ,A1M y Dx`g .�� yr,}+.fh^�4 4'r�pN '� ✓c.kGr�.',++`-t"PtM f .4 x f ,�,.I- - ,`�.�,.f,�5�'I'1, , ' r s +^- d "� .^ a +�,z,Cs m,.i � ac`s 414,''fic -ti '^y- �'ss ",13 • ,,;. �'z `�,t,` s ,ate -Yt �„- ����m ,-, �^2r ��•�� ti (�i• t�j+�i i l.i►v�.� r s a m -11 Cl.i."2t r L:3�1:1;u Ll _ - r x s, i £ a�` "- 1 LP�z 1 - -x s� h Ar�"� �1 ..,rd 1'si;'�1ti "�'{�ux�,uz r rr �• .t ''�� �....a.. ...ta1J t•V. -i.i;L4�rTdi. R �2} 3�1 ,,,r l.tiZ'Lcl L.O� �//� p; u.0 •?s y, a., ll}i x til.+ _�J li/ •��►.�,� :d. .; 4 Ste . - �11111E � � M J4, t j c6att41. 1. r ' .fir c. l t t1 ,; <V ., .aY N y, taw 140x. 4 1:1 t t T ,' 4 :H "" '' z • .. •� ,,, °I' t' t.:2i�1.! .�.33iL,�t3' �� ii73 oX:�GY \.�: i�c` J, .... , „ C:::.: L.1;jj' :.-v1.acrr. `on 1;C s:i ,�ac� tater; a c��,y OL Laci.. Vt' == s 11 . ' fV�.��., % : , : i.3 ILLi:;i�?tCUO :. L�:L�. .O::C:al' provldC:,l ti2.-U: Ycu« C.�=U ac prz;chit rc,.(v s''t7i-"r�'-"�' 1. ti. -325 'i:J Gi.:: `::',Z. i� Js�. •.'`..�YfGt'J �Ta1 Z::l� C'�:t�,:i�.°.a:a...'3n G«x: � .2g`,7.G..c. ,- r�••�`�:: c+yt:•aa%ttea t:� := zm py-ax A amxq 0� �:i 0 r�P.,- 'cs.�:.«�:1 Xg 1. II- Ip r Vz\ V.'.1:~.w 11 .,.r ay♦. °;.,? :i ,j �I �11 . •y. t M � nw �s a '.`.,►.Gal.,shoui.\.l 22a1.tQ t:{,�.V jh'i� al ady hav*: ,a r akev�' ^ua . a� l i. ' si :aj::j '.t.;�I13 c �:oi-i .ia f.C:e Gv t��"a: .'JQd O: ,OitlZ -. � ` - -& �.LJLCf,.1 a.. La u c,:.at.•J•ol, OL- t:J � "�..L1Z......� 3 y.M. �a s �� ;, .tt` t''i�'1 (cisv;�3 Fes: C:.t;.a i11 1..L::ti C- 11UE:it:. . ' A* (� :3fJec:.Ol C.l14-.L..Cil �j+'�i►�7 {it 2...., CL 4.� ,l' �JV<.,t i '���ei� f� 3 ,, 1tl•+t.► - i2:.L (.�C',,a3...► '&.#,"-3 s tl�•vi�✓j71 C.4�:� 1.LsJ �l f a' �a, fi I tj� a ••j"j .l '►l. C.,�ii'ut 4•�..rV•� .:. + x:.14 C'.Ll, 1Q 4iLC..4 w �t er j g 4 r f.C3 i s..::.iiL `•vJ rJ41 %O:;G.}Z f.iL:, I ii.fi'•�-%- ..C�.:XIiG �";��,.'�?*�c- M. �6-� }��,,� " (�I aJtC'.,L�J�3L}..L11 .�:�1; �T Cu[r�C�. ....+a «. oµt ..r " "'"x.' 4 -4` z;-ti ., ,. { L 'ill '.�-'1teiiro'� `�f M 3. c�-iec'..' C' L 7..: G `....t: %wl I a''Z.i: �l�..C� I3}r � �3 V ail.r,3w,L i..Al �bjlslJxey.JC:u IJ� -�:� .:.�• d1..CtbGr! � � ,*' = f� �1+� f. . r t K�rC.:.�4Z.:«� C�/f.a.w+.YJ.�..fiiiri �•/.� t.i�C2 s.4 J+. Y,t QL .� .#- *4 tAz�r re�i�,wz'� 7 . b:...4��•.►�L...v..�': j'r:.' ui u........ .iL"I waae.,...�..v 1 : i.�l ♦ y 7. �.,^ ► t w.zv I F'y d.-L'q,\.t. -GLZ YL.i.��.t 'G aaa.A4 _LG: t �Z rc `T. lLi '"` �l� N' _ • ? • •1 n aT•1' 11 , Ia :� h1_U L t.:1..L. t l.c :pecial :czr�.tri'co:r...�tUC-Q (.:J.c:z tom{ �.-- F 1'C.r.C: . 4 _' — . � � I .. I ­ I ,�.11, . I 11� -I .. . . it . - 1 . " I 1: � � ­1� '.- '- ­ . , . � - . — 0 1 � 0 1 ll� ­1 ' ' I I I � � ' I - I I , - "I I I - . % z..,, ,�. . _. � ­­'..' � I I .�1. -� , � �'�r '. ` I -' �. y �_ s ,.i a r rc xu x >:ar✓ "' a 5't'±+.+x' r"" k x > r s ESL .:Tlc+. s'r' '"'�"'� at Y `fit 14 7. t i`..a.s+`2.* y r t 4 ' �_. 1 � 'y Fri , L k�x y '9'a iG*t G'fii F } 1 y J• a �i1 1'�J� .G •�ALL..s '�»C.`�•v�3'• ;�{T�' Cr'?:IaC.• ,- . ,..'. t. ��.��y���.. .. s 1.�.•. -,.a.� n -1� • Z� •...►..J...} ♦�.S CMX' rel Q4'.."A—R.a�V :c.Z�1::�trVi' � .G3 • °• �,.nXr�'"' a r a r 11 i•i � ,Uci� �or. ji�..•'�i L`1�' _ iiJt Y L`.t. f v'4 ° r ' ' ' � f : .f 1]]t'A 'tt t s /�y2 Mr�hf�/ j�.a��n.� ;;yy ��y� M ia�"�"i"x+ .S,y- "II: ."°"k,' `3�ay _ .�. Si! r V .3.1L� ,lij�.i4`. i►`.\i�11•r4 CJ.LI C� LMCv - "i.a�" •a p i ll" tip` tI:c. callect-ion of fces�. _ r "y;� �' s � r .€.�� ,'.'+ xaT' rcpt x t i :j civ] .....:.i:..1G..• ......Gl. �►.j �..& CGY�:..C.:102. il�.t.. x a „F�„ ra r _ =».::� c.:r anr:czl coal roi.). f r twig.«V t N� -o d _ :Sty vb t .n...i 7• _1 IVwi catzit'y c Ci (for iczal ad-ACC�. r i' "� 's V .� W W�.M LiJ1.tl►W `vinL�ON {t:4 r ��t-tv` t'K' }r�j _ - r wAc •''� f�3 P 11 - I {..lcr '"%.��1..J`. �. t.• Ca,.C:: OL Wl� YYVV�i :r:a:t�u G��.iLi.M+1 .�Y V3 LIY� L•.64 �o ce ��;.:;::t az : .te .::tee co :.cyrczGn Wit. �w» �` r ST r t-' r .L. .«..-t art �" .�.. E ♦ • ,� ^ ^t �... .► ►- A , �o.. t..... T�;�.�.•....4it?I2 :G�.. .C.�...C3..L`. L.O •1Y13.r3..Z.� . C:...rl DCt. .�v�.' ti �.►..�� �7,r� t. 3Cr �i0 1].i.t►`:C-,�Lif•CI� a a.V �i � WY: •Y►W YY� WrV�rV�i\r�il, A� , x ' J ! . .:.+ r :, } r. Yn 1 .� ? f r av„r•v.+rsi+.�w. 7�rt'e # t.ie�£ 4Mf'�:3."t> iRyq '1 fie9' fr f Y r^ 'tP¢ r n."S"r a� m. .��x z .; t` , y 3%aCC'�rt 2 .X,° .t a, F + +xtA` ,£w-w r�,i,-v'f4k-t ,.�..r '�„.�F,+...' tv.i-. �e 'a au�d err Iw> i+�' r4 z 1'.3 z a i v < "' r a j F a �. x r ''y w r a°r'­;r,Yc' ,. ,.a #'rte + r #ogxt.�dRk»+y.'� E��,cy,5i , r Y' K -"M.Y'L* d d"*' 9 t +.h F.r+.Y ++., + 'S f +'6sr,.,A Y� - - 4 t ya ,¢„ }cam 'f. k�'�" �A rs� x��3'^S"§ Jp i kk r,.f rt 2 xx; ..,'Y.. cr ^'--1 Cyt az tM es'n t~' r a.11 l kikv�,'Ytr'r i y-tt « s r- n a Y�+r r } ..tr 9 ...8�;++•a ra+lnwk�4�, a ! 2„�a }a".x,­-z:,... t ��c• � x o f $kp � t 4 Y �n 4J his , t{ w � '"r.�*{i t �Is•.0 �aLt ts, ,r§ *i`.' "� u-�t�' � h y i ,_,ttyr rs k� Mi•\r�• § t`€-+,x `-' c}*y+i x r ya w,t" 111. - f .1,Y+ n w i Z g �� �` /.�_... 7 § 4.r�,hsv +"-,r-f ',�, 'sa;oR e -[Y.x,..a ll` �.�.? tw • *,c+'r'yST.aar �?a"�r, -" e'�E. r '�,�' W• 1�• M. ;Jv �� Y A -^�`w.i t `�`',!;` .'Fb?A r"'ttY7�"' """ >3Y " T --5 �R'.",z` "° h-1. "''.3p i�4't�„ a .,.iK T _11rya` <-. ?k ,.� 5^ `+�'m��M���.k'�'hav" '+�'"" ' y�vr +t^ ,t r _ -•d i, �+}' i ks x k o s '*' 5 'i1' z .. r t-k q y � v. ti.. -c :.� "'z." 4 1^S'[. �ti �"4"'!-Ira tN} t t31- .rA' �..:- S .e b , ) ,s-v. f'. . r s ,p y'�r.'f e: a a '�+r.y '§r' .* t '' 'rte`fs Y x' i�N �,r,a,{yr ti p,s. +vf;; .vFir: ,,r,w 3 ',� . .' ,4,,,,'.-4 ; 'r .�p'.�•• F �z < P r' r i 4 h r1 .- p .�" a "- r 1- xp^x 1-11 a„-11 - iy r. Y r fr "`'.,�'§ ", y4cn1 a4'i' 4r. 4 w°'"' S �� ��...eek.1 , P , ry y I .1trir v q T 7 ,. t z+ y k'.y.:y. t"`.�.5'4�'K,'� i �" �u 7 µcY&-7 Y i ,� ,.. ill- T{ t+1 'Yv�T...• "`y,fir&' 7 r- y u s v,. s rzt•- t­"d� x ' ° -yti ' 7� -.k,,,�ytsy, ! Swr I r i 1 r a c ' h' Y YY. "Y _ k �; i a - `� �, § R'2. �. .r+ y_u- tea... x Daae--„`'°` .a� '' '�avr,� . '74 t`',e+ 3. r= R :+ar 1 t Y a,Y i yh 'N',5 5 w yet ,� y ..., 3 ear' -v5'{�`r «E t i� 9 'r`.'�s s7� "44a4" p£�a ',I ',xy !_-� ______.';7'#. E` "ub. �i #s f `y�.��a-r L��� 'CI'Ilr~,dY.s` ,," :,✓^9 .�,gt s r`1 ../'�tC8 ' a x�e a'" a u "n tx S6 e`+`. � ,-. y Yj a J` 7a^ �1k}.. ..r X�' F ..F i ';"K s x37"*'+: �ra.°r r y. -,.N a„;` „.�r�, ,ny'-t t.:``' "S'�t y2 '"y'',/f'Y"` 42v t e r urt"'f,a.,UT,�'+3 ,. - t .3�PA.t.�a w vq''2f'3'tialalP' 3+i'fi- .x ,h+' L .r "s P'"4'-�3.RJ ir( MSS 'l.. •wr » J Y S ' -^H / w 4 .,..'}+* Y i T' Board of Supervisors CountyGovernment Operations Committee :�rch 8; 1.13 (Supervisors E. A. Linscheid and J. P. Reimy)' J. P. McBrien, Aillmal Coat=- County Administrator Reference is made to my r ebruary 26,, 191: amirandm, szz j ect .as above, copy attached, in which .1 suggest cot:::. . .:,h d tr r special review committee to make an overall stuay ;,_ :,h,: ani :l control program. The County Health Officer should be added to t;.e in. of eight officials previously identified in line -Ath his. respon- sibility for supervision of the county rabies control program. JE-H/aa encl. cc. A. L. Seeley yI A r T✓ 1 J �:Y��4 �/�O�rE� 1�f �r3 y, OIML Go Cr�.ti �s Ccft:teee�rutsry 26 i:73 �is J•K 77777777777�- k to£cr cc i�,, ,tath� a✓sitAA6 , 11 x9073} gr�cxf G£ «heck y Fo"�zr�i; cctutof J`u;7cvoa x of that ar'�►cr 3.a� ts;ac� ad. ra ..''The o4r protiric�es i, :. m=ar cattCe gx� cat r .. cam- tial to :van- B s rcvao, ttec to va—kc StCii S�'ioLt�$ ZlG�t� to 'v k'G �iL'�t�j ssc"ltl'^.S x >r „„ Lh,.cc..ir.. c W- Cs . t ' «� "!• J£J �,C�..§.2Cn' � �tCt.,. "� � kY 4�t 3LiY{ badxt Cc�.^► . .: tp lic :0 o iiL^uta M "' O;t,t3 .�c`L` ,lN �ta wVfi Hhx tr i� ttea ,a al al appo t�� Caw criaz, for.: ta1Ci rL�'T . 3 of art r �`3C�ZS:.i"s.5 is w�TT;L'�~.�.�v� GA a sIi: ::i: G .w BLT�'7-ast UIk: ro£arrc�ct o y-ro-sr ca fwtce}: bo:ramp;3.3ed of tho fo�i��...n (w..�.tv c.�ti i.ropri;m1:a,: .o }: €� .Samar (ta # tcd,by tip; cf Supc3rvf�ra}.. F "c ?• The"�o�1Ly' ` ; tt3ra ""�iOCn2SrZ�. '� r s 1' • t ' sr n 2. 3. PIT-ea i ublir, i:O::kz D rcCt-o (::,.a w'rk-c4::on Tett? =3.:ml co:1 trol eq ipc=:i =,A FaQJ':6ll iO3). S. Via County Cierk-Rccordor (in comectioa t:�th the col3-ection of €cos). G. "ho r'wifirnxf j:L-1 co .tic.ati vith Z=d Civc-=#,. C...^.a.3 C'.a a=l CJt`Y,. 01). 7. Ilm Co=ty Wu=al (for le al advices). 8. Ulm Co#'y Ac�strator. �I also �Lcat t!"-:::: cach of thoi'l ��m na-d ofacials ua pa=-a=- fitted to dc.—. =a4a 1'sr� altarate to rcpz=ctat�i him. input wren Cit.1cmis Z=3 speY;^T .,,,s (x=,h cz the :.010-1-y for au-, Pi:.vc—attfon of Crm#y to Jlaiie:-'S) cava ba solicited by the coma uco attar a rou.--h draft proposal b= been dovolopod. ,373cBfaa cnel. cc. A. i.. Scally W. T. PAASCH CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISOR$ _. O RAC -CO;-- - By Deputy - 9y. ti (-Jen f eo RECEIVED _AR ?01973 W. T. PAASCH CL EFtK�BO A OF bk COYiSORB By Deputy `? -7�� -4" 6LJ Z- l yr i l,/ �j %�J• I �� G RECEI�1 I3 tr4,ip -1973 ' W. T. PAASCH 1� CLERK Ouo"D CP SUPEkTAAORVISOR$ By, Depoo] / —�/-1C✓ I let, ' .c+/ -2'�L--�•.z,C�-tet./ -'�-�:� Y?�f � J r 4 f ��zi#o auazioz �om�z i GAL �O RNIA /CO ORATION O• WON CN•f CLYff P.O. Box 866 E1 Cerrito, California 94530 December 28, 1914 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: On behalf of 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. r hank you for your attention. We are eagerly awaiting your action. Best wishes for a happy and healthy new year! Sincerely, � Rrs. Roni Py man, President 3015 Keith Drive Richmond, Calif. 94803 RECEIVED e Q.: i 17 7S .1 -f r"*&& a� 1¢7s J. CLM 50AF0 Cos su Co►soRs 8v 1 ' • 0 In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California November 6 19 -7A- 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 'j_ J. R. OISSON, Clerk 8y G 41", Deputy Clerk Helen C. Marshall 4 5/74 - 12,500 s &EPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE* 1-05 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Date:October 24, 1974 To: Board of Supervisors / Attention: Arthur G. Will, County Administrator From j- Arthur L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner-Sealer of 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 performing lower cost spaying operations 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 attachment Clerk of the Board RECE 012&1974 J. R. 00�?Ekw►SOR # Lots 7.%3 (500) w z Wo z r0 to:t_ to U] * nn ::4C o Fj 1-1 O W(D (D P• (D :r 0 1-1 N a H v- *3 < H KP+ Fl SI) :3w F-'tf n n (D w (D x r• x ct, 094 N (D K C m 0 m ct o c* t�J .� K r• sn N o Y%= K O ct K CD HFK�-cwt a 1-1 N % 4.4 x P-:3 n (D n ct o N (D (D C C K a � CD o O C FjC ct, (D I--j (Dy K c' CD ct 0 c`ct, z `* (D x xo sv sv m m O n to ct K ]C (D ''d C3 P- P. w o 10 w d H x O O O d co F'- P (D I3 O (n a su O 10 ct r- ct a �, o (n � m Pct H su O -- r- 0 'd O O Y 1 '(7 O F'• 10 O ct O M ct CD , � b s- c o � FJ 1j. tn-' ct cr CD P. *o v--a vNt o vin (N) ( CD Efi Efl Ef? co z ct ct r• W ! 0\1\3 w vt w N w 'd o ct O �n O O O\n .4 00 o vi 0 0400 04 vt N O O o00000o m S4.4 a c+ K OID (D Eft O Eft fA r(a a H N• K F-' N W Oct t-4 n f] vi vt %A W co m N At (D cil to H cD (D x o H O = = o = = C C v C NC� O H 043`'C: < 1-' a m O O-M .4 C b ct 0:3 0:3 .4 ut is (D 11:0 ::7 (D s) (D (D K P. : P- (D I-j P. ct F•' 0 -4 'd K b K K ct to N m H(D K O' H F✓(D (D Cr Fs. 09 K = = O :5cr11 a- K wcrK K • 0 0 ct (D (D -J = _-,J OR (n CO w (n N F'- �:a 0 Fj 0� 3 El - � \.n0 0 0 •vet N ct- tti C 5 sv o = = o ct ct H ct-ct K t� N is m (a = = o CO O N O F-' o1 w 0.O I-' 1-1 P.ct • (n b cr Q• w o (r w vt O CD O w su I k O ED - %n . H O �0 N :d N K 0 _ = w O N (r O a• (D o w P. P• P•to F-i (D B H j P. 0 O (c cr P,. c(a n 0 .4 9 \ 0 m Eft (a -% P- tb ((D K K CDD o �`• \A O vt vt O n 12-MOMWWMW P. Q p' ct N F✓ s x o 0 sZ H 69 Eft Ef% Efi fo Cn LI vt O O �O 69 Ef3 EG% Eft Efl Eft' ct¢3 v F-' N FJ N F-' r-m • vt N W O O O cl �n �►7 ' • • 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.M. , 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 (c/o Supervisor affixed this 8th day of October , 1974 Moriarty's Office) J. R. OLSSON, Clerk County Administrator By , -ez et Deputy Clerk Mildred 0. Ballard H 24 5/74 -12,500 Mrs. dnne Benton Re: Overpopulation notes j Valley Veterinary Hospital I V ED OCT ? 1974 - aERKjO�JJ. R. OLSSON Dear Mrs. Benton: B ;' GK.RD Oos7u CRV!$ORr De U The material followinz; is a re-hash of my notes over several years concerniill, various meetin-s,attitudes,and perhaps a bit of philosophy throvin in. Sincerely, Lester I.I. Schwab, M.M. 1780 YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD + WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94598 • TELEPHONE (4i5) 932-2420 LESTER M. SCHWAB, D.V.M. ROBERT G. CONNESS, M.S., D.V.M. BERNARD F. FELDMAN. D.V.M. aaHA ROGER K. JOHNSON, D.V.M. WILLIAM J. GOODGER. D.V.M. • i OVERPOPULATION ROTES During the year 1970 our asscociation(Contra Costa Veterinary Ifedical Association) and veterinarians as a professional ;roup wDre Setting a lot of bad press regarding the high cost of neutering, procedures, etc. I told our members at that time that we must make an immediate positive stand on this issue. Nothin: was done. I vrrote to Senator Idejedly explaining the cots of such surgical procedures, that doctors of veterinary medicine were not responsible for the overpopulation of animals, but rather the general public by not keeping their nets on their own promtrty, and by a lack of tough fines and leash lairs. It was my feeling at this time that government should not be into veterinary medicine for a number of reasons not the least being that only one half of the families in the United States own nets and one would be ask— in„ the other half to also foot the bill. Besides, there must be some xray for goverainent and private professional individuals to work together. Senator Idejedly put me in touch with Mr. Seeley and I•ir. Danielson. pie three were of the opinion that government should not be into veterinary medicine and that in some way doctors ofveterinarymedicine 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 stringent fines be adopted and that door to door reistration be adapted. This information I passed to my association and was told that I had no business stickir_4 my nose into things. Various committees were set up in our association that did nothing but antagonize every group they met with. In 1971 as the public was demanding that something be done about over— population and the high cost of neutering procedures our association passed a resolution that they back tubal ligations and vassectomies for $15.00. I objected saying that this was not in the best interest of the patient and that owners would have a false sense of security allowing bitches in heat out and that they mould be raped. also that breast cancer and endometritis would be more prevalent. !Amongst the jeers and snickering I was told to sit down. I then asked the group as a whole and the president and the man that made the proposal why they were doing it. The answer was a laughing because no will be interested bit. In otehr words, we were willing to sacrifice the health of our patient for the purpose of coming out with omethinv that nobodey would want. It did not make good cense. I told the association that when the public realized what they had done they would be made a laughing stock. And indeed this was so. Page two This was the attitude of our association on a problem of national importance. I called the president of the CCVFA the next day and told hin that a grave error had been made and only Sze-as veterinarians would event- ually suffer as a result of this error. I offered my surgery suite to the CCVP•I at odd hou_rs,en Sunday and Saturday and offered to train a syrGi.caZ staff so that low cost procedured could be done in the name of CCVI-lA and, under control of the CCVMA. 'What good press they could have instead of bad mouthing. I told the president that if the association mould not accept this then I would sbmit a proposal of my own. I was told that this was not acceptable and that my suggestion mould be tabled and they would-stand on the ligation bit. I then proceeded to make my own proposal.On I-larch 5,1973 'my office proposed in letter form to the committee set up by the Board of Supervisors to study alternatives to a County operated clinic the material that follows. I eras not present at this meeting- , but merely sent in,our proposal in letter form. At this meetinLc Dr. Joseph Rieger representin the CCVMA and Dr. Don Blomberg representing the CVMA took it upon themselves to make derogatory` remarks about me and my staff. So enraged and confused were the members of this committee when this occured that no action was taken and i was asked to be present at the next meeting. Our oro*oosal follows: Pace three • To SPAY GROUP 3 5 73 As director of Valley Veterinary Hospital and upon the request of Mrs. Poppins, and after consultation with ray staff I submit the following: Though vie believe that the overpopulation of animals is not the fault of the doctor of veterinary medicine, we do feel that we must take and assume some resposibility and render what assistance we can to this problem. It would appear that as doctors of veterinary medicine we could not i'roro thin problem tf we just reflect back on the veterinarians' oath which reads- " Beinl- admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, I solemnly sasax dedicate myself and the knowledge I possess to the benitit of society, to the conservation of our livestock resoyreos and to the relief of suffering animals. 1 will practice my profession conscously and with di.,�nity. The health of my patients, the best interests of their owners, and the welfare of my fellow map_, will be my primary considerations. I will at all times, be humane and tenger pain reit anesthesia when indicated. I Brill not use my mowledge contrary to the laws 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 pledges I make freely and in the eyes of Sod and upon my Donor". With this oath in mind my staff feels honor bound to render what assistance vie may. ;Tot being smart enough to specifically 'trite a brief on exactly hove to control overpopulation Of anima;s, but fully realizing that State and County governments prefer not to invade veterinary medicine, it is our thoughts, that if all possible, we should attempt to give the public vhat they are askint- for. As a public service and in an attempt to become more involved in our comnunity vie propose the following: 1. That this faci?ity provide a loner cost neutering; procedure in both dogs and cats. The ability to loner professional fees 'while maintain- ing standards of professional excellence and safety is due to str- ictly thae fact that large numbers are being performed thus incr- easing efficiency. A. ,.nimals nust be under 5 years of age. B. Patients rust be a good surgical risk. C. Aninals must be cIrrent on vaccinations. 2. This facility researves the right to refuse such patients in uhicb to perform this sur;;ery would not be in the best interest of the patient. 3. This facility rill need volunteer help. A. •.le 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 make the appointments. B. Payment must be made in advance to same o:Cariz,ation talcinC calls. Fe will beill that organization twice a month. O.mers will be ven specific discna_x—e time. Page four 4. The procedure: A. Does-female-gill receive complete physical and thea have a complete ovariohyeberectomy. Surgery will be performed under a combination oxygen,halothane,and nitrous oxide mixture via an endotrachael tube and anesthetic machine. An esophagael stethoscope will be used on all patients to moniter hear rate and respirations. B. Dogs-male-vasectomy-vas deferens on both sides to be tied off Sane anesthetic procedures 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 testicleswillbe removed B. Dogs Bale-castration-the removal of both testicles-same_anes- thetic procedures. We do not recommend canine castration as a routine procedure. 5. In attendance on all procedure will be two surgical nurses,one surgeon, and one anesthetist, U. Suraical Sees as follows: OViI Cat ,x$0.00 OVH dog 30.00- Castrate cat 12.50 Castrate dog I•lot recommended Vasectomy do„ 10.00 Vie stress that this service is offered by this facility as apublic service and as a means of becon:Lnb involved in our community. The public should be aware that we and many other doctors of veterinary medicine do care. .Y • pa[;e five apparently our association was rorried for they F oZloar;na;-our pronosal appar_ if they mould d sent a fact shheto loner cost to all members asl�in hon many, etc. ne of meeting procedures, same.:ty_ erepa."sam .Since we had been . some weeks later Iandiedsabout and I camee_rery o osal as follo�:s' in which ny name was b abused = first submitted our credentials and the, a pr p Valley Veterinary Hospital is a com lete, progressive and self-sustained veterinary medical facility with departments of medicine, surgery, clinical patholo 7, pat holo;y,radioloMr, and intensive care. Twice winner of "The Hospital of the Year ward, this facility is nationally and internationally lmovn for its sophistication and progressive professional ideas and techn iques, as well as its physical plant, equipment, and staff. This facility plays host to visiting doctors from all over the country and this year from :e land, France, New Zealand, Japan, and Australia. We recognize the needs of the profession by: 1. Two of our staff havinC professional appointments at U.C. Davis. 2. Teaching courses to other veterinarians locally and statewide in su_rgery,anesthesioloCy,and intensive care and cadiac care. j. Two of our doctors gave technicel papers at the American Animal Hosp- ital Rssn meetin.; in San Antonio. 4. One of our doctors will g ve a raper to the Clinical Patholorf Society this year. 5. Two of our doctors have already given technical papers last year at the AV:1N N and _LHr. o. One of our doctors was recently flown to Cleveland ,Ohio to judge this ears "iospita; of tile, year". 7. One of our doctors is an outstanding authority on insulinomas(tumors of the pancreas) and continues research in that field and papers and will be ;riteing a chapter in a medical text on this subject. S. One of our doctors just finished having published his 12th professional artille in a leading journal. Q. Our surgical staff has partci.ptaed in the training of two ::=man heart teams in surgical procedures of cardiac by pass surgery. 10. Our surery staff on a yearly basis pa_rtncipates in the training of TCU nurses in human medicine f rou all over the bay area in cardiac energency procedures. ll.17e have developed new equipment now bein!; used in veterinary universities in the administration of ozycen to seriousl;r debilitated patients. "hese are a feF- of the many professional activities %ye are engaged in. ae recognize the needs of our community by: L. This faciaity is an active consultant to our cities museum. 2. Partciptation in local and national 1`-H programs. j. Participation in local career day pro Grams. actively en a;ed in preparin- animal care courses for the 17al- :tut Creels School system. ee 'le also recoC size the need for care of animals other than- pet animals. We are actively involved in developing methods of saving indugent mammals and birds. We are involved in the ecolo&,p movement, the Bay Area Wildlife Rehabilitation Committee, and oil spills. our individual doctors are members of every major association and society that exists in veterinary medicine. Our doctors are presently candidates for Boa-rd Certification in the followinC fields: Sur;;ery Clinical Pathology Pathology Internal medicine Anesthesiology Cardiolo,-y The above credentials etre prepared by Lester M. Schwab, Director, Valley Veterinary Hospital. Lester 13. Schwab, DV24 ?larch 27,197 TM ry' y J? T e same Proposal rras subnLittad " r, �1 ba' I had requested that the veru same proposal and terms that T_ submitted be open for any other doctor of veterinary medicine to follow. The following Notion was unai.mously passed: That the county offer to provide the necessary clerical sta_"f to handle nookeepinVq S services for veterinarians !�Q cooperatliir in a reduced cost spay and neuterinti cP (the fee to be established in agreement with cooperating veterinarians). This pro,-ram to begin as soon as possible, and to continue as a supplement to the proposed county operated spay clinic. Thouch all nartieis voted unanimously for this motion including Dr. �?icger and Dr, Jern (the CCVA11 representatives) these two men failed to report the i:rpact to their association. At this meeting in 4.5 minutes everyone was in smiles and thought at last :.e can :pork toget er.These men in one sentence that was ruffled gave a report to our association that was not even heard. In the neantime the SPAY -roup and the County felt that they had been knifed in the back because our association did nothing and they then put on a masive cannaign for funds. The nedia picked it up. Apparently $50,000.00 was ear- ma- r'.ed for a spay clinic to be decided the last vreek in Au;;ust. That is, unless the veterinary association came up with something. Officers of our association, vi.thout calling an emergency meeting, took it upon themselves to submit a proposal to block the 350,000 allocation. I ti:as on vacation at this time and received a call saying that the co=issi.oner of agriculture mould like to see me. Apparently the newest prorosal by our association was unacceptable and the x50,000 was to be allocated :mless I could su Cest an alternative. Neither lir. Seeley nor the Supervisors desired a county clinic. I Leet with Nr, Seely and attempted to see if we could save face for everyone. I suggested that R- use the negative approach and increase the fees a bit and -et hospitals in the county to particioate. The followinc fees :yrre suC ested: eli re OVI: 20.00 Feline castration 10.00 'eline tubal Lgatior. 15.00 Canine up to 1,0 lbs 30.00 40 to e0 lbs 35.00 over $0 lbs 40.00 Pro;;nancy/obesity add 5 to 15.00 Ca st 1--1 t:i.o^ 20.00 Vasectomy 25.00 Must be vaccinated prior to surfery.Doctor may _refuze a~y mer;.-. The intent here r:asi to ::eon thins s:m^le yet have the dactor holding the cards. The fee was lower than normal >et hicher than I initially suggested a fee that anyone shou;d be able to ilive with for a-h-Ile. I then returned to fam,1, on vacation. Upon my return a week later I found that Mr. Seely had net un,an emergency meeting with the committee and again my proposal was submitted and a,;-ain approved. However, becasue of half truths, second thoughts, and Zack of apparent interest by veterinarians the SPAT group called an emergency meetinG. At this meeting, it was stated that veterinarians could not be trusted and though this .as a ood proposal the SPAY groiup was going to sstabLsh their own entity.^hat if veterinarians had shown good faith something could have worked out. '•:r. Seely was opposed to this and sent a proposal to the commissionersthat my proposal be accepted, that cats be licensed,a differential license fee, door to door licensing, and clerical help for my proposal. In the last minute fund allocation in August apparently some felt that this was actually in effect and the 550,000 was not allocated. It is still my belief that eventually we can pressure sufficient doctors throughout the county to do as we sasgest thus having representative hospitals scattered throu pout the county and alleviatin- 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 Mr. NicIt Calicura chaired the meeting. I sugsested at this meeting that no more meetings be held and that the veterinarians be forced to submit a decent "--oposal or I and I suggested the com ittee should sug est a co unty clinic. gain there was no resopns from our association due to the manner in which those present at the meeting submitted their notes to the association.. x . , g Philosophy If the nu'alic honestly believes they need lower cost procedures let us give it to the:.z, but .throuvh existi_n- facilities. With 35 hospitals in the.county doin only one Der weekday or 5 per geek. and fit;urins 4.5 weeks per month . there mould be 700 ovariohysterectomies por-month or %80 per year. Castrations can be dpne at 1 10.00 in any hospital and as manyper day as cones in with no real staain..^his couvled with Valley Veterinary Hospitals approximate 5000 rer year would render 11 ,000 plus not counting cat castrations. This is the only xray to go and I believe that with more pressure one by one hospitals in the county will see the light. Fallicies: To Derform the correct surCical techniques and safegards that the public desires the figures of 320.00 Der dog .OVH that I lure heard are impossible and I can prove it. I ;would be delighted to show anyone .interested our surgery suite and our books. The old timers in our profession are not in tune with the times and unfortunately the young men associated erLth them assume their philosophy, but slowly but surely they begin to see the light. It is my beki.ef that if you. remain patient out firm a lot can still be accomplished without .using the tax payers dolloar. I•y apology for.the ty pin;; which I did myself at 5:00 AMT Sunday morning. I would be delighted to appear.or render.whatever assistance I air at any time providinC _T have at least one weekx notice to appear. We have a noble profession that just happens to be a little behind times as reCards public relations . Please bear in mind that governement can work with private.enterprize to get. the job done properly. A;so remenber that the answer is not in M-l's doing their thin, but this plus strict leash laws., licensing,.fines, and one hall of a lot of PAIR showing each.individual what their responsibilities are. :7ithout this there would be no reason to go any further. It takes coop—. eration. If one is unwilling to have the differential license fee, the recistration of cats, the door to door .cheks, the stringent fines, then how in the hell can you. ask the DVM to do his part. `:!e must all i.oea tobether and perhaps in .such a situatisn we may accomplish something worth :chile. Sincerely, Lester M, Schwab, 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, CHAIRMAtI DISTRICTTRICT 3 W. N. BOGGESS.VICE CHAIRMAN DISTRICT 4 J.P. KENNY. DISTRICT 1 A. M.DIAS. 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. 11 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- OCT 151974 J. 2 OLS:OPJ K ARD OF SupERVISORS 6 iR �1;v CCl.' .De tv y Low-Cost Spalklinic - 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. 5. 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. B. 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. j 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 fit. Diablo State Park; T�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 fv nding which would be sufficient to continue services of counseling lobo-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 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-7h RequPst fvnm 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; 7-2q-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 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 REMOVED as a referral to the Administration and Finance Com;nittee 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 C�o. kiVA , 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 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 w ere 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 I•Zunicipal 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 Haste 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 deveicpment 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; :,6-24-711 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 �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 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 budget has already been adopted, removal of the .above-listed items as committee referrals was simply routine; NO;1, THEREFORE, on motion of Supervisor Dias, seconded by Supervisor Linscheid, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that each of the above-stated items is RE1,1OVED 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 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 haste Management Policy Committee c/o Supervisor Dias Public Works Director (Environ*rental 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 Date: July 9, 1974 To: Administration and Finance Committee (Supervisors A. M. Dias and E. A. Linscheid) From: Clerk of the Board Subject: age in coat Estimate for Establishment of a County Animal Spay Clinic The Board today referred to you and the Public works 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 9 197 4 In the Matter of Change in Cost Estimate for Establishment of a County Animal Snay 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 considetation; 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. Kenny, 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 Tiorks 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 11orks 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 1 OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY D U Administration Building Supervisor J. E. Moriarty '(artinez, California Supervisor J. P. Kenny To: Supervisor A. M. Dias Date: July 1, 197�UPERVISOR 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. PEC IVE JUL q 1974 JPMcB/aa encls. J. WON ZM2�E Suvev cc. V. W. Sauer (R. M. Rygh) tit.• • *DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY V Date: June 24, 1971E To: Board of Supervisors ttention: J. P. McBrien, County Administrator From: A. L. Seeley, Secretary - Animal Spay Clinic Study Committee Su 'L: Change in cost estimate for establishing a county spay 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-MA cE;S-,A C`''_IJN-,y cc: All committee members R E r, n Clerk of the Board Jilhi n ' l, " 0 Nice Ci co:,-,,,,,Y A�n:�istra or 7/73 (500) C051o GONER Of'"`"T • ` 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; a committee of the Board of Su ervi ors; one member each of the Contra os a County Veterinary e iia 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 horiarty thereupon seconded the motion as amended; and The Chairman called for the vote on the matin_ whie-h nnc ,' . t • 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, a_ 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 C rue lty to Animals County Administrator CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 1 ANI PAY CLINIC STUDY COMMIT1 I 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 i 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. I� Report on new cost figures for mobile home - Dover Mobile Home Sales 1 submitted a cost estimate o $21P9509, P11 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 i 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- garding cost of the mobile unit, medical equipment, site preparation and Revenue Sharing Funds requested. Minuu�o , . MOTION B Alice fre that this committe ecommend to the Board Supervisors that cost tures of $45,569 for the mobile home unit, including medical equipment, plus $3,9$21 for site preparation (total $49,390), be considered the cost to establish and equip the spay clinic at one location. ACTION — Motion was seconded and passed unanimously. 14DTION — By Nancy Cole that the committee 'recommend to the i 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 veterinarian(s) be competitive but above average to attract competent veterinarians and I 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, S. E. Danielson, Acting Secretary RED/ac attachment z } 1 - r - - r 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 further information. Sincerely, Maureen Bell Dawfopad by TM Hofmam comp 11ILbUUI[J 14.%,'v I. j i'J✓'LU✓t DGVIER MOBILE HOME !#ES Fairfield (AC 707) 429-1440 T WORK SHEET NAMr S.P.A.Y. ^ATr 6/13//4 ADDRESS`- - - Af1Y 5P61 WAI rmt Cret-k, CA11 f_ NONE MAKE MODEL LENGTH JWIDTH JYEAR 1[3 _ Mt.Valley D u:Eo STOCK NO. COLOR DELIVERY POINT BEDROOMS 104910.11CRIALMO. IN MAKE YEAR PAYOFF TOT TRADE TITLE WHERE? ACCT.NO. FOR LENGTH_ WIOTH COLOR NFOROOMs OTHER TRADE-IN OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT PRICE OF UNIT $ 20,500-00 PTIONAL EQUIPMENT OPTIONAL ACCESSORIES 1 0.00 OST OF SET UP TRANSPORTATION SUB TOTAL 21,950.00 I SALES TAX IF A'M'f 00 (A rox) UCENSE,TITLE,ETC 150.00 DELIVERED PRICE TOTAL S 23 417.00 TOTAL DOWN 5 PAYMENT UNPAID BALANCE ._S I f MONTHLY PAYMENT t2 YEARS.. ...-.„. s MONTHLY PAYMENT-15 YCARS_ CARRIED TO OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT ,S cr 4 ton air conditioner installed 1 200.00 2 steps with handrails installed 2 0.00 BANK OR FINANCE CO: O KVE O UCB APPROVED• FIRST PAYMENT OUF tf `�ONTNS�S CARRIED TO OPTIONAL ACCESSORIES S 1,450-00 r ✓ RECEIVED AUG--P/ 1974 J. R. OLSSON August 20, 1974 aERK 50AW of SUPERVISORS .41 TS9, _NPUN 1985 Geary Road 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;me CC: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors PO Box 911 Martinez, Ca. 94553 r,J eft COPY FROM Cv R COSTA COUNTY California - July 129 1974 RECEIVED Q.ss� A � JUL 1 $ 1974 J. R. OLSSON Mr. David Horton ICLE�RaKSOARD o1 SUPERVISORS Citizens Action Group a "r'A c°`"`' °- 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 organized as a non- profit organization; the Office of the Secretary of State has adkised 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 JPMcBjaa cc. G. Russell,-"' Ic • DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURIP CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Date: June 7, 1971 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, 197 . 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 11.,- Co7e c,c c� RECEIVED JUN 111974 J. R. OLSSON C1E BARD OF SUPERVISORS 1RA COSTA 40. B _.._De ur 7,173 (500) • DE ARI A11:N'f OF ACRICULTUO. CONTRA COSTA CMINI'Y Datc: Aurum 22, 1973 To: Supervisors Warren L;nr�;ess ��nd �.dmund Linscheid Administration and Finance Committee Attention: J. P. McBrien, County Administrator From: . A. L. Seeley, Committee Secretary ! J subject: Recorunendations from the Board appointed Animal Spay Clinic Study Conunittee On August 27, 1971, the Board appointed an "Animal Spay Clinic Study Corunittee" comprised of representatives of various organiza- tions and county representatives. (A list of the individual:. serving on the committee is attached. ) The committee's assignment was to Ilutork out a proposal for the mechanics and procedure; 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 assi4,:nent to develop the mechanics and procedures for the operation of a county spay and neutering clinic, proposals from the to-al Contra Cosa Veterinary Medical Association and an individuate 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 comun. ittee 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 supplement to the proposed county operated spay clinic, and that an evaluation be made 0.1 the success of the accepted program (Dr. Schwab's proposai* )after a period of nine months from the date of initiation. (danuary 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". '7; (500) DEPARTME r t f• AGRI UL I URI:• CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ,\ Da rVECV- VM To: Supervisors Warren l;oggcs3 :ind Edmund Linscheid ,11N 13 1974 Administration and Finance Committee Attention: J. P. Mc Brien, County Administrator I R. OLS Or) From: A. L. Seeley, Committee Secretary CLEV §OARD of SUPERVISORS TRA COSTA C.O. i S Depuly Subject: Recorunendations from the Board appointed Animal Spay Clinic Study Committee On august 27, 1971, the Board appointed an "Animal spay Clinic Study Co::�aiittee" comprised of representatives of various organiza- tions and county representatives. (A list of the individuals serving on the committee is attached. ) The committee's assi;mment was to "tirork out a proposal for the mechanics and procedure:; for the opera=tion of a clinic; following the acquisition of 021,000, said proposal to be submitted to the Board of Supervisors for approval". it should be noted that while the committee was completin- its assignment to develop the mechanics and procedures for the o:,: ation of a county spay and neutering clinic, proposals from the lo-: 7 Contra Cosa Veterinary Medical Association and an individua- 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 corrmiittee, it was the proposal suggested by Dr. Schwab and agreed upon by five other veterinarians, that came the closest to that desired by the cor..mittee 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 f o: 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 (D:. Schwab' s proposal' )after a period of nine months from the date of initiation. (January 1, 1974 was the suggested starting date. ) *The proposal as worked out with Dr. Schwab is attachment #2 titled "Proposed Cooperating Veterinarian Low-Cost Sterilization Program". - 13 000) Supervisors BognCoS, and Linschoid • Attention: d. P. *Irien -2- C'/22/?3 2. That license fees be doubled for unaltered animals. 3. That the county earmark $50,000 of Federal Rovenue Sharing Funds for the proposed county spay clinic. 4. That a door-to-door licensing and cat registra- tion program be established. a. Registration fee for each cat over the age of four months would be $2.00. b. Wearing of tag3 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 o:ruing 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. • Suporvisors Bogge* and • Linscheid f Attention: J. P. McBrien --3- 9/22/73 g. Establish in the Ordinance a permit fee of $50.00 or approximate cost for commercial establishment for cats and/or dogs. 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 A\TMAL So CLTNTC COMMTTTf.M MR-WI ;R.c PPORITED BY THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORSS 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 Animal Protection Institute, Chairman Barbara Poppin (NOTE: Named changed to: SPAS Stop Pets Annual Yield) Contra Costa S.P.C.A. Cecily Bradford Board of Supervisors-County Government James Kenny Operations Committee Edmund Linscheid 1 . • ATTAICENT 112 PROPOSED COOPERATING VETERINARIAN LOTI COST STERILIZATION PROGRAM 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 l� 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 county that all citizens referred to these veterinarians would be charged the agreed upon amount. 4. The surgical fees would be periodically reviewed to see if the agreements should be changed to reflect any need for changing I the rates. 5. Citizens would only be eligible for these lower public service rates after they had deposited the surgical costs with the county. o. The veterinarians would be paid by the county for the cost of t::e operations in the same manner that the county now handles the deposits required .prior to the sale of cats. i 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 Mr. 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. 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. David Horton Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Agricultural Commissioner Supervisors County Administrator affixed this llth day of June , 19 74 J. R. OLSSON, Clerk By d�'c cw ��-E'dcc .�.• Deputy Clerk Doris Baldwin H 24 5/74 -12,500 i /R Y x, t j R 30 May 1974 RECEIVED .'UN � 19-74 Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Martinez, California. I P. a='NJ � BOARD Of SUPERVIS023 BC TAC . _ 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 truce, Citizens Action Group Walnut Creek :; IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS rvn CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Reports ) on Referrals to the Board ) March 12, 1974- Administration and Finance ) Commi.ttee. ) 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 request Administrator for imple- for- three positions to imple- mentation of California ment California Occupational 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 -28-74. 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 Counts 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- Cr Cons;d-r 7 i o..P ti rV additional county money if structure can be utilized by all veteran organizations in west county as an alternative to furthor expenditure on other veterans memorial buildings. 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- 3s 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 allow 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 . bers in line with requirements of the Regional Office of Economic Opportunity. Consider approval of proposed amendments to bylaws at time of reconsti- tution of .AJC. 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 the performance of his duties and processed 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 view discuss with the Board that monies required to place the matter of allocating the issue on the ballot could federal revenue sharing be 'better :pent 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 5, 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. Kenry, 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 data aforesaid. Witness-my hand and the Seal of the Board of Supervisors affixed this 12th day' of March, 1974• J. R. OLSSON, CLERK By�� f a-o-n_ Vera Nelson Deputy Clerk cc : Mr. Michael Mickelberry Bryant & Lough Funeral Directors Stewart 's Rose Manor Puneral 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, "'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 Diractor 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 : 197 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 Contr=a �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 Ms. 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 AdninistratorJAMES R. OLSSON, County Cie 8yAGFi�ck.�� a_06,t,4L , Deputy Clerk Mildred 0. Ballard H 24 5/73-15M i cmSPAY of Contra Costa County ? L P. 0. Bos 5261Walnut Creek, California 94596682-38735February 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 such a elinic, 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? r, c -2- We are enclosing, for your file, a copy of the endorsementof 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, i Nancy Cole, President S.P.A.Y. nc :emr Enc.-1 Nancy Cole 2868 San Benito Drive Walnut Creek, Ca. 94598 . i feb ruary 6 1974 ors. Nancy Cole, ITes ident afAY of Contra Costa County e.C'. box 5261 ':+alnut Creek, California 94596 Lear ,.rs. Coles This is to adv'se xou that at our zeeting of 4f7.._al z.._ , the Governing Board of the Lafayette Ikepu can 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 $50,000.00 of Revenue-sharing funds be allocated toward the establishment of such a spay clinic, to help prevent needless destruction of animal life, regulate the pet population, and reduce tax dollars spent on the present pet over-population problem. 'Very truly yours, LAFAYETTE R.EFUBLICAN tiUXM'S CLUB IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Proposed Revenue ) Sharing Allocations for Animal } February 5, 1974 Spay Clinic and Mt. Diablo State ) Park. 1 ) 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 Supervisor r in3ohaid havin¢ recom-mended thz :.id mas Ler s be referred to the Board Administration and Finance Committee ( 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 19�4 or November 1974; and Supervisor W. N. Boggess having advised that the matter of an animal allay clinic was being considered by the Sp947.3i Animal, Control Review Committee and a subcommittee thereof and that the suggestions of Supervisor Linscheid might conflict with the recom- mandations forthcoming 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 h3 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 agreement with the ballot proposals but he felt that in fairness to all parties concerned the November 1974 rather than tnae Jane 197h ballot arrangement was preferable; and Suoarvisor J. E. Moriarty having stated that in his opinion the matter should be referred to the Administration and . -Finance Committee without excluding the possibility of a vote in June 1974. because both proposals had been given widespread attention over an extended period of time; 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. 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 -5th day- of February, 1974. cc : Administration and Finance Witness my hand and the Seal Committee of the Board of Supervisors affixed Agricultural Commissions this 5th day of February, 1974- County i3ecreation 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'Ld 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. 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. Keith Thompson Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of County Agricultural Supervisors Commissioner affixed this 22nd day of January , 19 J¢, County Administrator JAMES R. O , Co ty Cle LSS By Deputy Clerk Sandra Barrios H 24 7/72-15M MRS. KEITH THOMPSON 262 La Espiral, Orinda, California 94563 14 January 1974 ntj Mr. James E. Moriarty, Li1� District 3 Supervisor, 3338 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, SUP i'l' 1'40itIARTY 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 Spay_Clinic. I do appreciate hearing from you. With kindest regards, Sincerely, 1 CEIVED JAN 2 2 1974 w J. Q, OLSSON aOAM OF SU?EW SM 4 FSR YOUR INFORMATION triol ` • .C'�ot1�10'2�,3 X11" .`�� ,::.,fir, �:�• s in, contra JOSt$ tia:J�It a We he undersigned feel agreat need for the establishm ;r ' npQ N lava cast or free spa4aTing clinics in Oontra .C;osta County ''beca; the ho x-rendous rumbe--s of unwanted and stray animals i.n .our..{' i at only are there ar i mals either, killed: on the roan or­-:take the r cou�nO -�i.nd murc erc-0 but they -also interrupt the natural preda r cycles by ding forced to look towards rodents for 4heir foo Because of Vis ea;;les, hawks, and other an mals 'are dyirig off. from a lack of an alternate' food sourc�other than: their natural Pz eY- DATE v• " �— 1ZS �N2�. Com.: �IDq. ��a1c+t�'r�,/r.G{�; 1' a 151�� 20 a. 1 ,. v Vit, ��,.�,���" L Gt1-1v, ql 1 4 . 7. 1/tsl7 `CGU-t� 3�2:10. tam,& :v 05Z J X51 11 . 6W 16/ Vi 1 13. 1� R�lf l�c Vu, ( �uur c$0 e y 16 . -Vawe%, C-0944 -/74 7. 01 20. • on �!�?� 13k Moe at-�-` ate&- Gtr z ? W-1 • 1 i� � `.` a.1�...-.., "';,.sa`};;,�..:,�,% ±�:�r�,.�� .�.--..�.;jt+;�'� ��! �"C,.3'��3..1.,,„�_'f'' �--.�:..i•�:..J'.��}'C3"�jir' �� t r 33� Oil .4 ,u c. f f. _ 2 • 1 ,ust 973 Depar:;�en� Of _is-ricultuxe Concord, Ca` �.a"orniab. "' Dr. Ld Oil s, Orinda Ld, Yi.nscheid; -Board;ofStipervisora; Dr Gorge. 'Rlerhest _�.he John,fi?r3cLrickaon , County: 1cIm3 histrator.s s Dr. Bill S ta_nsbary., b::.y:Loch Office,", Dr, .ay_�ard Cl�rlt, Layette A -L Seeley, gri cultural.Cor�ss onzr Dr. j ohm Blackard, E? Sobrante _NnDanielson, Asst,. Agric o Cormi:ssioner Crile.,.; �i ractor xn�al'Control BSE.NT Warran Boggess, &sper`Tisor Dre Jack Spencer-,:. Pit.Psburg The eet d s called to order_ by lir. Seeley, ,#-I_'.-40 Seeley �.nt?^o�aCec� i'�ir'a i�nsche ti of,'the,, Boarrft' Of-Supervisors° 11d�naj-- trati<)n card F nance vcmniiVcan. and expressed regrets that 1170 Boggess,- Chs'irm- n of the C^.'ittae; �. s .unable_ tc attsrz`i. z j•inscheid opened the; disLzssion by evplaznzng the: poi= �cal !•"'►�',i��"riing a �+vurx�y p er zc Cued .�'DSy: �i 's_n_3 C• 'S�sari8d . 'illui► r_.... .._ti,• II from i nteresued ci zens and gro-*-os sach.'as: "Central ;. `:dor Cc1�nc1,- Citi Councils: of 1'ihole, Lafaye Gte ; Ftlalxt .Cz'eek . Ul as?ut Hill,, & rt eZ4 :_>Rosssoor 'Board' of` Directors,,.was:.being felt `' rand that in his opirdon the"Baard'i s ready to budget ;50,000:1,for the;: SPIy t;_'-.-ini c p He �urth2r.stated that. he does net.'favor,:goverr?ment 11 nay li,,,emant ann -rU,z.:1� ra'�1ar have a programs ut l=z r_g.restabli.shec Vetes roar eat. Hospitals* The r sasor .that he asked for: this;.meeting was to determine if the_'Veter .nary Association could present an11 - alternate plan to present to the- Board'-that' wou i serve the citizens' r� ���Vi n,. ,}:a?7 County operated 7r _-q-, Dr. clinj�+: Dr. Gills stated that the :lssociationls propose!- to the. .Loard. of ` ,_yee3„�isc��s is essent3a3.3.y` the same' as before'regarding,- tubal= lige,,iohZ*�d vasectomy zs thebest zay- to control tre pet : poptiLation ..: (atvacnmen't >A) Dr. Stansbury asked Iys. Linscheid if he,:�:as. inbsr2stect in. good gov rl nment: or in stopp2' . c'tiru.., pressure, f3 OLs? the �j?ay GY'Oup.. Linscheid again stated ghat heNa-as, strongly age st .ga ar omental ins=olve,,ent bu;. stated the Board,of. Supervisors appeared ready;:to go un i e ss the:Veterinarians 'cooper awe. Mr, Seeley stated that hQ,, had asked the Associai,ion for a fee: sc:�:ecule �v�ri ch hz had no received as yet. He further stated .that;, t in this, Matte_ ZI- I'order to r each z.; co.nrOM se.,, bash sides � ' The only pu.rposeis for Fot. uoznti 3tion. control. `7wL� i�� •z.�,p j . 1,H rautes. continued -2- • C-8-73 Dr Eberhart stated that the association has offered a '015 fee for sterilization and asked why it isn't acceptable. Let oa s from tre U:+i�rersity of California Davis School of Veterinary IIedic=re, indicating ' Ovario-hysterectomy to be -a better procedure be:ause of possible side effects, were discussed because they surmarize the objections. Dr. Gills read a Statement; of the position of tre Contra Costa eLerinarl Medical association (attachment B) regarding a suggested 1,=^gran and s•_ggested fees for procedures. Th= fee Schedule included- normal �?cluded- n o�^m al charge, suggested county charge and ve-Iteri narian chard. This wculd require that the county administer the program, screen the aonl i cants and collect the reduced Nees, then in turn pay the veterinarians. f T-Re cosnty subvention to the eater inarians ;%:ould be appro,_.mately $1009000 the first Year in order to rake up the difference of fees charged the citizen and the county payment to tns veterinarian. Dr.. Gills and Dr. Blackard estimate $10,000 to $20,000 the initial year. tiro Linscheid again emphasized the pressure on the Board to support the Spay Clinic and that time was of the assence as there is a deadline the last day of :august for the 'budget uo be comp]eted. It Lias decided to call an emergency meating of the Animal Spay Clinic Study Committee and present:, the Ve-erinary Assoc zation°s proposal of suggested fees to the Ccmmittee. This m-eetin; is set for Tuosday. august U, 1973 at 1:30 P.M. .Tjeeting adjourned at 3:02 P, •I., Respect fulI submitted, Edith Davison ed cc: Those indicated in attendance or absent County a i ni strator Spay Clinic Committee Members - Attachment B CONTRA COSTA VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PROCEDURE NORMAL CHARGE COUNTY CHARGE VETERIDIARIAII CHARGE Cat Ovario- $35,00 ;20.00 - X30.00 hysterectomy Cat Castration $15.00 $10.00 $15-00 Dog Castration $30.00 $15.00 -$25.00 Dog Ovario—hysterectomy 1 — 20 lbs. $40.00 •-25.00` 535.00 21— 40 lbs. $45.00 30.00 ;40.00 41- 60 lbs. $50.00 �5.0 "45.00 61- 80 lbs. $55.00 $40.00 50.00 $1-100 lbs. :660.00 1'45.00 $55.00 100+ lbs. $75.00 "55.00— $75.00 These are fees suggested by the Association. �A,yt,b}�,;� u-,%.A r..✓ // ss''•Vnr�uVl�'CC' "'°'' - a V ,/,,,e�F � . AY of Contra Costa Count C.J�''`- �``� P. 0. Box 5261 NM a:�� � Walnut Creek, CaZifornia 94596 •�'z`c'. bt sx� re .� .• ate.J t' 'a!.1'r i• ••�.� Aaa'tr• ^:. mills and members of The Contra Costa Ve";erinary.Assi-:ciat-fon, •°t a'', recent ce?_?a'ittee meting of the county's Spa); Clinic ;4.udy Cv= F;ee*• I learnnd of a spaying pro.;r-a-a in Santa Clara, tiiiir.;h 1 an rzssir.? on to yogr assoc-.:tion for consideration. 'Aw director 4r- nal Contrnl in Sant � � i Santa- C±gra is Mr. Id'il. '��utt�.�'so-s whom I obt�inad t►1L fosi:w_n; inforilatio l; " i:'a county Nam r cor.trect Wth a-g-MUP of five (:[.meters (0.1 of utm am" r_ - e r association). s:ese to ao_.. f doctors I{yv1� s':;o�fTir t►�si : i:�r s =:� oat st=r..2ir. o � ttz�i '� � r' a hosg>;eclat ;.wick isiey do ssur-SWZ • Ctc• 11-w-A 110 cF:cck-M's. G:-Ots? C'tc• .Fre donee t :ic% is:ter;n:::=ns awu clinic. The cor race cclfs for an Inlivirlun .tom L....._ V.I Lcasas r cer ificato from he county after Lich lie takes f'1'a " I e z' sp • s Ct1 2;?!?�JirT..-,.T. at t:T +O ,tf3l for $.1.5•.:1y or a.l.L Lt.ri.f.•)• f L the l.:�f.A 4-f `• C s+Y.1 a1/, ±i�� =�JZ-41A y•7.:.KlJ t4jVria�i L.Y the till for the mn0i, There is no subsidy from the caunty, o,1rrj tl:sn t:Te r{ e.Vasze For a p rte-tine cier;= to t1amIlae baca:-iso:k. Tba fee l's sot at _20 vQ w pay ar fazzmie deg or cat .of any size''.. -( Of coursed•`•I;Q z =1 mist. be itT 'goad , bea the ands tim dm for would have the c r� o *„& :t , .7 ��vd �ticn to re a�. ..re .. felt TS..$ not i. i 0p. t1.)• rt rzt.l Ea•a: ar+ rlTS 515, and, Fa.0 cat S17. . .. a _iCC& zzlejeare shot h0t $• Metra is ro scre-:mirm process involved. rryane with a IZc1: pat..wd pa . Y ray Ilse service. Y asked saw Cf'nastiGns, much as . flow was t'ais fi-Urc of SCt cm zr-rived i*.t- f, TIM G''Srits' ):a:I St:::! ed O 51-ay Clinics :s:':'s .^.rrived :.t vilese f2s;i:Si3 .s a7 self— s:ur!)arti::; f cra.. VM doctors then agreed to use this fjoura c.• r.::Ty 6;,4•s do _ they a AV iti pte r.-,,r yeca � �� i 7 vt�t�a This %;a:; ifs£ i rasa e •a ra A a t n �rxing .. Z w t E`_t;7_r2t •e. _y P. 2+9:r �firitr.0+ul) d:_'$ to �fte S 3j2ITa Oa. Ii:rsC a_g:-S 2t ,►s7 ? A. ccunty h:is a:oe_•serced no co=±aints from the veterir•I.:rians reoardig - u4 spaying ._r ,o:s At ;;.l��tt fact, vnay have received cale fron other doctors r tc. •�!:,! in Off erirv; their services. ;.cy seen to prefer t;::s proorr_n to the tY crstir,: .^^ s.)4y-c 1 nic. I ,s, ar your associrtion w.-mId like, F would like to discuss'any plans you .;: �.. C,%i L.Icrirg of an altern.-!tive pre,1' Dispite twaiat.nay:appear as an. anti strnd, o::r or„rtrization is nct that at ^.11 but.rat::cr,dedicated toward a 2ar-e dent in the Qder--.siirs2us problem. we feel:vl!;t r:3st, if not all of • : ,2 ^-,�: �e�:s, arc_ « !;a !; cruelty Zn,! neglect, can Ise traced to ttllc 'over- 1-ri -lance 'Mis we fee', r..:::es tt:cir lives cl:cals. to a cert.:in _:.:::rt of, -.er- le. of ccturse any progrr .a uIttherit be a sE:..y-ciizi...or rooy�=tit'_ c;payi.n:; procrar.: vvuld h::ve to contain a eaucatioit rrQ,:rar aimed,at ;•rim-ir.•: t!.e reS"OrSibility. of pet Ownership to ware people. l=e;.pirat on getting 1.`iis nassa-e over to school children as -we 11 In closi.w-, X hone tl:at Our two ••owns nzy :t:Crk to-, atter, toi-,,ard c`:t`.ting'd01"11 •=r::di:s problan ..nd ^iving =ni!'+$I life'vila:Q. Barbarc' Poerin, President SPAY Ste- pets Aror:.1:l Yield ” Inform tion:obt.roes froMz' ?l S i 7' . .,C •3.is^.tda t:r::;:o:•s, ::if. c}1,510 '•r.-t:cil;✓olutet,. Director of °.Wi.-rwl-.Control 403- 24?--1636- Orhrow-h Health . i�Jam. :.. .. .. .. .. ..- .. O;inda CRIclina:y Cinic 23•M ORINDA WAY ORINDA. CALIF. 94563 PN:254-0211 _ December 15, 1972 i 3arbz:i•a Poppin _ The rlamEda _ C_.lifornia 94519 Dt,ar I•ira.. Doppin, The 'Uontra Costa County Veterinary I•iedical Association has been at:are of the various developments involving "spay" 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 program aimed at. the responsibility of pet owners" is needed. Sincerely, .E. W.W. Gills, D.V.M. President, Contra Costa County Veterinary Medical Association y:.�:ln 3 att�i>ra:{urrrurc; Thur..., Seplz. _:, syt�Glw. -u✓t/.vstL.s ► t: �: fTIC1 dfi ) } n I? ) ' S Tow Cost' SpayClinic U . re.e. ;�cr I 4k t ' Snm,; tiara Cruntl''s ''!uw '*Bid by op^ra:=.roc• on `_,^2T tn2ltl11'i�`,1�t1-f��Der.:ie+� Clinics-- nomense vould stop:' he cosi" siv-V clinic isn't So IML' - '1'ee bass' 1 ee•n abCCr- le 2A' slzo said lAs An;e.csf said. cost anymore after cotmtt`W-3kkeen IO.E?O animals from'an,l 1'-!o Alio c�targe onl:•', Mrs.Adams'retorted `'thi. st:pervisitrs approved a rate being pa; to steep.- said Stt-.Sl7,?r9 for spaying dogs ani is a typical tactic of weter:-. ircre:.sell. ;pe:viso:Dan tiicCorquadale. .1ca;.;ended Crasher Ilospital°aarlan associations ail n.e; ld n e c e r, the board de-`. Dr. .lacobser. warned su-'•'Manes a big profit un cats-jthe state." She alleged such.' stared of;v rates cannot be pervisors it would Cost VRV.-:nffsettina anY loss on dogs." iassociations '•intimidate increa^ed again daring thy„OW for a plus ve:erinariant 5:rp2n tsar Sia S a n c h e z!their own members oho oar-. next 1_ t:loutils, and nrdered'certer, p.us another SWUM. 02 Jacobsen the board wwrasIticlpate in low-cost clinics. ; a study (if why i•,•rtt►+itt*� 'to $?Qty. per year for staff-!..0 awtare" of wchat might S perrtsors app;'pved the: county take ovp At inr. �ba inrllwed if thesowtnty de-rneww rate after Dr. Charles! prpu a town caniroI wrt� w'it��=- ' Mrs. Rt1t:w Adams of Ios� i ;it [Lumussen, ra-owvner of the. :Clues to o p e r a t e its 0� / Altos Hills. representing Ilu-+- p Crocker atlimat hospital,said. The rawtnir canfract with =' ,spar-neuter clinic.H_ said a. . p mane Legislative Advocates.. ----- s his facility could not eoatinue; the Cracker Memorial :Ani- !cited review Barin_ term nf,...tbei niai 110 s p i t a 1. in effect new much lower cats for' ewt- rantract writh Crockerta serve pet owners,at.the since .Inti. 1!1;•. yolk for i" w e'— i- lowFer price. wrwrsld inc,tic a study costs, • H a w e v e r, the new rate' neu' sparse.;; rates of $ : Dr. Jacobsen again dies not affect the rates of, for dims wweighing up to 50 : claimed spat clinics had tri for spaying female cats.' ponndt. S"�tt for dots from ' no effect an animal papula- Stn £or neutering male dais' 51 to 10;t pounds. and S'.a tion control, "If tau d en. and Sin for neutering male' for dn."-. %%Ci%hin_ more force leash laws. all this cats. ihnu 109 pounds. The for- mer rate twat a fiat s,0 for all female docs. Chairman Ralw+h 1lclwrkens suggecied thp cwunty consid- er"lz::•in.our nor,rein . . ." Dr. Carl JMhsen. repre- sentinz fit-- veierinarianc as- sociation of the county. con- tended —spay clinics are not a solution.not even a help ai animal population control.- fie ontrol"fie said that last year &k. OW animals were put to sleep in the county.By contrast.lie said, the animal hospital spa�•ed and neutured only 3��3 anirn3ls. x r • I MARINU\TTY H1 _.N,11 _-NTE 9©C1ETY INCORPORATED 10 HUZI.ANE EDUCATION CENTER 171 BEL MARIN KEYS BOULEVARD NOVATO, CaLIFORNIA - 94947 TELEPHONE: (415) 883-4621 OFFICERS JORDAN L. MARTINELU• 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 80ERO. D,D.s. Spay Clinic Study Committee ROBERT M.BRAHMAN,D.V.M. P.O. BOX 5261 WILHELM F. BRAUNSCHWEIG, D.V.M. MRS. WILLIAM J. CARTER Walnut Creek, California 94596 LAURENCE DERVIN LEIF W. EVENSE14 BEN FARLATTI DAVID FR!ITAS O.L. "JACK" GREENS JAMES GROSSI Dear Mrs. Popp in: HORACE HILL III MRS. RICHARD KEATING MRS. ARNE (EVELYN) KIONIG This is in response to your letter of October 27, 1973, MRS. CA MRIZNI 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 1.M. BORDA questions as presented and in the order presented: MILS. STEWART BOSTWICK FREDERIC D. KERR MRS. H,E. LE BAS 1. Has your spay clinic been accepted by the public? CHARLES T. LUNO .MRS. EVELYN 6. LEVY Are you always booked? WILLIA E. M.TOMPKINS ANSWER: Yes our spay clinic has received tremendous WILLIAM E. WASTE a P y public support and approval, and we are always booked. HONORARY SECRETARY Currently, appointments are booked u until Januar of IN MEMORIAM PP P y MISS E.H. YOMPKINS 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 financia111y within six months after opening, ane: 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 from Alameda County, the! Costa County, Sonoma County and San Francisco to have Gifts and bequests to c'SzoelcTt'p a e acutir ' or icon c and cstate tar purpose. Membership Dues: Annual $10; Patron $20; Business Sponger $25;Life$100;Perpetual$250. October 30, 1973 Mrs. Barbara Poppin Page two We do not require that pet owners be residents of Marin 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 nearsighted veterinarian will lose in the end, and the humane minded, community 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 pileasure to meet dedicated. people such " as yourself. Sincerely yours, ✓Cis'' r:. John N. Gill P.S. Please excuse the typing. No secretary today... of flal0 P 110 CALI FOR IJIA 94301 Animal Services Division . 14 November 1973 Ms. Barbara Poppin, 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, L I J. B Superintendent WJB:]saC . - peninsula humane society 1225 coyote November 21, 1973 Y point drive son mateo California _ 94401 (415) 344-7643 - directors Ms. Barbara Poppin cart williom anderson Spay of Contra Costa County Louis r. goldsmith P O BOX 5261 rolph harris, jr. Walnut Creek, California 94596 mrs. j:a.hopper bob 1,hopper dovid h. keyston Dear Ms. Poppin. william h. knowles arthur a. loibly Please reference your letter of November 1 robert d. lorobie miss notolie m. lipmen to Mr. John Regan, Director of the Peninsula 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 turner 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. j a non-profit organization•member of the state humane association of California and oaiericon humane association - 2 - Please 2Please 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 - znc.iosure 6 t 2Tove•icer 13, -1973 Honorable Board of Supervisors 2I. D. Tars'' es, County :wager Spay-Neuter Clinic Status R--port and Review of Ani-aal Control Program This report is izz respcnse to your recent request o:t. this subject- 7^e spay-neuter c�3nic opensed lass Ja:sary and has r�een Ixn operatl�:zt for 10 ,=t2,.s. A 12-t-m-nth budget of $9+,c90 vas appropriated to a��id0 an es•7�t-ed 3,220 spay and neuter overat-ors duri:V- ca andar y-�4r '573. Cost arxd tirorklcamd st.••-s�aries are presented below: 3.2 .113cnCh 1973 Actual Bncs and Est-LYtrd DTA erertca xre.ndit-,nes $9.-,,j,990 $1102240 $(152,25(3) Ratwvnue $94,990 $1071273 $ 12,283 • 2bt over-e.—menditu-re $ (2,962) Spays 2,670 3,591 921 'r fluters 550 I,134 5E4 Total Op eras ons 3,220 4,725 12505 the estis ated over-ex✓end;ture of $1.5,250 End est3rated excess revenue of $?2,2So is mainly due to a higher volume of spay-neater ope-ratirczs. A' sr,,aU par-, of Vire mm—r expenditsre is due to oversrDnrr.s far supplies, a situation, that has been brocght t.zder control. Iic?uded 3n the estimated revenue figure of $107,278 is the ane-ti..-- county payment of $40,000 which coveised initial starb4 p costs. the R=azie Society and this office expects the clinic to be comlet-aly sell-suruorti_s•.c by the end of 1973, and no additional counfij cd—s will .. needed. Rag,::-ding your questions about the effectiveness of the azni--.al ecntro'! prograzz, a special staff-level task force mith representatives frog My or"f-+ce, ii:ree cit-yes, and the Peninsula Eu^•ane Satiety has been established . to review ti'e progra-m on a count',- ride basis. The tael: force has set Honorable Board of Supervisors -2- Z�o*rer zber 13, iwa- tcto objectives: l) evaluate the existing azt�.*nal control enforcement policies and practices; and, 2) develop recof=endations to 4tprove the effectiveness of ani^al control in the county. The recor.-�nc attions twill first be reviewed by the San 2;atao County City Yznagers= A;soci.ation. ne results will then be presented to your Board. I expect a report. to be available in two to four months. Respectfully submitted, • M. D. TARSFrS ' ba:1h attachment cc: %/J/oha P49=, MA-ecutive Director,:.Peninsula.Hw-ene Susi' ty _. _ `z v i „ a a c u U ha us 1 }Io 0 •• a w.+ p N C�i - n fu�,rr G. � 0 � � •P� � J��tcy� �vs?eta o'er a K'�a nil ¢"% o �s a `r Gno % � C. pvtfro Lw .0 O w x Rx 1 y L L" d 'o0 � r Ocr SCO C F th `1 0 d` d� YlC My'ynO >LwK t3C {yOx' Q,v• t u ¢ 0.9 vs a�s a {y u� '�3-$ ci 1 av =u cs. n -' h 40�i6v 0 sr,.=.O4 ^p.CO Hw {".. aia j2'1 T� �'z ��ti o u n wC4-js 9 •.= n u aw w a fC O .�"".j z� V�^."CS N� �il/ ♦ C O_= O w CC-d O-0 U V pT. . } �s ..3 O T O 6L:�.. C V C— v t U C> Z ' •e. uc^ v ►n � v ave Q'uimMni=QayrF0F `'' C C w'O.0 wi v .v fj w to r ar' ago .m ca t u a v m o a�3' 7+ v 'w .� •i0U Y. L O C ?}i l N C: V E { �Rf! •- C = O K 1.. ¢ J.`.�w n n.`.+ yr,V� •7 C fJ 'a ESC.++'% O= 4j—= U p O sh q K .G3'.S" v CG w«� F 2 U C O O, - O ' F. + ,. I 'n CTr 'l�.. F td 'VtRA (:i�ST'' Gt�Irvr� Si?T'P- r:*' CC.�CF.PT OFA .� COl1ITY OPERAIT►i,T) 10: C0 PAY CI_INTr. s.S i1RIE OUR Ct1'.1N OARD OF SliPE1:VISORS TO ALLOCATH 350,Onn OF RIVER"1': S1[+?ITN^ N'O.'4T!-q Tit 1111TI.D Mn 11,7t1IP SitCI1 A r TNTC.. N;l�tt's ;►T}'��2t;SS DATR Iizpa AM � r r Ile NJ VV cal f . p ^w.- CL"':.Z,,.s� �. 1... 46-e�^•'�--� �/ ! �f� � / / 7 c ' /07— ftc'-1'� ca ir •� �JlJG� /!1 o 1'47 T3 �. URM r� 7711•. I NDGRSIGNM) CTTT/t:NS (IF CONTRA COST'. COUNTY S!tPPt)RT T'Ni CO.\'CF.PT OF A Ct1UNTY OPERAT"D IOi COST SPAY CLINTC. ',tM URIE OUR COUNTY BOARD OF SITHI:VISORS TO ALLOCAT1: S50,0011 (IF R'1VILNUT'? CI1:IRTNT. MONT(:S TO RUTLD ANn ti�11IP . Cil A rLTNTC. N l�iti 77 r I- ' {A—D'4�R►:SS i pDATE? / F.t«.trlb�� ':►^t 1 o ` 3 ZX G (A- -- I/ b M AAA •h .'llCl oQ 0tA C L JD 6CL,u r Ltd u C. a -I--yaL23 ( 1. /�A?� � ! C \ �'i'li� '/j 1'/�'J-��� ��l �►GJ�e�.L'>I_ ��. Lf,C_��(i/)'�'� �/'��Iit_. �L/�/1� /��� S../'-, '}C..` I a'�~� o Tr'.- i �,��j,j.✓.�~ tom- �f tc };fix E t:i� a:t I�t 0 L rctimma d7:-c enJ '145 -I way Ir)-73 ///2 6-1-7--? a RECEIVED �� . DEC 5 1913 THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY R OtSSptV 1801 PErr,vsnvarrw AVE N.W. Cmc BOAWD OF SUPERV�AS WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 C A CO. , . Rel U 4^'E►r THE UNDERS_TQJED RSSIDE*OF CONTRA CQST:I COUNTY, ?& CONCEPT OF A CQU?+?'ZYk � OPERATED, LOX 'CUSig, SPAY CLINIC. :+E URGE OUR COUNTY HOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO ALLOCAT'? $50,000 OF RhWINUE SHARING MONIES TO Da sa�lE3-NtN�- r✓d RTtj c�N�L.E' HAMS ADDRESS DATE QLD U lcL.0 R�ctt R�� R • . ALI�Ql I ax i v m714 W. T- PAASCH L LEI-K OOARO OF SUPERVISORS TRA COSTA CO. Cr SIGNATURES COLLECTED BY: t � M22R.SH ABBOT „ . tiEA I ti+ (7C �0 DANYIILEr GAL. Q,a¢,yxw.;,... 94526 N ~� Nj � t s r Y.' fi t•J( moi+' y �t('.' . f` r 0 r m3 TUB UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SUPPORT THE CONCEPT OF A COUNTY- OpE^Axr,D, LOW COST SPAY CLINIC. WE URGE OUR COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO ALLOCATE $50,000 OF RE'JFj-IUE SHi?RING FUNDS TO BUILD AND EQUIP SUCH A CLINIC. NAME ADDRESS DATE 2, LY& 7?-,o t' 41 p o . �.� � 44 3 y7 &tj� C - -1.V244 t l'J IL�-C—y Ct f pVL SSV) P Iq - 11J4/-73 r' Ac lev 1 ICsA,!r:tiR UJr vOZ L _W'TH U By, ca •f�s, �Y!/'j tj^� / `-.. ,?(73 i r i C� t� v l. .. - `A '�. ::t3, T.It; 11Nf)!i!:1It:N�iD CTTTZ" (11: CONTRA COST-'. COUNTY SUPP011 !C CONCEPT OF A COUNTY OPER.ATHD ?0111 COST �Y CLIXT;, .fE t1R^.E Ot1R Cc ..N9Y RD OF S[tPEI:VISORS TO ALL.)CATH S50,Onn (IF RIVFN"M ct1:4RINK: MONIES T(I RUII.D ANn ti.111IP ITrii A rLTNTC. 07 DATti . iso u 2 Zg)2 3 /73 �, ► �' •���,(� 3 �a } �; , �lam.� LX f 1�7 ��1 t rJ/1 . zsw.c "X 411-14V 44�is- D,V, /I Dt 2 1 2a 4 CP 2ZR/7.3 ke_ i /4 ./1 f.��3.Q•l.r t �1'.�!' •C�� J�...[rL- /La�C//- Q�?[.� ^ �/ ///l- L?� /C l ��>'�,� � •' .-�� i-��.� r' �3 sic � f` lc-`�-;7-��..o �a�.�.� �' �� 9�- �•3 J//_•�� l J /� Ai:�ti r/'�Ii�Nn �q� .f'Li:t. '• ,Cc- .�'�� � �� / '�- C.J v i CTTT1.�' 'c (IF CONTRA Ci1ST?. COUNTY SUPP011 ' 15 CONCFPT OF A COUtiTY OPERATIM ! o." COST GY CLIN. M. °fE IIR^.E OUR CMN'IY RD OF SUPERVISORS TO 4LL ICATh 350,0nn CSF R`:VENUM gra.+ltMf^ P!OVlr.q TO RUTLD ANn I-;?IIIF S11Cf1 A CL TC. NAME ADFIRESS RATfi � ' 73 � `SG ,A) �2— J '� rY1•v. p e 2 r. r -1�irrn. '✓�_1�+C� ` � :t�stLri` _ !''f- :li/ii, i �y� f�L S� x,23 cT'i'T. ' 'S OF CONTRA COST? COUNTY SI!PP0! T'!G CONCEPT OF A OPERATIM 10« COST RWY CI.TNTr. '+E tiR^.G OUR COUNTY WRA OF SUPERVISORS TO n r.- r- Nn 1;;.1 iTi:F1 A LI.'TC • ALL)CATH S50,0nn (IF R'EVE!�•T:: CFI: RTN . 1�•OYT,:4 Tc RITTI.1) tl. S r N NAME AD"1111-SI; -72 ., for AV lit A. 6. /� sem' -/� i' i f /i.+ � •!r '�Pte..- � [fir. �.! � -� + v nLl Ls. .�I �2_3'-Z_`+_ ✓t /% � �/! {�r/�iiiJ y- ��� 17 7 4 �� WE,..THB UNDBRSIGNBB"CITIOF COINTRA COSTA COUNTY SUPP04161B CONCHPT OF A COUNTY- v OPERATBD, LOW COST SPAY I*IC, WE URGE OUR COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO ALLOCATE / IM9000 OF REVENUE SHARM MONIES TO BUILD AND BPIF SUCH A CLOW. Tom J. Veaator e C o- -� I 579 Morning Home Rd. c� Danville, Callt 94526 ADDABSS I ___ C�c�.w--• nuQs 2,V9 4w - 4/ YA.3 C3 -q v.v d l 31 c Cp 3o a-S cc,,UcA '\u u,"K _ck o GG J i �P/9--,73 SI SATURBS COLLBCTED BY: G� WBt THE UNDERSIGNED`CTTIZE'NS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SUPPORT NIS CONCEPT OF A COUNTY— OPERATED, LOW COST SPAY CLINIC, WE URGE OUR COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO ALLOCATE $50,000 OF REVENUE SHMNG MONIES TO BUILD AND EQUIP SUCH A CLINIC. ADDRESS DQE X01' WVL6-127� C7- et 73 76 J 41 l < L..c.cx. .��� � /'� t � ..�-�� � '� Lam;-�c•�c~.r4� -. G '.� CFl SIGNATURES COLLECTED BY: �C C.-071.[.x . ��W'^� ._. _. ,✓ T. PA A 5C 'i } (_.ice•-� . �...,� :�_..J �,� ;� ED G �t trs,31 t'd. T. PAASCH C-!7 suaeawscra ..J G''r:A COSTA CO. c/o M. Gills _� 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 I 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. . . . . &1 t.2irrryv_ 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 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.C. Box 911 Martinez, Ca. Sirs: I strongly urge you to allocate $50,000 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 outer must spend from twenty five to fifty dollars for the alteration of a pet; which in many cases would be prohibitive, due to this expense 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 forgotten. Sincerely Vr. & Yrs. Paul F. Payne r z�f• —� eL : fi� *a<� . �.1. T. PAAS-3i eUPFRVIS0113 CCD; C0--7A CO. f _ r s� 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 t w Iii THE 30ARD OF SUPERVISORS OF a CONTRA COSTA COUNITY, STATE Or CALIFORNIA In the Matter of Denying Allocation ) of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds ) far Construction of Animal Spay ) Thursday, August 30, 1973 Clinic. ) This being the time fixed for continued hearing on the proposed County Budget for fiscal 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 of Contra Costa County, having appeared and urged that $50,000 of revenue sharing monies be allocated for construction of a county Animal Spay Clinic ; and r'rs. Miriam Wilkins , representing the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of Contra Costa County, and Pers. 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 $50,000 in federal revenue sharing funds be allocated for construction of an Animal Spay Clinic, and having recommended that said allocation be denied at this time and the question be put on the ballot for determination by the voters of this county; and Supervisor Boggess having stated that there is a need for a 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 that the allocation be approved; and Supervisor A. M. Dias haying stated that in his opinion the Board of Supervisors should consider, as an alternative, placing this proposal on the ballot and having recorlmended 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 Supervisor J. P. Kenny, seconded by Supervisor Linscheid, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendation of Supervi^cr Dias is APPROVED. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, E. A. Linscheid, A. N. Dias. NOES: Supervisor W. H. Boggess. ABSENT: Supervisor J. E. Moriarty. CFtVEn?MD. COPY I certify that this is a full. true do correct Wpy of cc : Ms. Poppins the o rtz^'iaat doc:mtent v:::ic:: is on file in my office. Agricultural Commissioner and that it was pass.,'. n rt..apted by the Board of Auditor-Controller s�Y tn:;o:� Ccat:-< <. .:: Ca::^.t}•. C:.:titurnia. on the date Ai iT 3 i: ::. T. P:.::SCI3, county County Registrar clerk' -SEE: io cic et cf=ii Pard of Supe.—VUO . County Adl:inistrator by de Lty c:e:lf. --✓. . : . G�`�"K 0 1RECEIVED AUG 231973 11 W. T. PAASCH CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONT A COSTA CO. QY D,,.tY Aw lmvpjt� W �Z to, J-2�� iv 5P7 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT 11500 SKYLINE BOULEVARD/OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94619/TELEPHONE (415) 531-9300 �. BOARD'OF DIRECTORS: MARUJN W. HALEY. Resident. HOWARD L. COGSWELL. Vice Raldent. FRED C. BLUMBERG. Sect"y PAUL J. BADGER.Tteasuet'. MARY LEE JEFFERDS. JOHN J. LEAVITT. CLYDE R. WOOLRIDGE 0 RICHARD C.TRUDEAU.Geneal Manage August 22, 1973 FT_ ,�C EIVED AI 2- 1373 W. T. PAASCH D O CONT,CONT, COS COST. .c:y ......- DeputyMrs. 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 Supervisors Ce �o—k-�• JI EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT RESOLUTION No. 4281 April 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 bonds 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 resolution 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. Luhtala, 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. t r ,re L . f , RECEIVED � 4 19 suN 2��ts7a W. T. PAASCH CLIti [fQARQ OR 8 PICRYIWM CON RA CODA G0. `*-_ ar ..L Wwb► re Dean SZt4: GlouCd you gen tLmm ve tg canef wGl g cona.i deh a 4pay. ctbti,c u*,i A would be .Low-ca4t. 9.t -w .the husane #lung .to do and 4oaeth ng aua,t be done to cwt dam .the an AaL (unwanted) p.o pula ti oa. Thank uou. S.irrce -J-*, c. e"44 /SSS 9AG-. /!�, At/ da, RECEIVED � ,4s 1f73 WT. P n .ASC H CLERK OARPIF�- Cput VRS CO By _ y In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California June 12 79 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; and Said cozmnittee having submitted a report to the Board dated June 6, 1973 in which it is noted that Supervisor Boggess has replied to Mr. Mays 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 andthat 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. 1 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: 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 si.e Plg7o H 24 7/72-15M WARREN N. BOGGESS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SUPERVISOR FOURTH DISTRICT `jt 2700 CONCORD AVENUE. CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 94S20 • 687-6900 CEIVED ME 6, 1973 . T. PAASCH CLER10. D OF SUP VISORS REPORT By OF � COT Deputy ' 1973 AEMINISTRATION & FINANCE COMMITTEE ON LETTER AND RELATED MATERIAL FROM ROSSMOR B-9 CLUB REQUESTING ALLOCATION FOR A SPAY CLINIC. The letter received from H. S. Mayst Vice--President of the Rossmoor 8-9 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. L3ascheids Supervisor District Four District Five WARREN N.BOGGESS . CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SUPERVISOR FOURTH DISTRICT j 2700 CONCORD AVENUE. CONCORD..CALIFORNIA 94520 • 687-6900 �A June b, 1973 H. S. Mays, Vice-President Rossmoor K-9 Club 209 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 nov 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. i Very truly yours, Warren N. Boggess, Supervisor Fourth District, Contra Costa County Chairman, Administration and Finance Committee WO:dcg I CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Inter-Office Memo Dater May.29, 1973 To: Administration and Finance CcM4ttee (Supervisors W. N. Boggess and R. A. Linscheid)- From: Chief Clerk or :the Board Subject: The Board today referred to.you letter and related material from Roesmoor X-9 Club requesting allocation for a spay clinic. lk attachments 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 on 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 this2qth-.day of Ma,g , 19 ZX Administrator W. T. PAASCH, Clerk By A&UI-Z& Deputy Clerk Lourette Kincaid H 24 7/72-15M 4 ROSSMOOR K-9W H. S. May , s Vice President / Rossmooir Residents Association 2409 Pine Knoll #2 Walnut Creek, California 94595 May 14, 1973 RECEI VED To Every Supervisor MAY 1 ?1973 Court House �,1 1 W. T. P A A S C H Martinez, California 95443 r�tERK BOARD of SUPERVISOR$ t Co TRA'COSTA Co. Gentlemen: r°y "' -� °tl�' Me unanimously voted to ask that Fifty Thousand Dollars (150,000) be allotted for a spay clinic to protect our animals as much as we possibly can. Your help in this important work will be appreciated PJ Sincerely ROSSMOOR K-9 CLUB l't/; H. S. Mays J VICE PRESIDENT ADVANCE CC Dedicated -to serving Rossmoor Residents SOCIETY FOR ANIMAL PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION P. O. Box 3719 Georgetown Station j�EC.L.:W.L �D Wasl,inq+on, D. C. 20007 1tj� j�j Y 11,jJ MAY 1 ion W. T. PAASCH CLERK ©OARD OF AUPERVISORS �M COr�► A COSTA CO. OY Depu 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 aoring. of Tennessee .Walking Horses for show purposes. This bill was passed by the United States Senate December 18, 1969, by the House of Representatives on November 16, 1970, 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, 1972, 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) In 1972 the Society worked for two laws, one Resolution and two amendments, as follows: 1) The Marine Manurial Protection Act, (enacted by Congress, signed by the President October 21, 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 from 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 1128-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. SOCIETY FOR ANIMAL PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION P. O. Box 3719 RXIECEY ED Georgetown Station Washington, D. C. 20007 MAY 1 "11973 April 18 a 1973 W. T. P`A A S C.H CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISOM CON RA COST CO. ©y D�ufy To Humanitarians: Thankou for writing in support of the Executive Order banning, cruel poisoning 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 _REPR FX,_ATIVES-AND-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 Congressmsn' 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 Us—all 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 cut down enormously on_the-gain and- fear, felt by, trapped_carnivores Humanitarians-- should demand that traps used for predator damage control be equipped nth:2 ed, offset jaws so the animal is not tortured by' the painful grip of tie u—nmodTHW-steel jaws, and 2) with trap uilizer tabs so that when he bites at the trap to try to free him sa , he sw=s 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 lax which was responsible for the development of the multimillion dollar mass government poisoning on our public lands which the Executive Order out off last year. Repeal of the 1931 Act is essential. The sheepm4en 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 t 4. t l _ J 9 <}tin .�� , � �' '� � � ,,� •�s � •"'� �a - Kms, •� 11 d r QITIZENS FEEL ABOUT 'RARUMn PLEASE WRITE TODAY TO YOUR OWN CON- GRESSMAN (If you do not know your Congressman'& nam, a wall 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 OLLOWING COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Conservation and the Environment of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Com=4ttee Democrats Republicans 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. Laett (Ca. ) Hoa. William S. Mailliard (Ca. ) Hon. Mario Biaggi (N.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. Byros (Me. ) Hon. William O. Mills (Md. ) Hon_ Rai phH_ Metcalfe -- 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. Basten (Miss. ) -,ALL CONGRESSMEN MAY BE ADDRESSED: HOUSE OFFICE BIIILDING, WASHINGTON, D:C: 20615) Subcommittee on the Environment of the Senate Commerce Committee Democrats Relic_ans •)Sen. Marlow W. Cook (Ky Sen, Philip A. Hart, Chairman (Mich.) Sen. Frank E. Moss (Utah) Sen. Howard H. Baker, Jr. (Tenn. ) Sen. John 0. Pastore (R.I.) Sen. Jams B. Pearson (Bans.) Sen. Russell B. Long (La.) Sen. John V. Tunny (Ga. ) Sen.. Adlai E. Stevenson, III (Ill. ) ALL SENATORS MAY BE ADDRESSED: SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510) `� Sena`tor °Alla '"Stevensoo;' III chaired"ths Senate hearings; 'as�ng.-_ 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 (Ds Ind. ), but be sure; to include requests for the additional provisions on trapping as noted above. Senator Bayh is preparing a separa a 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. Ii' 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 S2ecies. Great progress has been made, since, we last wrote you, for animas-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 (note be permitted in coemercle trading after- the y 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 requiredthatanimals 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 session, we hope to strengthen these laws, giving the Department of the Interior power to enforce them more lolly. 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 "xorldwiden 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 commercially exploited whales were placed on the Endangered Species List by then Secretary of the Interior Walter Hickel. When you write to Congressman Dingell, Congressman Goodling and other members of the Subcommittee given earlier in this letter, please urge them to report favorably on a strong Endangered Species Bill and keep authority for listing the endangeredspecies with the Secretary of the In__or where _ belonga. 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 willbe most deeply grateful. " Our bank account is too lox 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 law! N {ORS {fir yS !f �R o r MEMO U 5/22/73 Ane rA 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 IRFCEIVPD MAY 2 51973 �'�' W. T. PAASCH CLERK UOARD OF St1PERylSOR$ CONT COSTA CO. OYDeputy RECEI OFFICK OF TME 01KI=I It MAY 2 51973 W. T. PAASCH- CLERK QOARO.OF SUPERVISORS ONTRA COSTA CO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA cr pparftwut Of 11wir WI* f Ytttt butKELCY WAY eatKEtXY.CALIFORNIA 94704 May 22, 1973 ••}vim' Mr. George H. Ca Binet, Jr. . P.C. Boa 3417 .'. Concord, California ' 94524 ° Dear Mr. Cardinet: Govern R asked me to reply to 7our letter conSpsuizg the so-called "Pet Population Explosion!' and the need for research on a chemical means of birth control for dogs and cats. k > a' I have reviewed Dr. Floyd C. Faulknerts paper "What Are We Doing About Pet Po ?" _ palati—emblem. . enclosed with your letter. Dr. Faulkner 13 views ou.. the vroblea, the`liaitations-o sur -.ne a as a means of resolving _ r the pet:reproduction on a mans program basis, and the desirability of ani.. : - 3�a�ectable product.to limit conception,. coincide closely with o inion held by the reterinar� staff of this Department, a also feel that no one sim- plistic method or.7 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. Faulknerts commit that we must "...educate and develop a concerned and responsible society and....improve aniayml. control ,j programa" are facets which cannot be ignored.., .. cam' ...- .. _4zi• .F' Veteri=WY staffof this' Depart zant is convinced that a suitable product of r :the type being.developed by Dr.' Faulkner can play a key role in pet ani. mal popu3Atioa control.y-Suitable-injectable;product{s} capable of preventing conception for a one to two or more year period in dogs, for example, could be applied in'con junction with'public.low coat rabies vaccination clinics as a requisite to licensing and in,cavbinatioa with incentive license fees for Animal-4k receiving such antifertility products. Veterinary staff "of this Department is aware and have been keenly f`012 Ing the progress of research workbeingdone by Dr. Faulkner in the above area. • Irregardless of how op�timistfc the ultimate'outcome of Dr. Faulkner t s and other research in the area appear, the comerc3al, availability of such prod- nets is not eminent and can be expected to be several years allay at best. It will be necessary to carry out field trial use, for example, in several generations of an3m83,s before federal licensing can be expected. , < Mr. George H. Cardinet, Jr. - 2 - , 2 - May 221973 Veterinary staff of this Department have previously.affered 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 AcbrWistration for field trial use in a suitable area of the State. . We feel-that suitable field trial application in a local area or area 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 purocees of applying- computer technolo® 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 snoompassed inclusion.of such a field trial stvW under the existing - _• machinery'.of�the Alameda-Contra Costa Animal. NeopU=.Registry (formerly within-this Department) is presently being'opeaated by the School oP -a Veterinary_NiicU dna 'University of California, Davis. The latter Jtype:*' rtieipaticin on the part of-State a@mcies can be more easily facilitated than.caa, direct subsidization of actual. research 'where necessary:contracts 'binding -upon both the State and the researcher must be effected 1 , " � At. w7.titre that-,Dr. Fanllmir is ready to~ertter into field trial.. studies 3a' � California:,ming an<Y_oi';the'products hods-working upon, staff of this Depart x `{ coo,peratocdment stand facilitatetheir .= Implementation to the st of our abilit _ incerely, k: B. Hodges, M.D. `Director at.Public Health : mac*` -.•,y - c- - - - �.. ( �� �_ •� .-r r:�.,ti>-�'yL�ct. -.. f*.,`r%.t -rig ,,.... _ •- ' J . R Ir` In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California May 8 -, 19L3 - 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. hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Superfisors 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 May , I9 Commissioner W. T. PAASCH, Clerk Countv Counsel County Administrator -Deputy Clerk Na._cv I graham H 24 7/72-15NI rod 10 Aoiel JNOO -PAWS" BOX 275 - PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA April 309 1973 � ^f-C] IV El El Honorable members of the Board: rr" :� f`�73 W. T. PAASCI-i Re: AssemblySill No. 1056 ' --_.K COARD OF SUPFRVESORS /�CO`ITRA COSTA CO. Loy _0L_ Deputy California is faced with a cat and docs overpopulatio — tions. Last year over one million unwanted cats and dogs, kittens and puppies were destroyed in the pounds and shelters. fi3illions more were abandoned and died of starvation, etc. All because they were the unwanted excess. It cost the taxpayers of California a minimum of 550,000,000 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 government 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 an-3c administered — in Los Angeles, Palo Alto and Santa Clara County. All three are highly successful and are self—supportinct, 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 aver 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, AS 1056 to grant funds to establish spay/neuter clinics all over the state. ,any cities and counties just do not have the necessary funds available to start the clinics without state aid. _�to we respectfully ask that your County endorse this much needed bill and reby help it to be passe an ecome law. It is the only answer possible puta swop�a£he huge overpopu a ion 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 copyto your own county Assemblyman and Senator, State Capito2,__SaGr mextto_} Thank you very much and if we can give you any more information please let us know. Sincerely, dexz� (Mrs) , Bettie Adams, Legislative Chairman 12375 Melody Lane, Los Altos Hills, Ca. 94022 HUMANE r IV. T. P.P AASCf-f. � LEGISLATION ._ZRK r7ARQ OF SU?F_RVISOR3 CONTRA COSTA CO. OCATESP.O. BOX 417, LOS ALTO �� ADV 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 which 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's 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 $50,000,004 annually. There are many reasons for this growing 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 reeks 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 s San 14ateo County, has introduced AB 1056 which will appropriate . 3.000 004 from the State Treasury to counties, on a one-time basis, for the establishment of municipal low-cost public span/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 pat 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, 19 7 . Your letter of endorsement may be sent to Assemblyman Dixon Arnett State Capitol, Sacramento California 95614 with cgpies to Your State Senator and Assemblyman. We hope you will also request your county's Sacramento Advocate to actively support and lobby for AB 1Q in the State Capitol. Enclosed is a timely article on low-cost spay/neuter clinics published by Modern Veterinary Practice, March 1973. Sincerely, Bette J. FWipps Enclosure Legislative Analyst NORTHERN CALIFORNIA BRANCH In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California February 20 ]g 73 In the Matter of Letter from Senator John A. Nejedly related to Animal Population Control Measures. This Board on February 24, 1973 having received a letter from Senator John A. Nejedly expressing concern about animal population aout�ixol 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,ion':>;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 Byf—L _ Deputy Clerk Elsie Ll igott H24 7/72-15M F PLEASE RESPOND TO: COMMITTEES DISTRICT OFFICE NATURAL RESOURCfS AND 1380 CIVIC DRIVR WILOLIFE.CHAIRMAN WALNUT CREEK.CALIFORNIA 84686 AGRICULTURE AND WATER (416) 934.4666 JOHN A. NEJEDLY Rasouacn ELECTIONS AND 0 SACRAMENTO ADDRESS SEVENTH SENATORIAL DISTRICT REAPPORTIONMENT STATE CAPITOL SACRAMENTO.CALIFORNIA 96614 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY - LOCAL GOVERNMENT (816) 446.6060 - SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PENAL INSTITUTIONS,CHAIRMAN CALIFORNIA. LEGISLATURE RECEIVED , February-. 8, 1973 n 141973 W. T. PAASCH CLERK 800 TA RA C By SUPERV1600 ff. ;o DaA1+tY Mr. Alfred M. Dias, Chairman Board of Supervisors �Zo Contra Costa County AGENDA ITEM ��1�5 Administration Building 11'>79 Martinez, California 94553 IN 9d. /97�T 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 ppayed or neutered. Very truly yours, 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 . NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ct"n tstq copy )d c Wo is{a/up, it" 9 ow. "t son of-_ Nl�fal0��aatl�aal•[;.h tI OR Pe A my apps.. c .c . County Government Operations Committee : 091"ss.)&odsptsd ;7:.sBoa.ao15" County Agricultural Commissioner .:.a.e a/ con" Csot.a County. CaiiJam;d. on Committee for Development of a Proposed dou Aowx,ATUBT. W. T•PAABCH.aoaa:,Jeri County Animal Spay Clinic r sowtwo ota.t 0r .a:d ea..d of sup-ho'.. Contra Costa County Veterinary Medical Assoc t'�' �~�' County Administrator ���: x� P- .....a fl,', OAKA OAK '-ti110T40E048 02/17/7,4 ICS IPMRNCZ CSP . ,1152230545 MGM TDRN EL S08RANTE CA 100wIM#Qm SMW an M,: ZIP 94553 //. /5 4 r RECEIVED SUPERVISOR AL DIAS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD rrn ^0.1973' COUNTY BLDG W. T PAASCH' MARTINEZ CA 94553 CLERK BOAR OF SUPERVISORS NT COST O. JL BY eputr 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 RECEIVE .,n ^,1973 March 1, 1973 W. T. P A A S C H CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS O RA' CO. BY GPug1 SPAY of Contra Costa County { P. 0. B,x 5261 Walnut Creek, . Cai.1fornia 4entlemea: This is to advise tha C2 CUP Its endorsed of IT S,\City ._ Bed SP,1'X..s iofuTc st,, 148 021facprogram as-4dµtlimed yin your letter addressed to the�`Co ; iuly Yours', , Harlan J. Heydon o C� Clerk JJ aW cc: Board of Supervisors f f � 3 `- ��r TELEGRAM 2/20/73 10:10 a.m. ALFRED M. DIAS RE: DR. BLUMBERG'S REQUEST TO APPEAR BEFORE BOARDOFSUPERVISORS 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 COWTTTEE 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 CET ` _ W. T. P ,. ASC CLCRK BOARD•OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA C TA CO. Ey 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 app3.:? to dogs and cats of all ages. Following this initial period the owner must be prepared to show proof of the dogts 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. O'Brien, 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-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. .: ,�•r. .... ..... >,_ ..,+:....w....rw�r—.►e.�-.!a..+, .+..w.-+r.,... +..+F .+rw.-..•..»s +e+sa ...m.r,s..a»... .t'++.= ter oto Properly licensed and zoned kennels and dog ,and cat breeders should be exempt from increased fees. �.. For those animals who are sterilized after the` licens- ' ing deadline there, will be no-'foe for licensing the following yonr.` 5. A $15.00 sterilizing fee deposit shall be required of anyone adopting a non-sterilized animal from Contra Costa Animal Control Centers. A, forv � ,a ECEI� D X�ati - (date) �.�--� ,�ri►arl�l� ������ SPAY *'�? 1,0973 P. 0. Box 5261 W. T. PAASCH Walnut Creek, California 94596 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISOR8 O TRA C T CO BY WPugl 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 or 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 • .,7 '.�. d 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' operaied 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. Y'i•"C•°°sv�"�cA• . 12v►i� 2��4 � + �5°ga C04 �0l4°Z�48�'ZS CZ ps rfib ��'�l,5Zg 'S° S,� B�'�'V� �' S g �S.� 4"' 's� yt+�� Z` �1AS 5�4 j�p0+�5 ��T �� P V Q �pS I 5tip 6Z 5Z� �r+ tip 5 Q+ti N CN ° Std U © 9� Oil g pA4� P 4'�.� 54 �PV�����N �OMM� Sp►ZZ vu � V k. • MGMOAKA OAK 2-010740EO49 02/17/73• ■ ICS I PMRN CZ CSP , 4MOW � 4152230545 JGt� TDRN EL SOBRANTE CA 1OW*8 l0'02W ZIP 94553 RECEIVED SUPERVISOR AL DIAS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD rrn POI973 COUNTY BLDG W. T. P A A S C H • MARTINEZ CA 94553 CLERK BNT COST FEOYISORS BY 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 • [RECEIVED]FEBT--1973 W. T. PAASCHCLIAK •NAR COSTAC 3333 Ronald Way Concord, California February 6, 1r7 Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County Administration Building Martinez, California Dear Sirs: Ne 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 dogof thew packs_, making walking to and from school a dangerous under- taking. Many of these bites are not reported to Animal Control, therefore no actionaan 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. We request that more and better patrol officers be em oeedd_and that the priority for expending tax monies-be adjusted to cover such expenses. Sincerely yours, Janet Powles Holbrook Elementary School a� lY� • In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California February 6 19 73 In the Matter of Probosal 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. , -1432 - 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. 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 Seat of the Board of Commissioner Supervisors Committee for Development affixed 't 6th day February , 19 73 of a Proposed County Animal W. I PAASCH, Clerk "Spay" Clinic 'fly IN j County Administrator B S�+ndr Stimler Deputy Clerk H 24 7/72-15M ANTIOCH VETERINARY HOSPITAL, INC. 1432 - 10th STREET ANTIOCH, CA. 9.509 GENE 7-3 73 IV. T. P A n S C H January 22, 1973 BO OF SUPERVISORS A COST [103y� Deput Mr. Edmund Linscheid 43 Civic Avenue Pittsburg, California 94565 Dear Mr. Linscheid: I am enclosing a copy of the proposal for animal population control which we 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, d ?d- . Donald I. Blomberg, 1U.M. CCVMA Representative to County "Spay" Clinic Committee DIB/s Encls. A PROPOSAL FOR ANTUAL POPULATTO7-1 "OUTROT, ;,'embers of the C.C.`•I.M.A. agree to perform, , terilizin7 s•zrgery 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 dors 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 112.50. During the first six months of this program theso fees shall apply to dogs and cats of all ages. Following this initial period the owner must be prepared to show proof of the dogfs are if here is a differ- ence 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 ",tr. Seele,�y in his inter-office memo, T4ay 26, 1971, to Mr. J. P. O'Brien, 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-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. Note - Properly licensed and zoned kennels and dog and cat breeders should be eaempt''from increased fees. !}. For those animals who are sterilized afs;er ,the livens 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, + r k - r r n ._ .. ai►� 4Y`�,i+" '�.i'7Y +�I�:,a'�Itc,`�G-�s..::s`asnA�d+»,...o.:mk..iv'�`�" ski'w�..,:.- ! ......-�:s<..,c„t4*�F. ,:Y:..w_rer.:c,-�a. .*...�=�!`'�.._ nCARD OF SUPFRVISORS CO}ITRA COSTA COTJNTY DATE: February 13. 1973 TO: E. W. Gills, D.V.M. Orinda Veterinary Clinic 23-M Orinda Way Orinda, Calif. 94563 FROM: I% T. FAASCH, Clerk cf Board 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 Tu!tsday. February 20, 1273 and will be to en up at approximately 11:15 a.m Barbara Kem a: uty C ar c cc: County Counsel Administrator Department Agricultural Commissioner Board Chairman 71-1-500 Form 26,2 - AGENDA ITEM :7— OwnJa COdetmaty Clinic for -- 23-M ORINDA WAY (date) -may.-°" ORINDA. CALIF. 94563 Paz 254-0211 RECEW D County Clerk F1 �? ?-1973 Board of Supervisors W. T. P A A S C H Contra Costa County CLERK 20a of SUPERVISORS RA T CO. Administration: Building »y ° '' Martinez.- California Dear Sir; The,. Contra Costa County Veterinary Medical Association requests 'the opportunity to address: the Board of Supervisors, regarding animal population control., onTuesday,. February 20, 1973. Dr, Don- Blumberg of Antioch,. Chairman of the Associationrs Animal Population- Control Study Committee , will present our views and proposals regarding control of animal population in. Contra Costa County, ,qincerely, ,Zx:� , � � %um_ E.W. Gills* D'.Var. President,, Contra Costa County Veterinary Medical Association: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BRANCH OFFICES A. L. SEELEY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL COMM16510NER 100•aTiH ST., RICHMOND 14805 tat JOHN GLENN DRIYC =23•7060. Exr. a:ss SEALER WEIGHTS AND MEASURES K. E. DANIELSON BUCHANAN AIRPORT 1410 HIGHWAY 4.fRENTW000•94913 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 94520 6314•33lf ASSISTANT SEALER Gaz•7850 October 31, 1972 RECEIVED Mrs. R. G. Carberry, Jr. Mrs. Robert Hart OCTA'/ 1972 Mrs. Jamie Larson W. T. PAASCH Ms. Sybil Sticht C4E KBO D OF SUPERVISORS Pis. Barbara Thomason RA COST/CO. 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 P P �' 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 11hat 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 t'Hat 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 other ways 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, pleasecontactme, and if you would like to assist the citizen group working on obtaining funds for the spay clinic, please contact Mrs. Barbara Poppin, $25-0610. Sincerely yours, Arthur L. See.Ley,`.�".._. „ Agricultural Commissioner- ' Sealer Weights & Measures ALS/ac cc:r--Clerk of the Board County Administrator. t ao, we- ��Fs mrf ......... °' 1" 21 RECEIVED SEP I '�19i2 n 1 W, T. PAASCH CLERK BOARD OF SporlSORB N T CO. By Dir GCtiA-4 . f c� • ' 1 f RECEIVED July 26, 1972 silt 271M r.k W. T. PAASCH Contra Costa Times-Green Sheet V-LSRK GBOARDOFSUPERVIGORS c/o Letters to the Editor GO RA CKlz 1940 Mt. Diablo Blvd. 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 f� CONTRA COSTA COLTNTI A. L. SEELEY *RANCH orrrccs AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONCIt DEPARTMENT OF AGRICIJLTURC 300.77TH ST.. RICHMOND 94009 SEALER WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 161 JOHN GLENN ORIVC 133.7060. CM lass K. E. DANIELSON •UCHANAN AIRPORT 1420 HIGHWAY 4.BRENTWOOD 94513 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 94520 .B4aB1B ASSISTANT SEALER 682-7550 July 14' 1972 RECEIVED '1)L 1 71972 Mrs. Wallace Shelby t W. T. PAASCH 2901 Ponderosa Drive CLERK SO 40 O RA CO F UPCVISORS Concord, CA. 9!4520 Cy Deputy Dear Mrs. Shelby: 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. Ricets 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, 1971, 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 conmunication to its president, Mrs. Barbara Poppin--phone number 825-06lo--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, Ar .ur. L. See-ley., Agricultural Commiss oner Sealer Weights & Measures ALS/ac r Attachments (2) cc: County Administrator Clerk of the Board / Mrs. Barbara Poppin In tho Matter of ApAWving ) Committoo AocommonclWions ) • " ' 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 reconmendations on the proposal for establishment of a low-cost county sainal 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 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 specifie'ally •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: Juno 27, 1972 Letters to tho Editor ' Conti Costa nos Wal=t Crook, California 94596 Doar Sir no: Letter from tire. Bolen G. ?ico Contra Costa Tines J•ano 189 1972 Cont-" Costa County does not spend A-563000 a. guar to destroy otnimals. Tho monry i spc;It cnf orcin; covin ty =d : state Iaws- regarding and=-3 s. Vio county nuat spend x 27,990, phis ';8,060, to u»Mado tho oloatrical :orvicas to co=?.g with Bag rr:.a Pollution Control DlA.r V tcgal^tions far patholo;;ioal burners. Ztia compliance mast take place if wo aro to continue cre=ation rs a manno dic-posal. Ila have rcneatedly searohol for aaticfaetory alterrMte naer hods of disposal but without success. :.ou3,? I"s. Rico s:=est rro do with about 39,000 aniMl cwr c.issos that must bo annually disposed of at tho Nartinoz Contcr. Our Dp-partrort is actively trorki:nt, with a group of citizens (�' .�^_l Pr tact�.on lrtsls'!tato r in the dovolop:�t of a oouvty operated spay c31nIc, as too fool strop ly t zit t�lis would matcriany holy in holdin do..= tho surplus anin.I problem. Mrs. PAco"s original lcttar 'i-idio,^tos ��t it -.,-as t;ta "hoad" of these Ani;-.al Cont-of�f ..-orltexal =Ion, not tao "h�oad" of Animal . 1.roilt.i.•J�, pilo ob„CC w Yo voluataa" tfOrJ . �t Vdi3 Li.:,j,'!~n 7_ Co l trot Confers on saLm my. This article, which aovoarad in tho papar, c -,mod her letter in tiro places, =d it then appoar.ed th. t it . was I who .:i3s opposod to volunteer worriers at tho Cantors. Yours vory truly, 1�-ran L. So ey fq rieulbv. .1 Co=icsionor _ 3cal.or flaights L- Micasuros .T S:mf ,. A rltaZd, tants . .,. .. ''• r�� � • .. i�� ori �7�// �. .. _ .. June 21 972 (� Contra Costa County Supervisors RECEIVED Contra Costa County Court house Y7D_ Martinez, California - �. L . T.SU'B ECiT: SPAY L IEUMR CLINIC CLERK ARayTGEI�"I'IML,Eli: On 11onday, Tune 19, 1972, I listened to Jim Dunbar'sprogram on WO and a voice reported a situation which exists in your Count;; which appears to be even worse than the one wehave 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 pest year. There was a considerable concern in San Zteo 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 Supervisors. you will discover that they have taken stens to correct this serious problem by instituting a Low-Cost Spay/Neuter Clinic, San Mateo will go in operation -Tanuary 1 1973 and Santa C a will be fashioned after the Los Angle s Clinic with fees of $11.50 foraales 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 nrofi 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, Ones not all this tell you something? The phone call on hvnday on IMO tells me that there is a move on foot to put thru a Spay/ 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 intergsted citizens will stay on your backs until something gives andthe longer they fight, the rare citizens become educated and concerned. Day only regret is that San 1:hteo 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 im last year, or have you heard? It might be a wise idea to get on the ball and check out the above information, 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 Mteo County. Your opinions would be appreciated. Sincerely yours, cc: City Manager J �— r, (Burlingame, 600 Martinez Drive Calif 914010 In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California September 7 1971 In the Matter of Designating Committee with Respect to Proposed County Animal Spay Clinic. Supervisor A. •M. Dias having called attention toa 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. 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. 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 ByA4�ean F• hpr , Deputy Clerk to Animals ' Co. Agricultural Commissioner County Administrator H 21,nAWrd 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 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 $8190000 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 Board of Super- visors uper 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 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 Q 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 ' ALF FRED M. DIAS --------------- SUPERVISOR - _SUPERVISOR 16)6 TWENTY-THIRD STREET ylyD SAN PABLO,CALIFORNIA 94806 c� TELEPHONE 235.3836 9YyAL - TARA HILLS • •" MONTALVIN MANOR CONT - L LINTY EL SDRRANTE SAN FAE CO1LL�BOAR SORS PAE ROLU116WWD RECEIVED ED co•Y}A- EL CERRIfENSINMN a7, i 71 T. P A A S C H August 27 1971 DISTRICT TWO CLLR 80A OF SUPERVISORS g / A COST QY _ Deputyl 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 T matter isleincluded 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 SPAY 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. Thep1$ 7,500 r-eque teed-£r+o 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 d. This Committee to work out the mechanics and- procedures for ndprocedures- for the operation of a clinic following the acquisition; of the $81,000. pledged. e. The Committee's proposal then to be submitted to the Board of Superviso approval. J es P. KenAy AMD:JPK:ajs J CL �V _v =cco .— U w ch �,N a � 3m o ti� In f �t {W w � J Ilk 01- r k4-} Q4 ell t� L� C - O 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 committbe 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) Dias : Move we accept the report_of then committee.___.__. 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 ,"ti' time. < Moriarty: I hope if and when the people go out and raise the $80,000. . . 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 also realize there was no proof on either side that it is good or not good. Realize other agencies now performing this. Committee tAl, 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 studie9 this. I would move your report be amdnded to designate the Government Operations Committee be the committee represented by the Board but-'riot naming the committee members. (Moriarty seconded original motion) a, 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 carr this on we should y 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. 2: yes 3: yes 4 : absent 5: yes 1: yes 124 A Austin Lane Alamo, Calif. 94507 Hoard 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,. ` REC �����D 11-1 0 197 W T. PAASCH saac tL+iiAlt �o a]:sup IT) ccr. Augut 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 moi' vet the usual fee for having her spayed. I live under a very tight budgetJand this fee is hard for me to squeeze into may monthly operating expenses. At this point though Jit is very necessary if I plan to continue to keep a male and a female withi,i 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 fined 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,toojhave 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 child) 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' if they do not want a litter of pups. The sale ofa 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?the 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 ilso 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 theirT. . . My daughter who is a student at UCLA was able to have her cat,Jerevy, neuto:-dd for $ ,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 ContraCorstap County be a leader in the establishment of a Spay Clinic.-1 xould� t 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 work .ng days speaking to public and private schools, and parent groups on the care of pets and the responsibilities involved within the community,) l CU.NTP.A COSTA COUti'i� • ` - • • L"-Y. ACRICliLTI'll h. J CC\CUED. C:1LL"�%4jtiLA. M20 Supervisors Al Dias and Marren Boggess County Government Operations Committee August 16. 1971 Attentions J. P. MoBrien$ 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 programs we Kish to call to the oommittee's attention the following Informations 1. On April 16, Ken Danielson. Assistant Agricultural Commissioner visited the Los Angeles City Spay Clinic, where Dr. Vansell lxy hi_if performed seven surgeries that morning. 2. The morning prior to the public hearing. Mr. Danielson phoned 1.r. Robert Rush. Gnneral Managers Department of Animal Regulations Los Angeles City$ and confirmed the published figures that 12 - 15 operations were performed daily at the clinic during July. Dr. Vansell performed all operations• contrary to Dr. Proctor's statement at the Hearing that a Dr. Zigler assisted him in performing this many surgeries. 3• Dr. Vansell stated to [fir. 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 femaless together with a program that finds the unlicensed and unspayed animals$ many more R60912 could be taking their animals to their own veterinarians than tho=_Soing to Me Bounty-Almy nnntlar, 5. A limited county spaying progran night also dieeouras0 the local veterinarians from raisins their spying ! ever.increasing levels R—ECEIVED 1 /8, /y 7/ . T. PAA.SCH CLER BOA OF SUPERVISORS NOMA COST By _ Deputy Supervisors Al Dias do 8/16/71. y Warren Boggess • Attention$ J. - P. MaB en 6. The maiming of the hearing nr. Danielson phoned Dr.. Lloyd C. FaUmer of Colorado State University. Dr. Falls er. was: mentioned by the veterinarians as one of the;foremost researchers n: none surgical sterilizationfor dogs.. . Dr.. Falkner stated he' has- . conducted Laboratory tests of this partiaular" hormonevaocine.: , The neat step_ is field tests. The V.S.D..A. and F.p A., r'e,quire' tosts in three areas of the U.8 .,' This x111-bs 1 ..'2, years testing. General use,andIsale, to veterinarlone throughout California Is five years 'away.- if olearance is obtained from the Ue S.D.A. and F.D.A• AL3/ac aas 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 s _ t 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 Departmant 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 Los teles (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. Aw - I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct entered on the minutes of said Board of copy of a matter of record 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.ICLE K By. Nanc In am Deputy Clerk cc: Administration and Finance Committee County Government Operations Committee County Agricultural Commissioner County Administrator w TEXT OF PRESENTATION AUGUST 12, 1971 W T. P A A S C H CLERK OARD OF SUPERVISOR$' COT CO. ey Deputy 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 papulation 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 owned dog population as 1001,000 dogs. There are 43,000 females of which 52% are neutered. For dogs two years and over, 40-80% are neutered in the various 2. ages; the older the age the proportionally more neutered. We estimate 80,000 owned cats in the county. There are 42,000 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 OWNED dog population in the county was about 60,000 dogs, now it is 1002000. 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. My 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. !t. 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, 2,500 sterilizations would generate $37,500 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 163000 entire females give rise to give rise to 20,000 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 u i produce: P PP�eS 31,000 kittens 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 1,000 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 6,000 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 3,240 less. Now what about the accumulative effect? If again the idealistic 3,500 cats were done each year, won't 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 31500 FEMALE CATS PER YEAR YEARS AFTER NUMBER ALIVE 1 2,100 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, 23500 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 7 i 'n ton enough to have an reduction of the lack of any marked ; (being g v reduction in accumulative ,effects from those neutered because of`the high ` - turnover of both dogs and cats in the county — ,these factors will matte n duction on the production of young animals. by the clinic!s.- negligible any re operation. R> r ftp r� s r d }Y r 4 5 RECEV.s. i •�,i�7/ • T• PAASCH CLERK 130ARD OF SUPERVISO TEXT OF PRESENTATION JULY 27, 1571 B� 494� MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD: I am 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. 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 70-90% 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 of,cat breeding season. Anyway, I could go on with other questions, but these I feel are the 3 most important areas -- How many non-neutered Animal e 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) .h a I would like to now briefly describe the animal population survey, and make you aware of the data we are collecting. The sur¢uy is in both Alameda and Contra. Costa Cdunties. It is a random 6% survey of aU. households -- hence in Contra Costa of.the 178,000 households enumerated in the 1970 census`we .are contacting over 19,000 (10,597 to be enact). Discussed animal data form. (copy attached) ...' (3) r P" A • IRECt-VED _ ,a,11971 A S 01 H 1000 Henderson Avenue CL-,-.K BOARD OF SUP[RVISC^S laenlo Park.. Calif. 94025 C T A OACO. Cy " �U DePut, August 79 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 icounty - 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 j 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 I 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 j Kennel Club.- registered purebred dogs lessened the importance of cost to the group as a 1 whole. Accordingly, while cost is relatively unimportant to owners of A.K.C. - registered dogs„ 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 DEFINITELY 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 orephiization states that the " low cost spay clinic ....* has not been and can never be "self-supporting". Although the Los Angeles Sp&y and Neuter Clinic has been in operation. for less than six months, its General Manager, Mr. Robert I. Rush, has operating figures which show that the facility is already "breaking-even" financially. In fact, in June, revenues were 63,384.90 while expenses were $2,729.00.. o r ED August 12, 1971 W. `� P ,% ASCH CL_RK BOARD OF��SUPERlVISORS CON � 'Ti{r lX- TO THE HONORABLE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Cr . G °eP°t" 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. Gn#- meoaee 7�e /asst✓ w�/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 least allow a means of securing compensation. Likewise the ranger or-1patrolman would have a lesser problem with a controlled dog4 pgpulation 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`ro of the impounded animals. The majority of these were he althy, loving,pupp;er ,and� kitten; who were unwanted, and never should have been born. An additional 14,725, or 22`b, 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 veternary hospitals. These two totals of 59,102 destroyed;; or dead on arrival animals represent 88% of the total animals handled. Only 8,141, or 12% were either redeemed by owners or adopted. Incidentally, those unwanted, abandoned pets who do survive, often do so by farming into packs, and endangering lifestock, gardens, and in some extreme cases, even people. The tax-payer has been paying, is now haying, and without a start toward controll- ing the average 19% annual increase, will continue to pay an lever-increasing amount toward the support of rising Animal Control costs. In 1960, we tax-payers paid $161,000 toward animr,l control costs, while by the year ending June 1971 vie had increase to $563,000, neither figure includinz 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. We 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 per 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 pucket. Using the Humane Society of Marin County's figures of "one unspayed female and her pups left to do what comes naturally, mry in ¢ years result in 13,000 pu^pies, and multiplying that by our n rojected 3,500 spayed females, we could end up :sith 10,400,000 less puppies or kittens fn 6 years from the initial 3,500 spayed. The proposed differential of fees between licensing of dogs and registering of cats in spayed and unsnayed females, would result in sending many more net owners to their own veternarians, greatly increasing the amount of females to be spayed. In Fairfield, x4here there has been a limited spaying-aid praeram for two years, they have reversed the 19% u-_iti-rrd trend, and actually destroyed less animals in 1970 than in 1968. The Los Angeles Clinic has nassed 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 the "Sneaking for the City of Los Angeles, I would have to conclude that the clinic is now a success." Ile have daily calls from pensioners, widows, and limited income families who realize the net surplus probem, and have been responsible net owners in every way, asking us if there isn't somehhere 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 $45-575 minimum for dogs is beyond their reach. We 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-e.-cost spay clinic. I urge your foresight in suaport of a pro-ram white, along with a public education progra--, will do much to help begin reducing needless suffering of unwanted pets, and need- less waste of tax-payers money toward an ever-increasing pet surplus problem. Barbara Poppin, . -� President, Animal Protection Institute MIM 3114 Ameno Rd. Concord, Calif. 682-3873 f y�j w. PAAGCN CL K BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ST CO.CO ( BePulY t C O U N T Y O F S O L A N O -DEPARTMENTAL OUDGET 5U7iARY* Fiscal Yoar 1970-71 Fund function-Activity Budget No. Budget PU.riL i C PROTECTION General Other Protection 285 Pound Expcnditura 19 69 19 70 1970 - 19 71 Increase Cla9sificntion Budnr,►_cd Request Recommend Oecroase 5elario3 & 12ugos S . 11 ,119 S 76,360 $ 76,360 $ 5,241 Services r4 Supplie's 17,017. 19;475 19,310 2,293 Fixed Assets 6n0 : 1 2 1 (4681 r Gross Budget Less: Costs Applied Ospartmental Appropriation $ . 88,736 S "95,967 S 95,802 $ 7,066 Departmental Rovenuo S 3TOOP, -0-' $ ,37,000 -0- permanant Positions IOr l0* 10 -0- County Adnfnlctrator,19 Report *Includes we .112 .time positiart.' The Pound is r:!spy#n i1.1 f o r vnforcin.g Lht County';Animzl Ordinapa and identical .city n ordinances By jjre*(.n nt l)r•tuc n thQ -County and the seven .incorporated cities this= departmnt is -re-•pensible for providing praund services to the entire"area of'.Solano- County. These services includer y _1. Patrols� to rici, up "stray� anima ls `and�-investigate complaints: 2. Operation of the County Antmal 'She)ter for impounding:;andlo� disposing of stray,-I "'I l.ic<!nserj`and unwanted animals: 3. The quarant+ne of biting animals for observation- as to whether "they are rabid. r . 4. Removal and disposal cf animal carcasses found in public places: '` • y 9 7-68 - Activit 1 6 tgol3=5q Igb9-?a_Act. E Est. 1970-71 Projected Animals picked up 9,b?9 1t,U91 ll),90 12,000 Animals surrendered ;,3l1 9;40; ;,440 9,000 Anima's redeemed or adopted i ,427 1,562 : 12692 1,800 . Animals :iestroyed lS,rirlq 18,366 tri 6,656 19,200 * Total patrol mi 125 fI?• 1?$ 121+.0'E' T3:i,000 133;000 Salaries and 'loges: f _1 Regular Saiaric-� 17' ,03$ for _full year budgeting of 'ten authorized 'positions f 1 Provision frsr S:antf't;y p.- rs r g4..s*e:i ant: recOm !Cnl2l-aC 53.822. Call -back. is re' cA quesred and n_r,.,mr+�n++ed' at s i , vii ..ili�fI i s S2OJ rlore than budgeted` in the current year r ar+tj is supi=urtr:l %y :!Se �ar,5_experlence. C pf! 'l..'..!" `� »"�' .3• ... ��,t� tiz y�y:s�'� ! int ��,,,r:�•��''t"�,'' . `{ _ ~.s' — t' .�t�'. ��':•.•L��.*x'r` rry,ez !:$ti:•:y'�l�x�:;,?., *�s � •,�g `�'a•a_!'` �i'�.�`�'�`' r -•'. '�'_ 4 ���•.Y �--s..�'-"„ s'rx"'•�r`x r,�*ri�,�.. t •!' ,�I( r wiles.L L'x...6 yt' .3.... .".w � _...... - .jS+K~�"!!"Y d�:Ct. +.+i t � 'K.. �g�J�� rr;�L..7' T.JCt" Rv ..,1.,.. +....JS�.:,...•••i C'� 2 4kTzi kt( S;a•t 4- �1! '3'Y .� . t ,.> '� 'p .C�:n^.J'' , .-_G•��.�. $'t':'� �r __-�-�"...e y{" +�'�r;..r 7.a r .. t `�:.. M � � ,+.. "!7. K` ^t�•A )r,7 '�YY :s' t t �. _ .....—.,i.. ... ...Jw .r t '7" .L 'Z' +�S � .X•;�aw ti .,� �' .!.ria.x mai` -^c.i "rs.`. �j„�”�.✓�Pi3w'�= s. �s"�� *" "�::�:.�,�.:_• •%" ...:;}i^� `hy �t'!L t;,t C � � J �t�`�y L ty -.. + � �F��" r>`7t"'1.,.� "�1.,n,•'^;w��(��"C.F� � � .� •.•' "��� � �7.II' ...J'..•.��,!' yl I��j"7�-„{ �'+�i7i .li.'•tY ,.,� .�..'�':A h�ri_` `.•� �`••. ^sem -.a .dF•x'S3�"^� �'.�.•j� ::1 ... L .... .+_ , T�4S wC,-S 10 c2n �P-Z �' v .3 i4;or, -fvcvarrl SPA -rT .I pro I Q[uiS � rv2 er Fv iA✓ PA/0,Ceco�►�KrARY �a z �-i , c e2� � �S �lz� S r s '� k r e to `o UcAQrvwAriaWS ie44,er. ( Animal Protection Institute of Contra Costa County receives numerous calls daily from responsible persons who realize the surplus animal problem and seek to have their pets spayed for a reasonable fee. Many pensioners and widows %;hA pet is their only companion and protectorg i and other individuals living on fixed or limited income, provide their i i pets food, shelter, necessary shots, and love. They have confined their ifemale 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 compete with the thousands of other litters seeking loving homes. However# supnly exceeds demand. These concerned people SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD THE SPAYING CHARGBS (consider now, the present fees averaging $35 for cats, $45475 for dogs, BASS COST at veterinary hospitals), We of A.P.I. resent the Contra Costa County Kennel Club's assumption that people will not even pay a reduced rate of "$15 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.U.C. and C.C.C.V.Ae grossly underestimate the intelligence and concern of pet owners. A.Y.I. supports the proposed county operated, low-cost spay clinic. Agricultural Commissioner A.L. Seeleyp upon request of the County Board of Supervisorag submitted a feasibility report in which he proposed said clinic will be self-supporting. We do not feel, based on Mr. Seeley's 12 years of administrative experience in his position, that he would Jeopardize his reputation or dupe the publicby groposingan unrealistic financial plan. { , tae W. T. PAASCE-! . CLERK ROARD (`F e1ro�.+•,,.070� His oronosal_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. Seeley, 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 equioment, drugs, office equinment, 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 $1611,000, and in the year ending June, 19719 we paid X56390009 these figures not in- cluding plant acquisitions. As the surplus animal problems grows, so will the expenses - and our taxes* The 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 449000 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 met J�lr 291, 1971, in Los Angeles, ly was informed by Dr. Lloyd Paulkner, %ho is seeking a sterilization vac- cine, that sw�h vaccine is years away. He recommended alternative meth- ods of birth control such as spay and neuter clinics. Even the publi- cation, Modern Veterinary Practice, implies that it might be well in i 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 Rive 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 Mateo 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 survey, "Spaying of female dogs (add'cata) 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 among owners of unregistered purebred dogs* These two categories of owners represented more than 60% of the owners respondieg to the questionnaire mailed to them. To update the C.C.C. Veterinary Association's figure of an average of only 4 ovariohysterectomies perforated per wcrking day,information ob- tained July 30, 1971, from the Los Angeles Spay and Neuter Clinic, on their current operating data, establishes that their clinic has increased t from 6 ovariohysterectomis verformed per working day in May, to 12-13 per day in July. 481 operations were performed from February 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 following statements concluded the Los Angeles Clinic reports 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 votential for financial success. Whether you seek to have your net swayed, or are among the ranchers, homeowners, garden enthusiasts, etc., annoyed by the abandoned strays and vackso we urge you to call or write you Supervisor, and to attend the public hearing on the Proposed Spay Clinic, to be held Thursday, August 120 10 an, in the Supervisors Chambers, County Administration Bldg., Martinez. The Board will respond to your supvort. We need the clinic NOM. The foresight shown on the adoption of this program will surely--set a precedent for other counties to follow. ANIMAL PWra TION INSTIZM OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 3W C2..sas-.co mel u C h • RECEI W. T. PAASCH ( CIERKBOARD OF CONTRA COSTA COvISORS" By Putt s t a.� .c aar� �� w RA WU MARTINEZ - 457F 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 CLINTC` FOR,`THE FOLLOWING REASONS: IT IS A POSITIVE ANSWER 'TO THE INCREASING PET. POPULATION EXPLOSION f BECAUSE AN ,ANIMAL IS NETUERED. ONLY ONCE. IT SUPPORTS -EFFORTS TOWARD COMMUNITY POLLUTION CONTROL BECAUSE 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 CLINIC IS TO THEM WHAT A MUNICIPAL GLXXX GOLF _COURSE IS "TO A TAXPAYING GOLFER. LASTLY REMEMBER THIS IS A .SOCIAL AND MORAL PROBLEM No. To $ �� S By twt To Be kid E 3�/! 5 E Vt E PEARL HANNAH PENINSULA ANAIMAL WELFARE SOC- INC BOX 275 PALO ALTO CALIF 94301. F;, TVp Dj W. T. P'AASCH -RK BOARD OF'SUPERvfscss O T.lx .OS A co Cy Deputy THE CONTRA COSTA SOCIETY for the PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS 1622 Santa Clara Street Richmond, California ((���PPjjhone: 5225-0566 COUNTY LOW COST SPAY CLINICRECEIVED IVED August 12, 1971 I� ftpV / T. PA ASC H May Lumsden, 1622 Santa Clara St., Richmond C&UgiQ S Secretary, The Contra Costa S.P.C.A. fly The Board of Directors of The Contra Costa S.P.C.A. recommend that the county: 1. Construct, equip, and operate a low cost spay clinic. 2. Adoit cat registration as a logical means of creating revenue for the Animal Control program, and as one means of controlling the surplus cat problem. 3. Consider higher license and registration fees for unspayed dogs and cats as a logical means of providing additional revenue for the Animal Control program, and as an incentive to owners to have their pets spayed. Opponents of the county low cost spay clinic infer that if individuals cannot afford necessary veterinarian spay fees, they should not own a pet. In most Instances, we agree, HOWEVER, too many pet owners who cannot afford these services do own pets. This society and the county are then faced with the problem "What do we do with the resulting surplus animals?" A low cost spay clinic is the first positive move to control 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 that the surplus animal problem will disappear or be solved overnight. If we do not establish a low 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 petitions containing the signatures of approximately/100v t residents of Contra Costa County who favor a county constructed, equipped, and operated low cost spay clinic. C CRK BOARD Or SUPF-RVI C NT A COSTA CO .Puty OY turd of Supervisors Contra Costa County YALrtines,, California Sirs; fty Z please maks a, statement? To may knowledgeL it is not a unanimous feeling of the veterinarians of this county to oppose the spar clinis. Because I: do not have permission to use their names,. I gill not therefore identify them. Ono doctor personally remarked to me that he would have no objection to supporting the: spay clinic. Human birth control measures and reli=d abortion laws have. resulted in less children available for adoption and a smaller school enrollaentt Therefore,, 1 feel, it follows that the spay clinic x111 show the sanrs. results la our animal populat— ion in the county when put into operation, thus saving our tax moneys in the near future. Fran Bailey % ( Mrs.. James F. Bailey) 2735 Acacia Mad Walnut Creek 9 +595 934-4398 II f� I s1 � RJECEIVED ell ��cJ' �r^L.+�'ZL.Grin-.•r.� t,..r( .� /'��"' 1�+. t 4 ���lr��4)�II ,{ � f ,' d �� CH eoaa00,o CONTRA0 TApo . iw u r 111 y yAe ` G•�;�:��yy-,'Yc"�' •.�'t`�'7�E--G; G't2 :...-- ,,�t,.�_ .-�'�.at,.c.-.,9 c..I�-�-r p�,�f�..- �-�•L`--SL.• pr•�.F,('�y�,�y.-L.� �`.+x-.�1... .�,wl / j ��� y/� �,/ '`.T. A ..c,.•�`^-G7' GL. r�C-- 3�{Z.-t ✓_ �.j ry ✓"-'rte-.�'.-°b"hG"�"�,�,.�,, cr./.. ��,. ''4V„� �..C+C.'Y�.t'�.-'S�-G4-'f1C-<:- �i��`L..,L�Y�. � ! fir` i _• a. �'r rr�ti.-.c-.n.,,...rrs �,a „�� �--•. ��.�f�C..,,,.,c,.�,ao,..�,�'%'��i �/ �.� �•�rca.s.-!T.L,� ,,c,:.,c,rG� tX L�-K.t..-r-.�--G+..t 2• ,,G�.�YC.re-'_.r_ yG:�.t..,.,• m'K.... 7�-r"�-M4 �•�iR. t:�C,t--s�^r .G;� � 't'�*�s:G.•G - ./"✓�--Ot... .e{„�./ �,•,,"""'-,eyJ� -,f,/� / r Ls-^ ,,.tl'f-,-,�y''�E-F' d � �..`.�.+d�:.�` .!1 .G��` �'ot''�--y..*'��.— G�7�r�--R,•� kt,e� /�7 .�--z„lc.t .d�M�..G.G✓✓ i's_--c-1"!'l-}�y"%`''4..'G'Y/k.Gra../� .."Ci'�Lr"�'�`� �y' �r�' /...Lt•'��'-£.L ..+�G�L.r�jM .+trt'"{ ✓�.t�+G�"C-}'C .-C!.3`%' /�...�-',�G�'C/.-L��'y '1.�j���/Yft. 4'e- 2 t.-C-' ,G.-��'.. i�+.�c"2,iI•�' ,:�.,,•Y..�"'t.. ✓fG��C.� �..�a:-`r'c. ,trz�c_-c.4� ��G" ='��-�'•``'����„Y,_,F�t=...,c,/ .,,;2;1L..tt-';�y'.�„-�"t�/ •'•G..cjr-.- • .t21�r v:..- j,,,,1va.,+--n:.+..+ .+L£.fi.. -"C..+� T r ��.r,�j' ..•�t.�:--rs-c r :�-�.f"+ ,.G.�Y.t:,c-�. �....�G�-r.,ti.-��� �x,�..2-' + ��' ,��-a-��' r• �'A f cam"""' �'�7``'-+'..�c.C- -•� ,�L.-C.-. 4v"�*-r �c'rLL'�"1 �-Z�..xL�L.LL.Z-�.Lw , 1'�_, �j'iG fir% ��,., `'Z..d r-''�C.-Iti-+''^•.-L..`'��.r1'�%/ .r.�.1��-�,y t'Z-'�`l �,+/� fT '�y+,`,'r�jj.0 � ,.��� rflt.�f7.�.4�...�C,b f�;.�,�•1 J1r._..s.�.a2.-1L.�'f:,,ii..+�' i�'�.��..,f.-y' �L�i:r^:.""�2.J'�'� � f J'/„�„�„{,� � ..+f.r��r"'�f' �¢„'�!rt-ax.. s ,�/p f „t r .;�' ' ;7�'�G-?"--C,C.,, r,/y� ,,//+'4�r�__`�t.•�-- f, t• .n5-14-111Zell y��L-1... ��„i,,.�.r/ Giax�:^�-�-/ ,f.s'�;:.,-t-L ����...�4f`ra:c f .�-s*t� „��•u Zu���`,�.�a�,,G.�jj:iL[s.,�*.,!/ 14't” ,,,,•�q �. r,.(,'.-tj �.-scy y. ,Gf ,�'' .�t ` B ..''..Lt:..,L2�- �Jrt✓ Ai,.,�i� s ,„�j.•G,C /�-"a-',1;,. ,eS�G J1�' ..ri.. � ,,.,.•sr � , �,�/s� ��.�.;,L% �.�2'•�L.,L'., 3 �r�r' ?.'1 y,.r�rK,,� '� ! .'r�!'.'��t.,�v !ti .�G- a.' �.�/��f ij�'�'fl `7"' lYl.`v c^",s..cit'•r� RI { T`^+- -t. • 7/ / wT1JGJ�G.JV! J �. JI T r .d 51 17) - 33.77S 4_q a q 3 - RE CEIVED , Asp - _ _.. CLERK BpARD CONT OF SUP@RV/SORS, . A FJy COSTA CO. �, !�-' .0 !L //U/i'!L�✓lf.�.ii Putt _ • #1. (Popular Dogs) 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 1959 and 40,000 in 1970 $100.00 per dog - to breeders like them a loving dog is nothing but livestoe #2. In still another issue of Popular Dogs, bodies of Dobermans found skinned professionally in a ditch in New Lenox, M. are they raising them for skins now?? C c - CZ. #3. In many copies of the above magazine and Dog World it would s 80 #3. up CH that the breeders are constantly giving money (grants) or whatever, sTq co vJ to vets to cure many ills that seem to me are the qeeders fault in _ 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. rreeders 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 were destroyed by the City's six shelters in one year (roughly 100,000) f� were crucial factors (I believe in our county roughly were Z71 destroyed in only two shelters) which proves the situation in our county is critical. The L.A,Clinic is no-:: operating and self supporting under the following # schedule of charges...Spaying faemale dog or cat....... 17150 Neutering male dog or cat.......12.50 These charges include all shots, presurgical exam, anesthesia, surgery post surgical hospitalization and all required medicine and pharmaceuticals. Information furnished by Cleveland Amory, President of the "1F`und for Animals, Inc:'#1 Wall Street, New York, N.Y. #7. The breeders are always stating a spayed purebred with dpapers in order can't be shown at Dog Shows - this is untrue- they can be shown in �• /�-+Lid.{.� �I�r'�l irk.;..�.../` r r. �S9 y r Obediance Trials and,via the same ribbon and trophies.an uaspayed. dog can win. Log shows are big business and rapidly becoming an industry: . „`+L.. m.. �C43C} �T ` r1� 46x3' OP]6WING DATA SPAY AND MZMR CLINIC 7d, 9 7-f Cie OP LOS A9G=s CH CL--RK SC:,�D SUFERVISCaS Soume of Data# Mao Avbo tt I. SUSh. GaiMMI )epartsent. Or AU10d AagnUtion 215 West ARM Street TA• Angeles. Calllornla 90012 Phones 213-4839-5-M .g munmi34n_ab u , July 30. 197a I* Fsnanoial Dalai a. operatuw at the A.Clinic (Pebaruary 17 ror the first through June 30,1 9711 arthe or e operations following$ Total .00 � 2. 00 b. 's' m" eXMMtaroa ars oompriMd ofs Salaries $12.193.00 supply amen 4.220000 ft"Poent Total X30.486.00 ®. It should be noted that the large smo for Initial equipment Is to be asostl eed ower twentg . or at a sato of $38.64 per month, Thereto". a more oomparison of revenue and expenses Is shown below, "AL RBVMM 312.494.00 � e 12.193.08 Expense 49"0.00 Aaortlsatian of Sgnipment (12/2 mss. t 2 Sid.(4) 2§3.88 TOTAL E PUSS $16.676.88 d* while the '°to date" rovemm has lagged behind eatpenses. the .2419 M e�osparison for the last two months for whioh data ars arallable shore that ""nue is ALB2AD"Y' beginnIng to surpass expenses, .�.r.�L.. ..dm.... seven" 2-6_ 15.50 53.3",90 Salan and SgVly SMS 349'9.00 2.729,00 ea rrm all indications• the Cilrio is AL8Sar at the fianoiai breakeven point. Pm. Bash statede rather emdously, that be would lits to own a business with similar potential for financial su+ooess. a. NUMber of eaxgLaa2 opesati4OG& perform!# MW 215 k=a ISO TOAU . to date# 8; ° ImlUdes opesatione pwroMed In gebraarfa Marb and ApAl b. T tso an a bwds of 20 worklaw a per sw2thq them gars about 812 OvexatIMS Per &W perlomedIn 9y* ane per day in Jett Ando In J22yo twel" to f1ft"S pear dare' a, Bewmw demand for the C21alo90 earrieoa 1e auk groator thm am be pr*mm31f acep , pleamaa are bei mid* to expand time faol2itlas and to Lnoreaw the ClWo*s aporattbg louse frit slot to testy-fow a &W40' III. Ahmse to to babila..' ...PMIC 02MUaat a* are Is pleased that the CUnle offers at val=blo send" to tbo pub.Uo at Ivw oasts. P°eeasls oats or dogs ate spayed for a FLAT Fln of $174,30 s'bile orale ants or dogs axe nxtered for .:50.- be Q.b. &tb=daawA for the CilnLe's *awl*" has beengreat and 681 aperst3;ene sere performed ttax"& Am 30,, l9n, the C2Udo•s reeord Is aaoee21anto 3e ?hams belts been Na nortalatUs =wag the anUaals opevated 20 There ham bean so eaoet ► Cabs aftelag run Vast- w"616" 0001169t MR, 13. The" 'bei! berm! so letters of OrItle sm faon &USAMl a� who have, via" the C21nlm•mt sere3aee d THE CONTRA COSTA SOCIETY for the PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS 1622 Santa Clara Street Richmond, California Phone: 525-0566 July 17, 1971 RECEI Board of Supervisors dl//7/ Contra Costa County T. P A A S C H Martinez, California 94553 CLERKO �A CF T SUPERVISORS 13Y :P�tY 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 cruel problem, The cost of expanding existing shelter facilities, and the need to'z=struct 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, trBradford, Jr. PRESIDENT GB:ml Encl nQ r August 2, 2971 A fir Honorable John A. , Nejedlg senator, 7th District State Capitol Building -Room 2074 Sacramento, California Dear Senator Ne jedlys The Boardon July 27, 1971 fixed Thursday'. August 12,E 1971 at 10 a'.m. as the time Par 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. PAASCHO CLERK By Lazzariff Deputy Clerk dl Enclosures J In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California July 27 19 r 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. Ne jedly Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of County Agricultural Comm. Supervisors (6 copies for distribu- affixed :his 27th d of July ' 1971- tion 1971tion to organizations) _ County Administrator PAASCH, Clerk By GerlRussell Deputy Clerk H 24 8/70 IOM - CET CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ' Department of Agriculture !'.�. T, PAASCH Inter-Office Memo -OARO of 80PERV-.;0i7^ :Y NCO co. , p: TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: July 15; 1971 Via J. P. McBrien, County Administrator FROM: A. L. 'Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner-Sealer of y A Weights and Measures . (t ' SUBJECT:. Surplus Animal Problem (Report requestedfby Board Order dated .16/29/71) 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, 1971- In 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) tKI a4 o 4 y Ct H N '31 H e ct o ti f0-+► ' low � 0 toy 4 + N Q S-. O t�► o `� H t�'0 H * 9 y `I1f pQ� 4 � d 11 F+ t~!.! y ~ N Ro cct O P 0 cc so 0 H CA qtr 04 I-& to :� M lid d O H 0 a a �a w • �' N � N F+ • A %A N N O w Ln ZD �' co to o a+ w N %a T A tit N �i W �D Fi ca 010 O y DO 40�• N N H ; H MN N c!• w O w as 'GO~ ND N .i v N N Oo N r+ s'z b► . • a . • . m ct• C!9 O %0}-j �. ^� W• W W �i a1 Ut O N t-+ ti0 t r G3 ct O CO CD 1Jt O O b Ij z a `�' N N �► ct V O O O W N N QO C1D N N N N ~ • • • • t? to M Af 00 O "p- N O O N C+ O tR N W W Vit ^J VA so W O W O N HO h W O -ov 1-4 164 O r t3 y N tD w N tP i %bM N3 00 %,A 00 10 W0 co -,300 \O -13 W \O -4 O Q \O 00 O� O l.R N W %A lh N N kA 4r a3 l,R (3) N 4rct O N co W a% •ti] \O N N %A Q M m Vl � � s • `( 0 � W ct N N N W a44b N \D fi' For O W 00 %,n co In ;r N \n v ►-+ -13 � vn kA N N In tat. Q` O ct SD In N N N N W � N N 11t % !� 4rO Ech ct � O ar O M UD CT W Vi W N pp O W H O OD O N O W 41' O !+ O co 0% Q O O • . N 4 NW O t� y w d G •dr .O 404049 H ct N a N"' y ct 0 p ' �• cn *i o n t.� o p o � t yAct ct � d caO H F+ C 0 oC4 :r � Q IlaxIll o * . 00 * �,a gat► � �« ON NOw ov wa o vOn OD W N eOOWiNm •N •NNN v•VNrtt WiN •WVV •ri ram,o vt o O V ' w * to a O cox vt o x yo s 40 40 act n J 4r W A Vt o N %0 14 W %A w N W W � W W Vt At H a 1"a boo N 00o :a N a;K ;r N W 00 M a Vt EO O W %0 N W O W W O% Vt W a% N co W N 3 ct a %0 Vt co 1n O iJ► y a\ m 1n 1s• N Vt M C+ N N O t a "n a d * � y d A'd Vii W 40 40 N lA 1100% N N W Vt O s N cto O %04r W 4;r -• NO F+ W W ' W Oh t N y t#3 OD N N �D N W Vt tJt N N W W N �.O N H 1 a N N O w m to %Jt N O N NO (32 ct O N N O ;:t' OR a W OR N 4t W Ot W -i 'ace 1 O% p old y V*tr � W N N H (D co N 0% 00$.A u o --a vw 0- ZD ZD N y 6;j ZD Ut as o a N N o Z4 a+ ig o 1.0 -3 Of O W %A W 1Jt 17 OD %A 0% ct a %D t tt uta Oo Oo OA Vt ►+ O N Oo %A %A �N oo O ct to * Ua N vtUJI tn co "OD NO at O N0% 4r N N 4r 4r �` W W y Oo OD O) V W co O N ti0 R' w • O VR a 0 C7 N 'o o {o o o $ o V �p t N _ i �a1 c+ • 1 � j f t C �p l p M d p `D p y , CD I 10 GO vo kA 0 0 z N t �. CA x N N i t . O N r , z f $ o 8 o r- f�•fY�' j t Cl i ( %V. T. PAASCH CLERK oO�A D CFO S A ERRVISORS 0. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS B.Y aputy CONTRA COSTA COUNTY In the Matter of Regular Calendar of Board. REQUEST THAT MATTER BE CALENDARED FOR BOARD ACTION DATE:- -7— 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.) . tv AA - r9 l 4 ' 1 i_ Jl: 3 C fir. Ro be A c1 �t U�M , �'��o rrt�� t o ri s io�fFtt.T Pj s It is estimated that !S-.Z 0 minutes will be re-qu ired for presenta on. Preferred time: 11:30 a.m. P•m• 58-1 - 500 - 26.1 , In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California June 29 , 19 n 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 Board:The foregoing order was passed by the following vote of 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 .Tune . 19 ,L Commissioner W. T. PAASCH, Clerk County Counsel , County Administrator By Deputy Clerk DorothysfA. Harkne s s H 24 4/71 IoM m u e+) n cr1 0 � O .� P• N cT, CO .-1 c i C. r+ ri s d M rt Q ri .•d in O Ln gn b Li'o 1- � G C4 4 W a> m r+b vi 3 O+ u ca .o >~,a 0) m 3 rn C w u w 41 o r! u ch n 00 W 0.0 ra-411 m � try 1 N1 1 1 1 1 1 cn 03 01 0 O 0 u r•I 1 OD 1 i I I I 1 .-d }! WO ODA•r4 at ca C+ d m 41 m R o to cc 60 to 0 w to Cd _ > \ � mv u ���• CA etOj y ? U,tO. ' Cd ra 1vO+ O a• O Q .7 O •r4 a, u cd Q m r► O / A tO 1 %O n I ! ¢"«# •: O 4) ca 41.0 60 u O ' b / w / r, I ! C p< 4! O V 0.U W t".. 1+ w ri A N .3 CD - 110 1 0 c; d,r++ >,u�v.OG'VN Zt cc i� a! o�Ox �-A ami.C+u'�O 'O u H O b.0 14 O G m to 01 r4 N O .t •d d 1~ r.V 41 -W m m� O, N aCr tT trt t) H O 0 4! H,-I 41 4? R! $4 � th N ap M 1 ! ! .-1 O q w Co « « pA r+ O it m,d C >, U L •Cr .7 I i 1 r7 r1 W i7Ln en 0 Ow f.v-0O 4) N c0iCD 3 kC $400>,4 A 4mr 0 >,� CC.0 o >a at as u u a CI) 60:34) x to v � d 1, rn N Q to cn Q r- 44 ra m u co O. IM S 00 %0 rt 00 N tD Cn O, QW a.iJ a x « 0Q cn O, O1 O1 I Oa 4 r•. O, 0u.4 °' .r-4 um .7 � i r4 10 ce V8 � o OW-4 :3 >.t'awto OX C) c`"r4 ami 0 U O .Nt O co 00) O O L7+ ra N O 00 .7 t0 O b W to u W m N N tp O1 to N .-t J r.. O W 47 +1 u r•. %0 N .D cn / 1 I 01 Q 41 O, m 04 E L o 1° ca�,G�Q v en i 1 i ups r. to -a 4; >%A"4 C) r1 $4 to.0 >,aa)O P: COW 3: r4� Oto Q yut x r1 rOt • '�,( •►i d o% d 00 4 w M crT N tO _ O >%ca 43 t0 C.,V*O m N O+ N W1 r` Q -* r► N (Y%O•rt Q A 41 CO 01 04 O N r- O 00 cn Q Go Ln of ,m C a ooh A ,a r+ N r± est Or1co 0w C) tOtri°t+ CO r4J "4ur>'+ U—_ O I to u u 2:1 m CO •> J p O m E+ $4-r4 W u 4J cn cn co .? 0o O t0 cn Q O P. O 00 u 43 O m $4 m r4 O 00 .-I N Q r- t� 4 ra to rd"a OC A u 4 P. - m w ao N c•1 r• O f*- to O N H u d 4 co - t~ 00 r-1 r+ ri C; tcn cn N co C t) wo C Ca -4 Z $$4 S.0 u" � d >+141 00 tr at g00CCM $4 Q O c0 41 4! G to uu P+a i ; ' 301 M O h h O • O rt O O O O O .�j r-1 %0 O M O N �0� O O r1 O %O O O O M 1.1 N O %0 O h 00 O In O In O O O N M 00 h 1 1 .r1 w w w w w w / 1 v .j N O .T O h rl m %0 r-1 O In ID %D M 0-4 w t 1 m M h u1 00 w rid IA H N S S �. .. x w yr U h 0% 0% W r-I 00 N OD O O O .7 h M $1N N h h OD u1 (A 00 MI -4r00 In t h t 1 1 CIS iJ 1-1 N N .Nr-4 T i '40 M M # N 1 I 1 O) IO w w t w w 1 1 1 1 W U aY' rd 4 rl 01 tY .-a V G H 00 N .;} 0% co M In r1 po h r1 r-4 M Ln 01 N O O &A 1 't h h N O� 0% In M t M 1 I7 aT M M N h In 1 0% h 00 M M Nen %D / Ln 1 IM V 0 rt %0 I IM r-1 M w 1 w I O r-4 H b 01 r1 rl In D*' 00 %0 N rI O O IM %0 co u1 %0 -4 u1 O h N " r-1 00 N rl 00 r-1 N 00 O C)% tT 00 u9 00 r-1 r4 In 07 0 00 ra N Cr) r1 00 D'- %0 M 01 %D %T �D O 0% O O 00 34 U iJ N r4 M %t N N 00 N M M r- .* yW M r 4 r 4 M A b 07 N Q, 00 may' 0o O rI O M QI a, ID ui O u1 oD > h tT M IM ,7 C% 0% N 00 Cn u1 u1 M h 00 ID O O r1 O h h N M %O O •t h %0 h 00 0 00 N N h m N 00 1 A 4J N H %0 M 0% N %0 H r-4 %0 M M IM r♦ t4 r1 r4 rl N N 07 A 00 h 00 u1 N %0 O %0 u1 %0 M N %0 h rl O N m .t %D %0 %0 h .-a M O O O O %0 h T In N 0% rl O L N r-I N T .7 CO O 00 00 -4 %D %0 O IT r+ O O t"1 (Q w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w U M r4 -,t M 'T N r-1 M Z e4 .f M S M � �t -T rl M r-f N M rI OD N 00 � h M h O %0 It O r-1 r-4r-i h N 0-40% 00 m r- O d r1 I!1 d' %0 M 41anM N O r-I N M M M N .� w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w A M N h to ..7 N r� h r4 r-I H r4 rl to In In In N M r1 r4 r-I N M c0 h N N 00 �T 00 M N N u1 0% h 0% %0 M 0% 1-4 O t0 � 00 %0 .S r-4 a% %D 0% 00 b r-t h 00 r-1 h r-d 0% 0% r-i 0) M M r-I O+ .-4 rd ,;t h N N r-I * N 00 M N h tti w w w w w %0 M � co � ehrl an 00 rid N r-�VtID OI N O% M O O a I:, m 14 .4 to O .`0 O $4 o 01 sJ O o 4J $4 y0 O co O O G >% '17 O Rf V4 00 d ra O 01 a7 O -.-I 47 -r1 O CO C 0 L U O vd rd O 0 v b 3+ 0 k 0 E a "4 10 03 O co $+ U u O 01 07 OD 01 k 4J CO 00 A 0 " -r1 r] O +4 0 4! 'O 0 aJ C U O is it 41 w r% e0 G y rt7 c 3+ C W W > O C a C C f» ca c0 R r 4 O L a 0 a n n n ' LM o r- 'Mm 'D f. GD �D to o of • n O .-+ N 10 O atp to O 00 O n m rt m GD m m m f7t tD O r4 O N w w w w w w w w to rt n �D O� r1 n r1 w r% N f� tD to N to f. rl N N rf N rt G7 N GD tt1 4 C% O M O Cn f- OD N r4 Gi 1 1 01 to fT M r4 O 1 OD 1 t GD 1 -4 1 tpY1 o ; ; N t+1 rJ N frt 1 t 1 1 N 1 w w 1 1 1 t w i rt rl rf V 14 Ct% GD fl� tD In O O f- GD n d O t0 1 rl 00 er1 to �j GD 1 N 1 1 �D rl T N to r1 W �D O A rt rl cn tO Gl ,h ol 11, r4 17, Cq CA CII m � 'D O tD 1� 'D O tD (7, N aT N u O N to n N 1 N N O N OD C0 N N U i�.l �D O aD 1 frt r♦ O� rl r♦ tf'1 tD rt r-4 N % N b a! tr1 N t\ N N N N .4t rl to to to GD co RGj %D r4 %D t"1 ri CN CT M tD ra f. W N M M Oq 0 .4 r1 W v 1 co N N GD CA 0% rt n r- O M O' w w w w 1 A to C N r-1 r1 ra tIl r+ N cn N N s A 1 0 0D ao O C) Qp� rr4 cn � � (A Go � � p tgry n it �o Ln N OD GOD ch N %D N O N co cn N1 4 Ln t0l w w w w cr'1 r-1 CH N ri tD U �O r4 ^ r♦ N N Ln O co N O f` cn co t0 to tr) %a N r` aD t\ to O r� %D GD N rt -* N tD 1l- 00 Ln to tf1 t�1 r-1 to t- N O N S O O% m .-d 00 O w w w w w q -4O n � LM N C rd ra N P4 N OD r-d %D n N O� O cri m G0 -4 Ln r4 r- Q N ra **Trl N to O 01 GD ,1N Irl tD O rl G1 rl try %D O GD m O r-1 N 1 r. CT f- N e4 O0 cdw 1 w f. N 1-4 cn n Ln C•t f� r� 1 v-4 N N % N 0) U O m c0 ~ eb f:. A G U 1+ 93 � aD GJ ra m O O is O O O ra t f0.1 > H H > >+ H V m • 1m+ to to M Alt O O Ln 0 %0 sn O ih O O M 4j 1 .7 W O MrO4 M m C 1 G mrt m N OD 1 M .t.r w w w w 1 1 't7 O 0% N CO CA r d tM N O v1 GD 1 M / T p �O d► C N M GD r4 N M N 00 N _d* N tQ at x r-+ w - U to t[l h N O GO N GO M 4 O tM 14 m� N M t0 r-f t ! / O O r4 h h r♦ 1 to M t h 0 tr h to i tV t 1 N tM r 4 M N t r-I %0 1 w 1 1 i w i 1 m U to N a r-t U H CO h to M h LM o o -+ rn ra Q o m h as M h / e-r f 1 to r4 IM h tO 1 to CO 1 N to N 1 M t t %0 to N may' e 4 h r N to 1 r4 cv 1 1 1 r♦ r-I N t C 1 0 r4 co gn rC m U r-4 ra O M GOO s7 N Zo O� .? O O O O to A iJ O N O h %0 1 O t M 'T .-a ►'. h O O O M N N cuk w w w w t w t w w w w U m rr L O r-1 1 h M I r4 C) A 'd 0 %O O N M %0 M 1n O N O M d h .-i Q CO r4 m N t,0 h h Q h M h W Ot CO N O r-I Q r-I r-1 O 00 O CT M 1 O .t M h M M h tO O ra a0 r4 r4 r A m oo to N t N M M t0 1O O �7 A t %0 GO O r-i %O r4 M 4 tD to to � m M .O t0 .7 wt N O N to O N tM O N M w tG w w w w U r-r N M r-1 r+ h rt M r-1 � t>") O► .7 e-f tQ Ln -4 tT M to N tr f �O Gr d1 Cn N h O r-1 Q CO O► W tO M N tp t0 h h r-d in O► C► M to t0 %o O CO to h N to h Ct M O —,.-d N M N r1 M W r-I N to O 00 N 1-1 h rd r-4 %0 O to O 0 o t0 N p to %o r+ to %o w M O m o .I h h N ra r-t p N %o O 0 W r 4 %O .? � r 4 tD h Ot N -7 i GO N h N to m M rd r4 .t cc 14w t w w w E N M w -T N r r- GO O N h r 1 C •r4 C M N r4 r♦ N rel r-1 co tv m •� w .mi to rUi U V f +C1 O 0 O d 0 C r4 14 is O > 00 0 C is 00 d O ,r+ ar t+ '0 O W r-I C 0! M O -r/ Co 31 W C M C +{ LA Q 0f O -.4 Ai b U m 41 O O 0 $4 'LJ G A co .Y C ,rl 00 0) 0 CO -rr 9. r4 10 E O CO O L U 4t V m 0 V a 41 3 .X ji r-/ r+ m � r. 0 O r-1 O O O O O O m 0 m m c0 O O tib e0 L m a a a z z z co v, in 5 W w O -7 m N m r4 m aJ C7% t %D r4 %D co G m iJ 00 rl 1 • m ca x d O o cJ t .� G N %D N %D 00 L 3+ D..G m 34 11 O a) a) .-+ 00 .-+ tT to Gowo W u} M Ln M 00 b 34 a) $4 4) O u O r] 0l 3.G.4 •.d r4 cd W x f71 JJ.0 014J�4 Q)-,4 m41 cd 3p CC-rq lc„) M tT cnN Ln cd >r+ o d b 3+ 3+ Cd 4J :3 V4 r4 r4 QJ,444 a) a) t t m O O rt 4J PO 0).,a.0 a)-r4m M M n O .0 u m d CL +4 +J a .4 .� rt O U 3 4JO f 'r 0.' W U ut a -4 4J-4 r4 G U L >m a) L •-+ B a) G p to x of JJ o= m m v .� Odd Cua) +JGZ--1m m rt U 13..G m W C d)b o O ca (1) H Ln N %D Nt70 03 -4 JJ JJ•C a) E rJ W m rn rt FA t tT C% to M .4 W O) 11'O a O $4 Z4 N t O N O O C OOjJa rt 0.0 0) WJJbo �A t %D M %D "1 JJ � 443 Cd'O w d a) u O CL W. I O M M 00 34 1J G G to C 4) .0 E•d H to M y tJ Cd U a) u a) cn m m 3U+ a)A a.m,Gt a�J JOt z w >% a O O "4 m bo m 3 a) rt ►7 B @ C rt W O JJ m 'O U d rt W b 0 3+r40'03JO3UC3+ G P E4"40 a tT Um tmaJ) O tr14 % ]Ln t U G"4 ca a) U Qc %p O 0 + r3 W ri U u G dJ O t- N %D N JJ rl jJ C O rt w C OC J7J CIS 34 -4 JJ -t m rt m a)e4 O W rt rt O O r cl to .4 N a) $+ m M U rt rt to C4 U U Jr1 -* to 4) 0) o P. - co r+ N + m (J) L rt 3J.0" k m Aca d cd JJ d a) Kb O z U E •-t C a) a) C u C 34 'O wW � u0� LW3mO0 0) 1 J m &rn rt O3a u J%D +0 00 r+ 00O% 0) 'O m O .a • G O rt co rdT bo JJ m 41 brd rt rt C 34 a) 0 3+ G G r4 Gr+ mJJ0) O.Z'O AbJ M .d M a) C C•-t O is CO u O C CIS m M -It M U L >>3+ dN OM O M a) -4 N + O)JJ rt -t - a. A b a) twCO.CJJG rtmm t C Q. O 4) m 0,a ca bo 0) cga 3+ O O C3400G� 54- rbo iitam) 14 N "4 "4t � a)10 Om9 �U tT N N M N ]'LnOr4 m JJ Q) 3+ a)iJ'p ri Wm D% O %D O cD a) 0) C a).0 C G--t 0) O 4) can Mop a0 00 � Cd •41J W JJ 3 m 4JJ--�rel U -+ an O cnO a) .4 a) O a1 G m iJ O > P, n n 3+ 3+ p 41 N O JJ m W W C r4 N rt d u O O a)rt C d O'O rt CC rfi Q'.v c 0 6 r. CC r4 Gra aJ G •-t d.0•-t UJ r4 3J•-t aJ C > of O OJ: J O 'd 34 >,O.0 O w o.0 34 C O 0. O N OO I 00 s Po JJ 1J tJ 3+ OO tJ JM.-r4 U A - N O -7 O m N M N Ln r♦ 'O O 4) 4 O C 'O ca a) 3t co m rn � It 'o O •-Gt CO -4 a) O C cn 00 cd 17 L 01 m C o0 N M t- N r_ p 0) c0 r4 0) M aD c•J O ccU J .-d 34 rt O C $+ V4 c0 a d b p m >, L m b i+ > r+ 4) aw � o CC aJ cn O •d r4 U . 1-4 to E+ O 00 U " m E H A W.t W 30.1 m p 8 � Ea � O .•-t a) 3 >I 0 U U C9 x FLCASC RCSPONO TO, CONNITTELS NATURAL RE90URCCS ANP 13 DISTRICT O«ICt WILPLIM CNA/R24M 1393 CIVIC ORO"WALNUT CREEK.CALIF.94590 EL"MON9 AND . (415) 934-4550 JOHN A. NE,JEDLY RtAPPORTIONUMT LOCAL OOYtRNNENT SACRANCNTO OF//Ct SEVENTH SENATORIAL DISTRICT WATER ASSOURC98 STATC CAPITOL SACRAMENTO.CALIF.950t4 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (9101 445.0003 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE reua � June 16, 1971 R��C s Mrs. Jerri Russell Board of Supervisors 1 T. P A A S C H CLER 10 OF SUPERVISORS County Administration Building ON � D:Pan CO� A CO. Pine and Escobar Streets Br 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. 1 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. } R very truly yours, JOHNiA. NEJEDLY Senator, 7th District n JAN:a] ,✓G!= e4ou CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ELROLD °J E - Department of Agriculture - �9- X97/ Inter-office Memo �� A A S C H CLERK O7 SUPERVISCRS CO TA CO. Icy Deputy TO: J. P. McBrien, County Administrator DATE: May 269, 1971 Attentions Charles Hammond FROM: A. L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner - Sealer of Weights and Measures SUBJECT: Study and Recommendations on Establishing a Low-Cost Spaying Clinic On Tuesday, March 239 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 i Utilizing Veterinarians and Facilities in Contra Costa County A, B, C, 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-P►edical 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 rathesr'than pay a registration fee for all of then. (Some residents have asmany as 30 cats. ) 1/70 (500) *'*J.. P. McBrien i -2- 5/26/71 Co Increase the license fees for unsDayed 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 I* The program could start earlier because there would be no building to construct or personnel to hire. 2, 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 1. Citizens would .criticize the urogram as being a financial subsidy to the veter- inarians, paid for by the taxpayers 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 Straying 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. ) $56000 Medical Equipment $25,000 TOTAL $81.000 L J. P. McBrien -3- 5/26/71 Be Hire two veterinarians, one receptionist/clerk, and one medical, assistant (kennelman)• See attachment A. 9 Co 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 $819000 or more is contributed by interested citizens. No restrictions should be attached to the contributions except that they be used to construct and equip a low-cost spaying clinic operated by the county. Be The county program would be evaluated on a continuing basis by the operating department and a complete evaluation conducted at the end of one full year of operation. F. Only Contra Costa County licensed dogs and registered. cats would be accepted for spaying. G. ' Should the clinic not prove successful at the end of one year and the Board of Supervisors cancels the program, the facilities and staff would be used tos I. Handle the majority of injured dogs and cats required to be treated under Section 597f of the California Penal. Code. i 2. Observe all biter dogs and cats quarantined at the centers, thereby reducing the required quarantine period from 10 days to 5 days. 3. Examine all animals being adopted from the centers to make certain they are healthy, thus avoiding many returns, refunds and -exchanges. Vaccinate each dog against rabies (low-cost) so licensing can be completed without issuing notice and follow-up contacts. ADVANTAGES 1. Persons with low incomes and those with large dogs would take advantage of the county clinic. Many citizens are unable to pay the high cost of private veterinarians for the normal spaying and it would be impossible for some to, pay the additional cost because a larger animal is involved. # 2. A greater reduction of surplus animals could be accomplished, as the number of animals spayed at the county clinic would be in addition to -those spayed at the existing veterinary hospitals by . aPProximately 39500 annually. l •J. Pe MoBrien . -u- • 5/26/n 3e All female dogs and cats adopted from the centers would be spayed (or sufficient deposit required that spayin$ would be performed by a private veterinarian) so these do not contribute to the animal over-population. (Animals with pedigree papers would be exempted. ) 4. All dogs adopted from the oentere would have a rabies shot, therefore licensing would be completed at time of sale. 5e' 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 dogs, 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. ) 2e With a larger staff and a new program the i Department of Agriculture would have more personnel to supervise, etc. 1 3. Research is being conducted which might' eventually provide a simple chemical sterilization of the animals by shots or oral administration. ADDITIONAL REVENUE GENERATED Ae• The license fee for unspayed female dogs should be $8.00e ' ' 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 j unspayed female. (Based on our door-to-door survey the population of cats in the county is approximately the same as dogs .- •-s.ee attachment #3. ) RECOMMENDATIONS I We recommend against Program Number it mainly b6cause the Contra i 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 f { J. P. McBrien -5- 5/26171 most citizens who can afford the fees of a private veterinarian. NOTE: 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 *ould insist on all shots being completed before surgery. We' reeommend that Program Number 2 be instituted effective ` .January 1, 1972,, or within 6 months of the time the county is in , receipt of at least the $81,000 necessary to commence building and' purchase of the necessary equipment. The recommended fee for spaying dogs or cats would be $15.00. (See attachments.:) Attachments, including General Information Attachments: 10 Brochure, -. Spay and Neuter Clinic, City of Los Angeles 2. California Humane Council surrey information sheet : • J. P. McBrien • i Attaachment #1 5/2 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 39 Dr. A1 .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 ! 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. IQ. Mrs, Phyllis Merrill. Moraga 11. Mr. Martin Horowitz, Danville 12. Dr. Herald Wixom, Assistant Director, State Department of Agriculture .'J3• 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 21. Dr. L. Proctor, Veterinarian, Concord 22. Mr. Ken Humphreys, Executive-Secretary, California Veterinarian- Medical Association. Oakland r • . tt ri 9 _��•� •11Qg � 0. yyo k't# y w o fib y 06 Fb 3 t~ CL. IT w _, PIS CA tj p to go IA O'-. .-. , 0-61-0 ctn PA T r, "", is to �, F.•00 R� y t ca = o• Nyp O . . C) IR wcm ct :r Id CIO NO to CL " • �u to � Fd. . . • � CL. trt lLft d fi pow .0 Z 2ad J a h Od a d xr CP a0. Q/ c►KKo i`!' i . . a g N a 30 _ Jon 'c "O tv -' • .� E CL 01 • Ch m 00 d :� CL. �. • A R n A d a. d. , t: . ►�: . COUNTr DEPARTMENT OF AGUICULTUA Animal Control Division - 366 Adde Four Animal Control Offlosrs • ' �'•.l,�.' One Intermediate Tfplet/ClerY ` One Senior AnIuma Control Office! (Permanent License Crew) JUSTIFIGATIONs A permanent dog license crew composed of six new positions would costa ..,,,,.;,..,. approximately $43,976 the first year for salaries. , `•,:;•. ,, equipment and uniform allowance. The license crew should canvass ;;.••'.' about half of the county each year, providing more uniform ; • ,1+'�'' enforcement of the ordinance and generating revenue. It is estimated that there may be 769857 dogs in the county when a ratio of one dog to seven people is used as the guide* Of these.• • �'� approximately 16,400 were not licensed in 1970. This would 't., • 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? ordinance to comply with Section 1920 of the State Health and :.: ,';';•:;', ••r Safety Code. :.1• It is expected that the momentum built up from previous lioense canvasses x111 gradually decrease as the citizen becomes • `•; aware of the fact that there to no concerted 1l oense follow-up , with the number of dogs licensed and revenue. deolining aocordi Rabies inoculation is a "by-product* of the dog licensing ' r�' +r • ' effort and is compulsory by state lax in rabies endemic counties .;�''t::• �, • which@ of course, Contra , Costa is. Although this program will result in some overcrowding• tbs �:'�� �•:_ ' need is so great that we recommend expanding this part of $be function now, regardless of the crowding. ';i�•j; ' •'' Ej Temporary canvassers are not satistaotorke They '•' develop a surge in the Workload that the division. f •.•' is not staffed to handler rdcrultment and train- ' Ing difficulties are added, :they are not OYliled to handle problems with the, public or animals', • hence more dos bites and aooldents oeeor• : : • TOUM DEPARTMENT OF AGIMULTURS Animal Control Division • 366 : ..r' ;•,! ` ; {Permanent License Crewj • �• 'A, Your Animal Control Officers . 2he6e officers would make the door-to-door sontaete, Salary Cost $23,208 y,• Uniform Allowance 360 .. •,, Personal Equipment, badges, lookers• etc. 640 , 'r'f:• ' $249208 `..; �. The senior Animal Control Officer world direct and ooOrd�nati' . ' ►.;: ' the aotivity of the field crew and offiee, and orawlse tM ':'j`• the oompuisoxT lox-cost rabies olinles. ;• •` .;.;J: •'' t Salary Cost $ 6,561 ,. ;,;� • Uniform Allowance 90 • : • _ Personal Equipment. badges• lookers, eto. _160 ► `.! ; $ 69811 0. The Intermediate Typist/Clerk would maintain the dog lioenss files, handle correspondence and*answer telephoned and a ante! •:i''j.l`' t;. questions about licensing. Salary cost # #•X53 `;' ' ; ' • .D, M311gment needed (Capital outlay) • �� 1 - Desk, chair and typewriter S 435. ' r 2 - Desk and chair 165 ' 1 - van-type vehicle 3,656 1 - Radio 950 $ 5. 206 ' .��.•• • • 20" .-Auto-equipment Costs , • 3 - Sedans trot oar pool tar the equivalent of 4 wnths for canvassing in the leu populated areas and o"Ok • back on Individual-11osale -eases. $ i,boo i • van-type vehisle . ` . . . i 600 3:W . . TOM .3.• P. MCBrien Attachment #3 . r - . , • • 5/26/71 . - 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 19709 60,429 dogs were licensedo 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 follows Because there would be only a 6 month period for the program 'to be in effect before March 1, 172_, only 169000 dogs and cats would be eligible to receive theree licensing. Revenue for licensing dogs and registering cats in 1972 would represent a gain of $149,466 over 1970. In 1973 there would be approximately 32,000 free licenses, however; 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 $630978 over 1970 and- should stabilize at -about this figure. McBrien Attachment .. ST_ TO OPERATE COUNTY -CLINIC Annual Costs 2 Veterinarians A $159000 $30000 1 - Kennelman 9,000 1, Intermediate Typist/Clerk 7,500 Total Salary Cost Including Overhead-First Year W9500 11OT9t . ' This cost would be offset by the fees charged in order to be a self-supporting operation. J. P. McBrien Attachments • �• . 5/26/71 COSTS TO COUNTY AND RECOMMENDED FEES .r Expenditures Amount Salaries $46,500 Utilities 20000 Office Equipment 10000 . Library 400 Replacement of Equipment and Miscellaneous 3,500 Vaccines and Medicines 7,900 Office Supplies 600 Auto Equipment 1,600 Operating Supplies 4.000 Costs to County $67.500 Less $159000 (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 $52,500 `. Anticipated spayings per year pier- formed by county veterinarians 3.500 3,500 $15'00 The recommended fee for spaying ' dogs or cats is $15.00. CALIFORNIA '-HUMANE COUNCIL 462 0MM AVMW . wooaw.MMdown ruw a@M1:>;12.s-.t s$ MAY 51911 HUMANITARIANSs ATTENTIONI ANIMAL. CONTAdL, DCNTER With the co-operation of Loa"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 area. California spent no less than $50.000.000 and possibly double that sum on animal controll In 1964-5 $500009000 was spent for animal control in 45 countless In 1969-70. $11.000.000 was spent in 57 countlesl ' In 1964-59 $590009000 was spent in cities and towns operating Independent pounds, In 1969-70, $12.00010nr ,Hent by these municipalitlesl w� In addition to the abovcj, it is estimated that at least $30.000,000 was spent by humane societies and private citizens to boardp feed, and eventually destroy millions of homeless cats and dogsl Consider these shocking figures horsemeat supplies are nearly '. gone) vast amounts of whale meaty grains, and other food are consumed by this huge oversupply of animals. Now long will these foods last if the overpopulation of animals continues to skyrocket? And consider the pollution of .the waters from tons of anlmal wastesl Is there a solution to this fantastic overpopulation or animals?.. � YOU BET 'DERE ISI STATEWIDE CLINICS WHERE ANIMALS MAY BE SPAYED OR NEUTERED AT PRICES THE TUBLII: CAN AFFORDI Now such longer will we continue to pour money, time and enerp Into this bottomless pit? THE TIME FOR ACTION IS NOWI WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR? . •. e e s w * w � s s • f f s a s s • s • s s s s s • s f s s s s '* -.. ' 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. *e Statistical information upon request. A STATEWIDE CO-ORDINATING COUNCIL Of HUMANE SOCIETIES r u 2 Y L n - - . L J n w 2 Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION AIIINUaL REPORT ENDING 12-131-70 FOR. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ANIMALS HANDLED AT�. AND FROM FIELD ded Sold Redeg1ped P 4493 I T,� S * D!��+�s Dogs . . . . . . . 2 2 2 Cats . ns1� 2Z --6� O Rabbits, possums, Racoo . etc 1507 � 319 118 Cox, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc 1 ---910—g0 9 73 Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb . . . . . I 9 Skunks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352 316 Pigeon, Chickens, Ducks, Birds . 83 547 284 Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. � 1 � =-Z� 355 Deer . . . . . . . . . . . . 50D- TOTAL 67243 3430 4711 44377 14725 DETAIL OF ACTIVITY Calls Manhours Police and Court Contacts 1300 429 Veterinarian Contacts 1944 472 School Details 596 195 Vicious, Sick, Inured 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 1298 Stray Cattle and other Livestock details 1042 774 w Case Reports and other Public Complaints 4176 1037 Routine Patrolling 36565 9556 Assigned Special Patrolling 13309 3366 Confine or Pickup Biting Animals 4511 4202 1342 Release Biting Animal from Quarantine 4 :73 3215 73.6 Other Investigation of Bite Report RECEIVED 4590 1250 Female Animal in Season and Dog Pack 608 213 Improper Address or False Calls 7� a- 25$ 68 i, 3 Field Supervision W. T. PAASCH 3364 781 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �! Training, Pickup Reports, Clean Truck, E TRA COSTA CO. Oewuty 7787 TOTAL 100624 34416 * Put to Sleep ** Dead on Arrival ACD 1/68 1 Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION A'.ii AL, REPORT ENDING 12-31-,70 FOP. TOTS ::STERN PORTION OF COUNTY ANIMALSgAPLER AT CENTER AND FROM FIELD mgunded Sold Rede__eme�ed,, P T S * D 0 A ** Dogs . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1112260 6932 2 Cats ' -3Z 5Z _ 3_1_2 3208 Rabbits, O+possums, Racoons, etc i4 Cox, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc 52 2 4 9 2 Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb . . . . . . 12 _______2_ Skunks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 27 252 Pigeon, Chickens, Ducks, Birds . . 4a4 - 342 �2 Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. . �= 150 221 Deer & 338 25 312 TOTAL 2734; 1353 2350 16875 7267 DETAIL OF ACTIVITY Calls Manhours Police and Court Contacts 757 246 Veterinarian+Contacts 419 91 School Details 239 71 Vicious, Sick, Injured and Dead Animals 6354823 License Investigations 4154 _ 93 License Citations Issued Warnings Issued for Animals at Large 90u 14' 3 204 Citations Issued for Animals at Large Stray Cattle and other Livestock details 325 207 Case Reports and other Public Complaints 1652 364 Routine Patrolling 22301 5939 Assigned Special Patrolling 7001 1673 Confine or Pickup Biting Animals 1313 1715 456 Release Biting Animal from Quarantine 1301 1395 275 Other Investigation of Bite Report 223$ 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. 31L.7 TOTAL :29� i ?6131 * Put to Sleep ** Dead on Arrival ACD 1/68 2 • Contra Costa County • Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION REPORT ENDING i2-31-rJ FOR F'Ii10LE CUTER ANIMALS HANDLED Al CENTER Immd,ed ULd Redeemed P�TOS * D.O.A.** Dogs . 1�11�, 22E�0 b3 1130 Cats . 0 9100 236 57 8613 1000_ Rabbits, 01possums9 Racoons. etc 3 _ Cox, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc 3 ;9 l __ 3 Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb. 2 Skunks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1 Pigeon, Chickens. Ducks, Birds . . 2:12 303 L. Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. . 1L6 1 133 17 Deer TOTAL 15073 13`3 _ 2Lr 0 15504 2199 ACTIVITY AT CENTER (Officers and Kennelmen) Manhours Removing animals from night deposit 173 Kennelman duty 5032 602 Office duty 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. 2255 Truck servicing, delivering and picking up equipment 424 License Notices 1802 Biters confined 1U% 4� Biters released :;06 39 Other investigation bite report 31 Miscellaneous public contact 11 (Clerical. and Emergency Standby Officer) Office Operation 1005` Standby at Night to handle emergency requests 1111 *Put to sleep TOTAL 20390 ' **Dead on Arrival ACD 1/68 3 Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION UNINCORP0 14 D :;E3TEPd1 ::i•':•�=:L REPORT ENDING 12-31-70 FOR PO:i'PTOI? OF COUNTY ANI _S HANDLED IN FIELD Im ou d d Put to sleep Dead on Arrival Dogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2147 144 391_ Cats . . . . . '_]1�9 l 02 Rabbits, Opossums, Racoons, etc �2S1 , 3 252 Cox, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc �3_t_,._ Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb. 3 3 Skunks . . . . . . 156 6 _ Pigeon, Chickens, Ducks, Birds . — 7 41 Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. 132 _ 11 l00 Deer . . . . . 221 1_5___— 1111_ 20� TOTAL 4174 391 1861 DETAIL OF ACTIVITY Calls Man,hours Police and Court Contacts 163 66 Veterinarian Contacts 96 23 School Details 68 24 Vicious, Sick Injured and Dead Animals 2168 _661 License Investigations 1293 226 Warnings Issued for Animals at Large 322 6$ Stray Cattle and other Livestock details 241 ,1555 Case Reports and other Public Complaints 614 144_ Routine Patrolling 9840 2�57.4,�,_ Assigned Special Patrolling 2095 529 Confine or Pickup Biting Animals ,66.11 182 Release Biting Animal from Quarantine 425 111 Other Investigation of Bite Report 754 180 Female Animal in Season and Dog Pack 10 12 1..1.1..1 Improper Address or False Calls 47 11 Field Supervision 655 137 ,. TOTAL I"' 2 ;103 ACD 3/68 4 Contra Coat& County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION REPORT ENDING 12-31-70 FOR CITY OFEL CERRITO ANIMALS HANDLED IN FIELD Imo ed Put to Sleep Dead on�ival Dogs 2 Cat s , 279" X13 159 Rabbits, O'possums, Racoons, etc 17 2 14 Cox, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc 1 Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb. . . . . . Skunks . . . . . . 2A7 2 Pigeon, Chickens, Ducks, Birds . . _5 3 Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. . Deer . . . . . . 7 1 5 TOTAL 801 71 327 DETAIL OF ACTIVITY Calls Manhours Police and Court Contacts 368' 69 Veterinarian Contacts 125 21 School Details 25 6 Vicious, Sick Injured and Dead Animals 313 90 License Investigations 227 24 Warnings Issued for Animals at Large _, 53 9 Stray Cattle and other Livestock details 3 2 Case Reports and other Public Complaints _98 19 ?routine Patrolling 1320 473 Assigned Special Patrolling 359 81 Confine or Pickup Biting Animals 135 31_ Release Biting Animal from Quarantine 106 17 Other Investigation of Bite Report 11,.5 20 Female Animal in Season and Dog Pack 19 5 Improper Address or False Calls _ 7 2 Field Supervision L8 10 TOTAL X1421 8'97 ACD 3/68 5 Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION WiL REPORT ENDING 12-31-70 FOR CITY OF HERCULES ANIMALS HANDLED IN FIELD Imipounded Put to Sleep Dead on Arrival Dogs . 3-; Cat S14 5 Rabbits, O1possums, Racoons. etc Cox, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule. etc 2 Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb. . . . . . 2 Skunks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 Pigeon, Chickens, Ducks, Birds . . Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. . Deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL 56 12 DETAIL OF ACTIVITY Calls Manhours Police and Court Contacts Veterinarian Contacts 1 1 School Details 1 1 Vicious, Sick Injured and Dead Animals 3 10 License Investigations 11 2 Warnings Issued for Animals at Large � 9 1 Stray Cattle and other Livestock details `' �4 Case Reports and other Public Complaints �5 1 Routine Patrolling 166 52 Assigned Special Patrolling , 79 19 Confine or Pickup Biting Animals t 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 3,23 97 ACD 3/68 6 Contra Coat& County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION i'.i JJ;.L REPORT ENDING 12-31-70 FOR CITY OF LAFAYETTE ANIMALS HANDLED IN FIELD ImiDoMded Put to SleeR Dead on Arr1vgJ Dogs 322 3 90 Cats . . . . . . . . . . 59 Rabbits, Otpossums, Racoons, etc zq 4 Cow, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc 9 3 Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb. . . . . 1 Skunks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 5 2 Pigeon, Chickens, Ducks, Birds . . 7 b Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. . 22 1 19 Deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 4 88 TOTAL 8,03 77 435 DETAIL OF ACTIVITY Calls Manhours Police and Court Contacts 5 5 Veterinarian Contacts 62 14 School Details 9 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 _ 96 22 TOTAL 267$ 826 ACD 3/68 7 - i t • ._ Con ra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION Ai`:iaL'y REPORT ENDING 12-31-70 FOR CITY OF PiiVOLE ANIMALS HANDLED IN FIELD Impound Put to Sleep Dead on Arrive Dogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 Cats . . ns2 23 Rabbits, 01p0ssums, Racoo , etc 35 3 32 Cox, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc ,� Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb. . . . . . 1 Skunks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4S 22 34 Pigeon, Chickens, Ducks, Birds . . 82 5 Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. . -- 8 5 Deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7 TOTAL 673 7 292 DETAIL OF ACTIVITY Calls Manhours Police and Court Contacts 7 2 Veterinarian Contacts 3 2 School Details 22 5 Vicious, Sick Injured and Dead Animals 375 97 License Investigations 226 40 Warnings Issued for Animals at Large —Z2 14 Stray Cattle and other Livestock details 26 13 Case Reports and other Public Complaints 139 31 Routine Patrolling 1852 453 Assigned Special Patrolling 616 151 Confine or Pickup Biting Animals - -93 26 Release Biting Animal from Quarantine 65 14 Other Investigation of Bite Report 119 28 Female Animal in Season and Dog Pack 1; 6 Improper Address or False Calls Vit.__ 2 Field Supervision p,, 14 TOTAL 3701 898 ACD 3/68 Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION ,:I11iAL REPORT ENDING 12-31-70 FOA CITY OF RICIR;IOND ANIMALS HANDLED IN FIELD Impounded Put to Sleep Dead on Arriyg� � , Dogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Cats . . . . . . . . . . . . J 2r6 873 Rabbits, o+possums, Racoons, etc . 51 . 5 .L2 Cox, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb. . . . . . 1 Skunks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10 Pigeon, Chickens, Ducks, Birds . . 41 9 26 Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. . 59 3 52 Deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1 10 TOTAL t+743 601 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 605 License Investigations 1566 251 Warnings Issued for Animals at Large 372 67 Stray Cattle and other Livestock details 12 5 Case Reports and other Public Complaints 526 107 Routine Patrolling 6711 1626 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 110 33 Improper Address or False Calls 69 14 Field Supervision 992 171 TOTAL 17612 3999 ACD 3/68 9 • Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION r.II UE,L REPORT ENDING 12-31-70 FOR CITY OF SAN PABLO ANIMALS HANDLED IN FIELD Impounded Put to Sleep Dead on Arrival Dogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1093 Cats . . . . . . . . 477 105 231 Rabbits, Olpossums, �Racoons, etc 16 1 10 Cow, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc 1 1 Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb. . . . . . Skunks Pigeon, Chickens, Ducks, Birds . 2 3 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 10 School Details 49 12 Vicious, Sick Injured and Dead Animals 823 107 License Investigations 653 106 Warnings Issued for Animals at Large 166 38 Stray Cattle and other Livestock details 4 3 Case Reports and other Public Complaints 171 35 Routine Patrolling 2119 487 Assigned Special Patrolling 1000 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 16 3 Field Supervision 152 27 TOTAL 982 1295 ACD 3/68 10 • Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION REPORT ENDING 12-31-70 Fop TOTAL EAS`ERN PORTION OF COUNTY ANIMAIS "HANDLa AT CENTER AND FOM FIELD IMWgunded Sold Redeemed P.T.S.* D.O.�+►+► Dogs b .1{2Z� 2771 Cats . . 3 9 3 Rabbits, Olpossums, Racoons, etc 964 4 241 _�1 Cox, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc 122 51 Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb . . . . . 50 1 z 41 Skunks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 �� Pigeon, Chickens, Ducks, Birds . 0 3 205 __,E 2 Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. . _ 5 7 105 , Deer i9t � 10 138 TOTAL , 39323- 2077 2361 27502 7458 DETAIL OF ACTIVITY Calls Manhours Police and Court Contacts 543 183 Veterinarian Contacts 1525 381 School Details 357 124 Vicious, Sick, Injured and Dead Animals 8603 2748 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 w Routine Patrolling 13764 3617 Assigned Special Patrolling o308 1693 Confine or Pickup Biting Animals 269 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. L•6L0 TOTAL 47678 18235 * Put to Sleep ** Dead on Arrival ACD 1/68 11 Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION ,.e;ic�Jrt� REPORT ENDING12-31-70 FOR i-.Airi!NEZ CENTER w�.....r� .r.....,. ANIMAS HA IDLED AT CENTER Imounded S d Redeemed PPT Sys* D.O.A.** Dogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 --..--2-2�'�- x 517 Cats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17= t - 5� 14572 .. q Rabbits, 0spossums, Racoons, etc . 212 ' 4 177 6S, Cow, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc C> 51 „5 7 Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb. lo i ,7 " 7 12 Skunks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pigeon, Chickens, Ducks, Birds 180 3 2 q Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. ` o 7 391 0 Deer . . . . . . . TOTAL 24425 2077 2361 24962I16L AGTIVITY AT CENTER (Officers and Kennelmen) Manhours Removing animals from night deposit 425 Kennelman duty 4596 Office duty 510 Field Assignment, Receiving Details (Beginning of Shift) 936 Return to Center, dispose, etc. (During Shift) 1038 Complete reports, telephone, dispose, etc. (End of Shift) 1109 Staff meetings and training periods 926 County offices, picking up supplies, etc. 47 Truck servicing, delivering and picking up equipment 584 License Notices 161 Biters confined 211 3 Biters released 652 110 Other investigation bite report 40 Miscellaneous public contact 71 (C erical Su ervisi n and Emergency Standby Officer) Office Operation 11580 s Standby at Night to handle emergency requests 1111 *Fut to sleep TOTAL 23255 **Dead on Arrival ACD 1/66 12 Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION ir,—,?FOar"•'LD EASTERN ' =L REPORT ENDING - FOR PUZT-Oil OF COUNTY ANIMALS HANDLED IN FIELD Impounded Put to Sleep Dead on Arrival Docts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661 1TT7 692 Cats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1721 . Rabbits, Otpossums, Racoons, etc . ,x,16 16 —238 Cow, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc 6L. 24 Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb. . . . . . 29 20 Skunks . . . . . . . . . . 42 Pigeon, Chickens. Ducks, Birds . . 74 Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. . 53 6 3 Deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 7 114 TOTAL 5011 971 2037 DETAIL OF ACTIVITY Calls Manhours Police and Court Contacts 25 16 Veterinarian Contacts 210 63 School Details 75 27 Vicious, Sick Injured and. Dead Animals 2719 946 License Investigations 1156 209 Warnings Issued for Animals at Large 106 83 Stray Cattle and other Livestock details 471* 390 Case Reports and other Public Complaints 754 240 Routine Patrolling 7422 2056 Assigned Special Patrolling 2028 594 Confine or Pickup Biting Animals 695 258 Release Biting Animal from Quarantine 639 141 Other Investigation of Bite Report 605 258 Female Animal in Season and Dog Pack 149 50 Improper Address or False Calls 28 9 Field Supervision 729 230 TOTAL 18ii 5570 ACD 3/68 13 Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION L REPORT ENDING 12_31_70 FOR C;l`ii' OF BREIITyl00D ANIMALS HANDLED IN FIELD Impounded Put to Sleep Dead on A rival Dogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 10 10 Cats . 1 1 108 2 Rabbits, 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 1.26 45 DETAIL OF ACTIVITY Calls Manhours Police and Court Contacts 207 61 Veterinarian Contacts School Details 5 3 Vicious, Sick Inured 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 337 12 Confine or Pickup Biting Animals 13 4 Release Biting Animal from Quarantine 12 4 Other Investigation of Bite Report 21 11 Female Animal In Season and Dog Pack 2 1 Improper Address or False Calls 1 1 Field Supervision 17 8 TOTAL 645 207 ACD 3/68 14 Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL: CONTROL DIVISION REPORT ENDING 12-31-7C FOR CITY OF CLAYTON ANIMALS HANDLED IN FIELD Impounded Put to Sleep Dead on Arrival Dosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2 Cats19 1 14 Rabbits, O�possums, *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 )4 2 29 DETAIL OF ACTIVITY Calls Manhours Police and Court Contacts Veterinarian Contacts School Details 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 4 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 L7 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 Slee Dead on Arrival Dogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202:: 63 bb8 Cats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 454 2 Rabbits, Olpossums, Racoons, etc 175 11, 148 Coir, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc 11 2 Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb. 0 r Skunks . 9 1 Pigeon, Chickens, Ducks, Birds 63 18 21 Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. U 33 Deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a TOTAL 3926 555 1765 DETAIL OF ACTIVITY Calls Manhours Police and Court Contacts 5 Veterinarian Contacts 550 12$ School Details 131 41 Vicious, Sick Injured and Dead Animals 2356 7U6 License Investigations 935 173 Warnings Issued for Animals at Large 398 109 Stray Cattle and other Livestock details 54 37 Case Reports and other Public Complaints 716 177 Routine Patrolling 2311 603 Assigned Special Patrolling 173 455 Confine or Pickup Biting Animals 772 279 Release Biting Animal from Quarantine 520 131 Other Investigation of Bite Report 688 195 Female Animal in Season and Dog Pack 117 49 Improper Address or False Calls 21 A Field Supervision 201 53 TOTAL 11504 3147 ACD 3/68 16 Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION REPORT ENDING x.2--31--70 FOR CITY OF I.-iARTINE;Z ANIMALS HANDLED IN FIELD Impounded Put to Sleep Dead on Arrival Dogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 552 _.._,.33 Cats . . . . . . . . . . . 343 128 17 Rabbits, Otpossums, Racoons, etc 6 31 Cox, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc 10, 2 Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb. . . . . . 1 1 Skunks . . . 6 Pigeon, Chickens, Ducks, Birds . . (� 1 4 Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. . 7 4 Deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L 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 211, 33 Warnings Issued for Animals at Large 123 20� Stray Cattle and other Livestock details 75 5 Case Reports and other Public Complaints 120 34 Routine Patrolling 855 20 Assigned Special Patrolling 627 14$ Confine or Pickup Biting Animals 112 34 Release Biting Animal from Quarantine � 24 Other Investigation of Bite Report 183 48 Female Animal in Season and Dog Pack 5..2 16 Improper Address or False Calls ? 2 Field Supervision _50 12 TOTAL —1zLi5 ACD 3/68 17 0 Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION i REPORT ENDING 12-31-70 FOR CITY OF PITTSBURG ANIMALS HANDLED IN FIELD Impounded Put to Sleep Dead on Arrival Dogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 158 Cats . . . . . . . . . . . 6Q2 334. 20 Rabbits, 01possums, Racoons, etc . 32 2 2 Coir, 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 10 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 FLEASANT HILL ANIMALS HANDLED IN FIELD Impounded Put to S3-eep Dead on Arrival Dogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b Z 13=' Cats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421 1) 2.60 pabbits, Opossums, Racoons, etc . 52 11L 35 Cow, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc !, 1 Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb. . . . . _ 1 Skunks . . . . . . . 2 1 Pigeon, Chickens, �Ducks, Birds . . 26- 4, 1 Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. . 23 1 Deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 5 TOTAL 114- 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 63 187 Assigned Special Patrolling 6D 164 Confine or Pickup Biting Animals 243 80 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 32 TOTAL 4001 1005 ACD 3/68 19 Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION Ai4T;`U L REPORT ENDING 12-31-70 FOR CITY OF I'SALNUT CREEL ANIMALS HANDLED IN FIELD Impounded Put to Sleep Dead on Arrival Dods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ySl 5 449 Cats . . . . . . . . . . . . . 794 150 505 Rabbits, 01possums, Racoons, etc . 100 12 so Cow, Bull, Steer, Horse, Mule, etc 1,� 2 Calf, Sheep, Goat, Lamb. . . . . . 1 Skunks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 2 Pigeon, Chickens, Ducks, Birds . . 15 8 3 Rodents, Gophers, Reptiles, etc. . 32 2 _ 1z_ Deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1 s TOTAL 1957 191 1079 DETAIL OF ACTIVITY Calls Manhours Police and Court Contacts 12 21 Veterinarian Contacts Lr82 ,. 123 School Details 57 22 Vicious, Sick Injured and Dead Animals 1018 344 License Investigations 367 70 Warnings Issued for Animals at Large 112 29 Stray Cattle and other Livestock details �4 50 Case Reports and other Public Complaints 447 99 Routine Patrolling 10$$ 264 Assigned Special Patrolling 6$7 185 Confine or Pickup Biting Animals 431 153 Release Biting Animal from Quarantine 212 83 Other Investigation of Bite Report 22 98 Female Animal in Season and Dog Pack _ 1 11 Improper Address or False Calls $ 3 Field Supervision 142 39 TOTAL 5271 1594 ACD 3/68 20 VV U' 1n the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California March 30 , 19 7� In the Matter of Report of County Government Operations Committee relating to Animal Control policies and procedures. Supervisor Il. N. Boggess having roported to the Board that the Co•mrity Govornron., Operations Coz wtoo (Supervisor A. X. Dias and Suporviso: Boggoss) had met. with 2:r. A. L. Soeloy, Agricultural Commissionor-Sealer of i•;oights and Measures, and Mr. C. Ce Crill, Animal Control Director, to di-ccuss the County ' Animal Control program; and having indicated that as a result of said meeting certain changes in aninal control policies and procedures aro being implemonted, which changes are stated in a March 291, 1971 momorend= issued by the Animal Control Division, and among which charges are provision for return of animals to the owner tihon the owner is present with issuance of citations as required; and Supervisor Boggess having also referrad to the proposal to establieh a apaying clinic at the Animal Control Center, and having indicated that such =attor was being reviewed for presenta- tion as a policy item in the 1971-1972 budgot; and Supervisor A. 1.1. Dias having noted that the aforesaid items are significant in their operational impact and, on said basis, moved that all referrals pertaining to animal control problems be rozeovod as referrals to tho County Government Operations Committee, and said motion having been seconded by Supervisor Boggess, the vote on tae motion was as Follows: AYES: Supervisors A. X. Dias, J. 24 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 dote aforesaid. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of act Agricultural Co=issioner Supervisors Animal Control Director affixed this 0th day of 11-rch , 197= County Administrator W. T. PAASCH, Clerk Mrs. Richard Herrill �f ' Deputy Clerk Elsio Pi t I H 24 8/'70 10M a CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Inter - Office Memo Date: Mash 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. sp.aym&.. clinic at the County Animal Control Center; lk c t In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of ' California March 23 19 71 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. Linecheid, J. P. Kenny. 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. e e: Mrs . Merrill Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Board Committee Supery;sors Agricultural Com. affixed this 23rd day of March , 19 71 Administrator y W. T. PAASCH, Clerk By W Deputy Clerk Laurette Kincaid H 24 S/70 IoM • f, Mrs. Richard H. Merrill 34 Woodford Drive Moraga, California ] Board of Supervisors CIVEO Administration Building 51971 Martinez, California W. 7. PAASCH Dear Sirs ' CLERK��� �►a� A � OCR& 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 iessienirg the work load of the animal control officers. We have all become too selfish and content to keep our heads in Lhe 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, PHYLLIS MERRILL 6r � f•���� / (airs. Richard H. Merrill) i 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 teeatment (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 Buffer 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 s&rt 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 - lees 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 heing made to license cats and a higher fee should be charged for unspayed females. 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 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREBRANCH Orr:CES AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER 100.377H ST.. RICHMOND 94803 SCALER WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 161 JOHN GLENN DRIVE 233•7080. EXT. 3233 K. E. DANIELSON BUCHANAN AIRPORT 851 WALNUT BLVD., BRENTWOOD 94313 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 94320 834•33t8 ASSISTANT SEALER 682.7380 January 27, 1971 RECEIVE ' JAm 2 7 IQ71 E Mrs. Richard Merrill W. T. PAASCH CLERK ARD OF SUPERVISORS 34 Woodford Drive NTRA COST/1 CO. Moraga, CA. 94556 By I _ Deputy Dear Mrs, Merrillt REt 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 heights do Measures ALSjac cot Clerk of the Board/ County Administrator S.P.C.A, , Attnt Mrs. Betty Lumsden Y In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California January 19 197_1_ In the Matter of Letter requesting establishment of a spaying clinic at County Animal Control Center. 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. cc• Mrs. Merrill Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Agricultural Co1m :LssionerSupervisors County, Administrator affixed this-19th day of January , 19 71 County Government Operations W. T. PAASCH, Clerk Committee By Deputy Clerk Elsie Pigot H 24 8/70 IOM Mrs. Richard H. Merrill ] 34 Woodford Drive Moraga, California 94556 January 11, 1971R-E -., Board of Supervisors C 'V�D P Administration Building t A,�a 1 41971 Martinez, California EX T. PAA 3 C H SOA4tD OF SUPERVISORS ON A COST CO. Dear Sirs : - OwUb/ 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 100% 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". Maybetyoung 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? �L : Sincerely, 7zi7Lvi f/ . v PHYLLIS MERRILL PLE. E RESPOND TO, ` `� COMMITTEES DISTRICT OFFICE NATURAL RESOURCES AND 1393 CIVIC DRIVE WILDLIFE.CHAIRMAN WALNUT CREEK.CALIF.94596 ,vE ELECTIONS AND ' (413) 934.4556 'F,.JOHN A. NEJEDLY REAPPORTIONMENT. Q SACRAMENTO OFFICE n :w.m.� f" LOCAL GOVLRNMCNT SEVENTH SENAT*iIi L CT. WATER RESOURCES STATE CAPITOL. SACRAMENTO.CALIF.93614 _._`.. CONTRA CO$TA6 COUNT-' (916) 445.6063 CALIF°(3RNIAg�'LEGISLATURE .Marchi Zg t 9 71 z [RECEIVED James P. Kenny, Chairman ':'AR 221971W, T, P A A S C H Contra Costa Board of Supervisors UBAk Eo0 OF SUPERVISORS Administration Building ont PO ostn co. Martinez, Calif. 94553 MPII 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. Nor, enator, 7th District JAN:c-jr I/� • . . S•iCIAL ;,•.-T_ r* ' m.n GT. a:1 -rd CCr-• TTEE•POiT„ . A neeting of the Speciml kni-i-3 Control Roriew Committee was held on Thursd!7., ` June 6, 1974, at which the rccoamendations of a:' sub-cormittees were presented and reviewed. The following recommendations were approved by the Committee and Pre submitted to J. i +he Board o R,ervisors for review and arepropria,e action. i - s j l.' the County should i=ediately proceed to reL.odel the euthanasia chambers. /”o f;-I'f to co=ply':dl h S..ate law. Sz.udies reveal -that other :sthods .are too • . costly and/or Impractical. (Cont. honey has been appropriated.) 3 ty-14-�N 2. The Co=ittes reco=ends a leash law for dogs. ,Exceptions will be rade 1 1 for w-ar: ing dogs, such as sheep dogs, and for dogs attending obedience - R+ classes. Obedience classes w.;21 issue appropriate identification cards. This ldash law would Tepeal the "at large" definition % ich now exists in the Ordinance. 3. Ranchers should have prime responsibility for protecting their livestock. Animal Control will respond only u.hhen practical or when an Animal Control - A Officer observes a dog harassii:g cattle, in*which case he should get out ' and shoot-the dog. - 4 4. Suggestion for.-s wiU. be'n.,de available to Animal -Control e=ployees T /a enabling them to express their concerns regarding'polieies and operational procedures. - } I% ' ' S. A Lost and Found Card File should not be kept by Animal Control. Telephone identification of an a—.dzal*is inefficient and iL-?ractical. Owners will- continue illcontinue to be notified if the nnimO is identifiable by license, name . and address tag, etc. ' 6. Livestock,• with the exception of cattle, should be held for sale by sealed bid after being held the raeuired a=ount of time. The l;vostoek is to be displayed regularly on Thursday, and:sold by sealed bid. ' ' 7. The holding Buried for mall:eased. i-,n1s shal]:..reaain.at ?2 hours. -Thia i • applies to dogs only. J . 8. County Ordinance should limit the nuzber of cats and dogs per residence., /°- with t:1e exception of special licensed facilities. 9. The County should increase the avlro'l;.ty of low cost rabies clinics because of State recuire:msents regrading rabies vaccination prior to licensing. . 7s� Low cost rabies clinics shcuad also be available in the area of .each Animal r Control Center at least onca'a month, ?.arch through Duce=- er. �1-2N-7y 0. There should be a fiscal and calendar year licensing program. x.11. The dpi license fee nhould be increased to air_ dollars ($6). for unneuterad -� i dogs, and three dollars ($3) for neutered dogs. • "12. License tags should be distributed at the rabies e13nics. , I li-/7-7q1 13. A door-to-door-licensing program siould be established if the program ' i fra/vc /4)Py mould be self-suppo= educetional and "soft-sell". Aminal-Control should issue license tags. Section 30806 of the Statue• •'; �Z_24'7H AoricLltural Code reads "In..a:y county tzat does not have an Animal Control Department, tha cou:ty clerk shall perform the functions assigned to the county -*+ITS Control Dapartmant." 15. The Comzittee, recd--nds cat registration trhica could be handled in the gams .. *inar as dog lieenzi-g, ith a fee of four dollars ($4) for un- • meuterad cats; and t-.o dollars ($2) for neutered cats. The cat would be ; afforded the same benefits that -pp_'.y to the licensed dog. Cat registra- tion Mould be conti:.gent upo= a door-to-door licensing enforcement program. Psco.,:,.erdations fro .:,a ooa:d-,tom,-3!.nt6d lr nal 4)47 Mimic c £tLdy Co=m itte are ` s•.bmi.ted for the cat reo stratie n prop= (Item 1:4, rcport dated ; August 22, 1973J - _--- -_ --_ —__ ............ �`r'• lb. If cat,regisaion is ESOT enacted, the'onlj •cats r-f should be-h©Id'for'. =� 12 hdur .:-: s are those that are uean; identification; appear well cared for, 'ts • 4pear owned, and those cats cau,!,!* in cat traps. � + jZ-J 7-.2`f' 17. The Co=ty should establish a seL-suppo:ting County maintained lov cost : = appy and neuter clinic. The Ba-rd of S,zrcr•3sars s!:c+.'d hake a firm 197 S �y7�' _ effort (with a deadline)" to rest :r_th private•veterinarians to try to develop a spay/neuter program uiwLzirg the services of private veterin- arians. •The agreerant with the veterinarians should b& renewable yearly., t Fac charges should be low enough t9 indicate a public service, but such, ' that they mould insure the co-operating veterinarians a reasonable profit. 111 this to continue anile re ger s 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. unen a dog is on his o%.=r's,p_opa ty, but not under control (the owner'is nearby, but not visible), a w,••..Z notice should be issued. If there is reason to believe the aniral has caused a disturbance, is a problem dog, or will become a problem, a citation-'should be6issued. _ 19. Tie Ameal Control Coat ers should be open on Sandays. �q75_/q7L If the Centers are-not, open od Sandays and holidays, these days should not be co"-ted in the loldiriger ti.se,but the daily fee shall be _included in the impound charges. • d/'p• 20. Establish an ordinar_ce restricting the holding and keeping of exotic animals. /a-AP-ly Limits should be'placed on the keeper of exotic animals. Animal Control ' 4. sboald be responsible for the enfo:cament of the ordinance. 1? � 21. "The Board should consider tae poss!bility o: a 10-hour per day, 4-day work week shift. If approved, it is recd ended that adequate staffing be pro- 41ft_wAAZ—=:---j vided to allow for lzproved coverage. ajP-• 22. Mere should be no change in present procedure that ani—Is mounded by /o-0-if law enforcoment agencies shall be taken to the Animal. Control Centers. This would ripply to all police ager.cies :: o impound animals for whatever reason- The im?ound fee should be paid by ha owner of the eniral. The Co=: ttee •! sees no practical alternative. �44#1 23. Improved co=uniceions between. t 4 al Control and ther pub3le should be { par:. of the licensing progra-m fit• 24. Publicity would be .frost effective r it e=phasized such areas as the ; advantages of a neutered pet, responsible pet care, functions of Animal Control and the citizen's responsibility. ; ►i•�i?-��1 ?$. An education program should be provided to the general public and eleuentary - F/t/97S'�4�L s-hool children and one Bill time representative:from Control should (3«� carry'on the progr=. ��'• 20• urinal Control should accept and sc.-aen all calls regarding wild animals /o-/s' and provide ad.-ice,-and shwa Id res:and in urgencies. (Danger to•ht^an life, or if an an;-moi is suffz`• ::g.) 27. 1ne cat trap use lnfor=tion fo:= s:oul.d state that "cat traps" are not to �o be used for turapping wildlife and tat 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 aair,.al. By signing . the-loan loam, the citizen accepts-this responsibility. `• 28. Cities wanting to provide night•'deosit cages at vdrious locations within ' their city be resnansible for buy-;=g, rainta'� and cleaning those cages, • and properly caring for the ani-a?<-confined thorein. Animal Control. will =ie pickups during no.--al wor n:,; !ixars. _ 29. Ani--al Control should continue to respond on a high priority basis to calls �a regarding sn;nn' pas::-, in areas s: Ere people may be endangored. /2-2+{-79 30. Penalty fees s'rou'-d be revised as follows: the second offense fee, $$; the third offense fee, 16; tho fo•,irt;h offense fee, $4. (Co=aat: there is no '� penalt.y fee for the first offense.) i' ! lip -31. IA,aterial of an educational nature dealing with the an%aal over-population � •, /°'' � 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 Depat� ltiat of Agricure shall train one Vertebr:+te Pest ' l Controlman in the skill of predator control for the purpose of taking target animals (coyote) vhen there is a proven depredazion to livestock. This motion supports that reco=endatuion made by Hr. 'A. L.- Seeley on April- 25, 1373, to the Board of 9apervisors on the subject of Predatory Animal Control,and Squirrel Eradication Proxra,�. ' 2 : 33. Present kennel supervision to prevent dog fights iwadequate. The only, l ?�. other possibility would be to provide one run per animalwhich is not ' practical. 34. The'County Health Department request tYie State Health Department to modi;y • /o•�l''1'!� the California ' T' 'stratsive Code'Title 17, Section 2606b(3) to elim nate - tae isolation of biting dads that :.ova been properly vaccinated or,, at ' : least, give the lowl wealth Departureat discretion as to whether or not such vaccinated calls s^- be routinely isolated. . j-:-Xq-7 K 33. T're County Health Departt should reimburse Ani—I Control-for rabies rtay..tiw► * ""^ _ control. activities. - A)V. 36. Because it is a necessity that '^ry Control Officers carry firearms, /o•! 9!t the Committee recasnds a psychological testing system and a one-year • t� ,„,� probationary period be instituted for Animal. Control Officers and Kenaelmaa. It should further be reraired that Animal Control Officers be adequately trained in tame use of their firearms. 37. The use of County ve:zicles for travel to and from the Animal Control 4 12-2•4-7`f Center by officers be discontinued in an effort tc offset increased 1 �,w••w!� costs of the service. An ercdption would be made for on-ca=l personnel.. , 38. The-Mid-I Serrice Dapartz--eat-screen clerical applicants*as to their uill- ingness to wore for =-3 Control, perhaos by a "box" to be checked on the application fora. he certuifica io list;will then have.only pre- screened applicants. ' i 39. A system should be Initiated so clerical personnel at the centers can easily determine.what.type of ani—,3s ore being kept. It is suggested that.a chalk board list a ,•±a?s such as dogs, cats, sheep, goats, horses, etc. Opposite the 9••-crawl's type w6uld be a.check mart after yes or no to indicate if this type of aniz.l,is-being held.. , . - AAA. 40. Pio action should be taken to change e:cstia„ law which prohibits guide dogs 779 /a- being trained from entL iso restaurants: bwrling'alleys, etc. A guide dog trainer was contacted and stated to:at:' is not n.cessary for the yo-ag crag at•this period of training to. in such public places. 4L• ,ane matte.: of a tol free linne should be referred to the County Admini.stra- . 7tort Office to answer in the same manner that they h4n31e3 a recent similar request. ` 42, County personnel should'srork 'with the Courts to establish uniform fines and forfeit-ares for at-large and_lics:.se:violations. f l+3. The County Animal Control 0d =Ca should be ar.ended•to alloy civji es to • contract with Animal Control and for enfarcersent for increased service of stricter local regulations uizich may be adopted by Individual cities, 44. The folloving actions should be taken to i=pro're the Ani-,.al Control public /a-�- izmva and the co=x:i ty rel et_ars aspect as a nems of effecting greater c6:pii.da.'1ca With ad-1 Control r£cc l atioA s: a. raqucst the County P ? c Helatuions officer to develop a public irfo.=tion proZram to increase yl:alic understanding of tie A,••;-rl Cancra:, ft:nct,.ioa; 37, b. provide for an p=tom ty relations trainingprogram for all. Animal Control personnel; + c. seek funding for a trainingprogram fro= County appropriations,, CCCJ' grants•and/or'fron the State tl=ough legislation providing special prograas in this field s tewice and d. encourage the Leaggua of California Cities to support legislation to- -provide for such a training'p:o&�.: 45. It is,reco=-ended•that two additional facilities, one in the Pittsburg � area and one in the Danville area, ba construct ed'-as..a =eons of.increasing the fiq:.d effectiveness of Coat._oi.-personnel and as an.improver—ent _ in service to a large portion of the'Co-mtr poti on. Marra^.. X. Boggess,. Caairun _ Special Ani=mal Control.Review Cozmittee Dated June 11, 1974.' • IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 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 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.- 5-7-74 975.5-7-74 Memorandum from Director Xemorandum 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-?4 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-?4 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 lit. 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 Dorotffy La ini Deputy Clerk cc: Mt. Diablo Municipal Court Delta Municipal Court Walnut Creek—Danville Municipal. 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 Air. P. A. Dixon Contra Costa County Employees Association, Local. l 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 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Inter-Office Memo Date: November 6.. 1974- Th: 974-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 5174 -22,500 q,OCAL Z 2 � 4sfees lQ��t3C���4�L �2 LO P. 0. BOX 222 - 2739 ALHAMBRA AVENUE - PHONE 228-1600 MARTINEZ. CALIFORNIA 94533 October 24, 1974 RECEIVED Mr. James Moriarty Chairman Board of Supervisors OCT o' -'� 190 1-4 Contra Costa County Administration Building J. a. °�=Ot1 Martinez, California 94553 OLE �1 ARDa SUPERVISORS 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 fail 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 h'licrof imed wita board order Busi ess Manager - HLC/aw opeu/29/afl-cio cc: Ted Brasier, President, Animal Control Unit, Local No. l Morse D: Gregg, Vice-President, Animal Control Unit, Local No. 1 tfltd— AGENDAI %J , to date) _xHE U� FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RGANIZED 1941 OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY " 2ND FLOOR, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553 ARTHUR G. WILL RECEIVED BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY ADMM INISTRATOR J. E. SI3 Y, CHAIRMAN PHONE 228.3000 • DISTRICTRICT . W N.BOGGESS, VICE CHAIRMAN DISTRICT 4 OEC/7 1974 J.P. KENNY, DISTRICT A.M. PIAS,DISTRICT 2 J. R E.A.LINSCHEID,DISTRICT 5 a SUPWI RS COSM For further information: er 17, 1974 Mary H. Dunten, Public Information Officer PRESS RELEASE (415) 228-30001 Ext. 2221 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE LOW-COST COUNTY SPAY CLINIC TOPS LIST OF FIVE ANIMAL CONTROL RECOM14FMATIONS 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 P Y PP -. 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- a v V RECEIVED DEC /0 1974 PW � 80AV 466 Constitution Drive Danville, California 94526 December 8, 1974 The Board. of Supervisors Contra Costa County Administration Build.ing • Post Office Box 911 Martinez, California 94553 Dear Sirs: This is a plea to you to establish a leash law. Our d.eep 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. immediately and agreed to patrol the area. When we checked the Animal Control Center three days later, there were two Shepherd.s, neither of which our daughter could. identify. We felt identification was essential since we live in an area where roving band.s 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 deter- 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 she attack were not torn. They kept the wound slight (as dog bites go) and prevented. a possible rabies infection. The Board. of Supervisors December $, 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 d.elay this decision. Yours truly, M • (Mrs. ) Marillyn M. Cozine Ralph D. Cozine cc: Animal Control Area newspapers } In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California December 3 —, 19 In the Matter of Complaint from Richmond Resident with Respect to Impoundment of His Dog. The Board on November 19, 1974 having referred to fr. L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner, for report the complaint of Pyr. Thomas K. 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 FTr. Butt for a refund of the t12 fee charged by said center; and Mr. Seeley in a November 25, 1974 memorandum report having stated that the personnel at the Pinole Animal Control Center folio-,ed established procedures with respect to the aforesaid incident; and On motion of Supervisor '�% N. Boggess, seconded by Supervisor J. P . TCenny, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the request of I1r. Butt for refund of the x,12 impoundment perialty fee be DENIED. IT IS FURTHER. 0RDERED that the Clerk is directed to send a copy of said memorandum report to 141r. Butt. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: ntiE'S: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M. Dias, '. N. Boggess, E. -A. Linscheid, J. E. Moriarty. I,:O; S: None. AB3ETiT: 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• Yr. T. z. 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 H 24 spa -tzsoo Ma P–enningtGd • 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 cc: C cc: County Administrator RECEIVED to• .�� � �. C. NOV 2 51974 Y& J. iL OLSSON OF SUPERV oRS e '!73 (soo) 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 Seal of the Board of Agricultural Commissioner Supervisors County Administrator affixed this 1 th day of November , 1974 J. R. OLSSON, Clerk By 0 k94' Deputy Clerk L. Kincaid H 24 5/74 -12.500 lnter�Pesouces,inc. o cor VmhwiSWepmbs§onalswkmsg*W 12 November 1974 Mr. James hioriarty, Chaitman RECEIVED Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County NOV/-q 1974 P.O. Box 911 Martinez, California 94553 �• °tom"' CLERIC WAW OF SUPERVISORS ritA A 00, LL A=Douty IV- Fir. 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 plash# 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 m fenced yard and could only have been removed by person(sT 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 thew 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 never:- have located the dog. As a citizen and a taxpayer I have come to expect a higher level of performance from public employees. T omas K. Butt { tea 39 wa&kyAon avenue; point ridYnor4ca kvia 9W Wephone 46 MV435 {i � <m « .n t 3j, y� to x w ZQ r rt OC Cl v 10 us tu cm {',• _ t 1 LU to .- r 1 it Jx. o y - . . • • t w iir o , j 3 � r o cz C LL. { ; i T, p ' LU i Commissioner Dari Lansn WILLIAM��C. GRUVER. j A.0California ::tate Jigy Phtrol M cruRews• acnacsiarrwilvt P. 0. Box 898 -" - P. o. BOX 101 i Sacramento, On. 95804 WAYETM CALIFORNIA 94$49 (415) 283-2121 ` ' 3 may, Patrolman Charles Bieer - IAartinez owTe Prov. 26, 1974:x'. Dear Commissioner Lanza: is a man who owns a licensed dog th.- t is never out of iof yard �• except on a leash, I can't Help but be ::yr::pathetic to •: 419. In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California October 28 19 711- In the Matter of Report of Agricultural Commissioner regarding Alleged Harrassment of Martinez - Resident. The Board on October 8, 1974 having referred to the Agricultural Commissioner for report the matter of. alleged harrassment of Mrs. Caroline Logie, Martinez, by personnel in the County Animal Control Division pertaining to a stray dog in her possession; and The Agricultural Commissioner having submitted a memorandum report with respect to the aforesaid complaint; On motion of Supervisor J. P. Kenny, seconded by Supervisor A. M. Dias, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that receipt of said report is ACKNOWLEDGED. The foregoing order was passed by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors J. P. Kenny, A. M.• Dias, E. A. Linscheid, W. N. Boggess, NOES: None. ABSMIT: Supervisor J. E. Moriarty. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of said Board of Supervisors on the date aforesaid. cc: firs. Caroline Logia Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Agricultural Commissioner Supervisors County Administrator affixed this 28th day of October . 19 74 J. R. OLSSON, Clerk Deputy Cleric Neufeld H 24.5/74 -12,500 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Date: October 22, 1974 To: Board of Supervisors Attention: Arthur G. Will, County Administrator �ECEIVED ntra Costa County From: - Arthur L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner-Seale Cof Weights and Measures Subject: Alleged harassment of Mrs. Caroline Logie by animal 2 3 '1574 control personnel (Board referral of 10/$/74) Office of Cnnnb QdministraIrr r On October $, 1974 your Board referred the complaint 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 IV . would have to pay the impound and board fees. on 3. One of the staff wrote down her car license onumber and an officer was subsequently sent to her home to request that she turn over the dog. 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. 7,'73 (500) Board of Supervisors —2 October 22, 1974 7. As far as we know the dog has not comeinto 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 centrallocations 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 throulgh the middle of 1973, she might feel that our latest contacts add up to harassment. ALS/nw cc: Clerk of the Board &EPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE* s CONTRA COSTA COUNTY i 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/$/74) 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 o Martinez Center on September 25, 1974 to report w tet- ; . that she had found a stray Brittany Spaniel. rn oQ ` 2. She refused to turn the dog over to the staff w N oo� when she learned that to claim the dog after th rr1 1-- aa� stray period if the owner did not show up, she would have to pay the impound and board fees. W 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. V73 (soo) �.�. � FOR YOUR INFORMATION 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 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, 19�4 the Special Animal Control Review ) Committee. ) The Board on September 30, 19�4 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 Crerk of the Board on June 11 , 1974) be promptly implemented: 4, 6 (Ordinance Code amend- ment 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; 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 orfgfnal document whiclh is on file in :ny office. County Counsel that it was pns-ed f_- adopted b_: the Board of y Supervisors of Contra Costa County. California. on County Administrator the date sho:-n. ATTEST: J. T`.. CLSSON. County Clerk&ex•officlo Clerk of said Board of Superctsom Director of Planning by Deputy Clerk. County Clerk %Gd°"— on 'W L � o /9rf� Acting County Health Officer �- Public Information Officer THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JAMES P. KENNY. RICHMOND JAMES E.MORIARTY IST DISTRICT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BO CHAIRMAN ALFRED M.D1A5.SAN rwato WARREN N.80GGF.SS IND DISTRICT VICE CHAIRMAN JAMES E. MORIARTY, LAFAYETTE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING. ROOM f03 JAMES R.OLSSON.COUNTY CLERK 3RD DISTRICT AND EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD WARREN N. BOGGESS. CONCORD P.O. BOX all MRS. GERALDINE RUSSELL 4TH DISTRICT MARTINEZ. CALIFORNIA 94553 CHIEF CLERK EDMUND A. LINSCHEID. PITTSBURG PHONE 228.3000 STN DISTRICT EXTENSION 2371 RECEIVED October 28, 1974 OCT.2? 1974 REPORT J. R. OLSSON OF CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS C t COSTA CO. ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE COMMITT e --.-.•.• ••-• .----� ON RECOMMENDATIONS 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), 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 a4l ' report on this subject shortly. d r Superyor tri I Supervisor,' District V "' In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California October 8 19 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 Br 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. 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: Agricultural Commissioner Witness my hand and the Seat of the Board of County Administrator Supervisors cfixed this gth day of October , 19 J. FL OLSSON, Cleric Br1U Deputy Clerk H 24 5/74 -usoo Doro y La ni 4 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. 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. Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of cc: Mr. H. D. Byrne Supervisors Agricultural Commissioner affixed this-11th--day of September , 19 74 County Counsel County Administrator J. R. OLSSON, Clerk By Deputy Clerk N. Ing sham H 24 5/74 -12.500 Y' August 30, 197+ :SEP,-5- EIVE D Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 1574 Administration BurdMartinez, California . R. 0LSSONaW ARD OF SUPERVISORS RA CO. 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 nw inquiry. I now request that my letter be given proper attention and responded tog, I wish to know if Mr. Seely will furnish the inYOr- �� oration I requested. I look forward to a response. Sincerely, H. D. B�rrne 2432 LaCanada Court Pinole, California 94564 � 1w ,a ,r- t. ZA 1 6V,3 + M - i r RECEIVED AUG Z 7 1974 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY aorraa CLEWS OFFICE .z Inter-Office Memo Date: August 27-, 1971.' To: ,Sounty Counsel . Flom: _ f lark 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, 197k 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 reco=end that each such request received in this manner be taken to the Board for denial or may we s__M131Z Mail each of the "letter writers" a cog of the Aumist ME order,, or have you another suggestion as to disposition. vn Attachments r-vnTY COMM RECEIVED CALF. [R kU�; $I ED 19T4 J. R. a:s�o: 0 0: sup_;•1isORS N A COSTA CO. August 30, 1974 jVE D Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 1574 Administration Building Martinez, California R. so.4 suaERvw;6 [R:E7E RA CO. 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 f 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 '7j and responded to. I Wish to know if Mr. Seely trill furnish the infor- mation I requested. I look forward to a response. Sincerely, H. D. Byrne 2432 IaCanada Court Pinole, California 94564 RECEIVED AL;G 2 7 1974 CONTRA-COSTA COUNTY COUIE eOM, CLEEWS OFFICE � _ . : bter.-Office Memo . Date: August 27-, 197 .1 - To: ounty Counsel _ - From! Vlerk 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, 197 - order of the Board (copy attached). _ ! In viewof the fact that the form letters appear to have `t been written by 'Mr. Kamienski and transmitted in envelopes tl addressed by him, would you recommend that each such request \ �J received in this manner be taken to the Board for denial or may we sim eh of the "letter writers" a copy of the August 6th 6rdal or have you another suggestion as to disposition. vn Attachments c:�11_­!TY CCYJN MQ RECEIVED C%::IIL1 CLJ1r 'w�:�NCALIF. ` AUE; $ 11 1. a. o.Sre�w ESO. D O: SU1'"" 509S N COSTA CO. Bv..._. --Decry 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; -: -5-74 Report of Solid Waste Management Policy Committee on formation of a comprehensive plan, and request for allocation of $55,000 in budget for fiscal year 1974-75; 6-5-74 Consideration of appropriation adjustment request from Acting County Sheriff-Coroner for the purchase of off- road motorcycle equipment; 6-11-74 Letter and related material from Pre-school Coordinating 'Council, Inc. , Pittsburg, requesting financial assistance inm the county for continuance of its child development services program for fiscal year 1974-75; and memo from Family and Children's Services Advisory Committee supporting said. request; 6-1$-74 Letter from Attorney Brian D. Thiessen as related to the Office of Public Defender; :a-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 Ri�hgrd Holmes, Mayor, City of Concord, commenting on the need of A public relations person and additional personnel in the Animal Control Division; 8-13-�4 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 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 Uupervisor Linscheid, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that each of the above-stated items is REi•OVED as A referral to the Administration and Finance Committee as recommended. a - 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 mak . 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 Date: July 2, 197.4 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 T. 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. lk attachments 3 cc: Administrator -. it In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California July 2 19 ZA- 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 Agricultural Commissioner affixed this 2nd day of July , 197 County Administrator _ J. R. OLSSON, Clerk By Off. _ 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 RECEIVED JUN 2tv11974 J. ' :ort CLE10 O: SUPE { RS COST roard of Supervisors s Contra Costa County t:artinez, California 94553 Gentlemen: RE: AGE MA, JULY 2+ 1974 - ANIMAL CONTROL 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 with Penal Codes 597v and 597w. We 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. 7t is our understanding that the county, as of June 24, 1974, has complied with all requirements with the exception that "Penal Code 597w.) (e) Any do- 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 compartment". 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 in all areas with State requirements as outlined above, we wish to be so advised. Respectfully, George Bradford, Jr. PRESIDENT G S:mi cc: State Sealer of Weights and _ieasures K. E. Danielson, Contra Costa County, Dept. of Agriculture g / _, . ,. #�' !,� �m, � � � ' t � � � � � i a���„r i '\ � / / . / � r, . - ��: � �� � � � � i � i s' , � � � e -� � � � � �i � � � � J / /' \� / t / 1 �. .��� f '� � f�� � , �, x ��`.. �f � J � , ♦ 4 i .. i ! � � ` , , { !I � �' � � / . ��\� f � 1 i. �r�'�. � � �/ •, ��.� � � � r , �,, ` � � � �� / ��)I�� / �� ` �. � � � i ? r ,: v. � r � . � _ � d � � �8, �� . .. .• . i / : � � � � � i • _ � + l � �. . � y ! t � � 0 �:` �� � � � � i s� 0 .��n� / . , f . t,FA e Aaa 05P All r � � i • / r ' r / 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 23s 1974 hearing on the recommenda- tions of the Special Animal Control Review Committees George E. Eberharts D.V.M.s Presidents Contra Costa Veterinary Medical Associations had submitted to him a written proposal of the said association for animal population controls and a paper entitled "Results of an Animal Pbpulation Survey: Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, Californias 1970" by Robert Schneiders D.V.M.,M S:and Michael L. Vaidas M A. , Ph.D; and Supervisor Boggess having recommended that the material supplied by Doctor Eberhart be furnished to Mr. A. L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioners and Mr. Nick--- Calicuras Chairman, Animal Review Control Committee' s Subs Committee on Population Controls 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 30s 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. Sennys A. M. Diass 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. Calicura Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Mr. Seeley Supervisors County Counsel affixed this 13th day of August , 19 74 Acting County Administrator ,� J. R. OLSSON, Clerk By���,�.. ia Deputy Clerk Arline Patten H 24 5/74 -12,500 CONTRA COSTA VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION As a prudent and benevolent profession, our Doctors of Veterinary "ecicire in Cons' a Costa County have delivered competent, acceptable veterinary medical services to our citizens for many years. Every doctor in our Association 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 treatments 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 TMA sponsored Anima$ Care Foundation headquartered in Berkeley. We, 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. '.'o surgical sterilization clinic will have any significant effect upon controlling animal aper-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 balloI vote. 3. The most effective measures involving animal population still invoke enforcement of the pet control laws, such as confining the pc3t to the owner's property, or on a leash. This protects the pit and citizens from bodily harm, and property damage. 4. Regardless of whatever tack the County should follow, our Assoc_ation will still give counsel and aid in promoting veterinary medical services consistent with acceptable and prudent methods. CE V E D George giber^art, D.VeMo IN. President I'.=!G / 1974 I R. OLSSON CLERK BOARD O: SUPERVISORS RA ST or �„ ��s ,�.d1-__b�_`j>_.__._ �►,�s �;� Wit..... li-A&Z ' ' l - w t , i . .r; L K , � r ui T )) IS-1HERE-A SOLUTION, TO.�,:PEt OVERPOPULATION- r: ui LU y _ CVNIA- PR 4 REPRINT- MAY, 1974 by ROBERT ALEXANDER01111 , is T Director Manager Cleveland Animal Protective League :°� DY !tpl:1lli have so few life pleasures that they:',at least deserve to engage in sex. 4. 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 Answersanimals in their hausehaId. This is probably the smallest of the five groups. 5 Some families think it is fun to have he 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 atthe Cleveland Animal Pro- we must have strong laws and uniuer;*al enforcement to motivate tective League prompts us to place our faith in owners to confine their pets and`prevenl unwanted births. better animal controllegislationand ntore ef- fective enforcement of laws.By better,legisla- IT Is 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':ss 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 reacheding law for owners who do not comply,or who do portion for the last 20 or 30 years. Somepersons interested in controlling pet allow their pets to run loose. The problem stems from the aflluency we populations a,re:convinced that publiceduca- Licensing not,only'provides funds, it also have enjoyed-since World War 1I. It seems tion is a key to resbIving,the problem:Twould 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 owninga da or cat for , g granted. owners develop a greater sense of responsibil- level a penalty,and collect the fine.,'- Unfortunately, ine.`Unfortunately,many owners also take it fo 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 roans 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 L have a lot of roving dogs.This brings the usual We now have a classroom in our' eague 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 homebyour wardens,usually kept population problems that occur when dogs run 'wben 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 discusswn. 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 achoolsto 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,ofcourse,aremanyyearsawaY• 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 jaw. to get owners to confine their animals is haw 'gram which is helping to spread the.gospel o We are convincel&that if every,dog were ing to work with a small staff. We have only responsible pet ownership.Lastyear we hsad 87 icensed, and-every errant owner cited and 13 deputies to service a county which has 1.8 public service announcements in our local ade 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 is theme. We believe such restrictions are Ohio has convinced me that we must now numbers of pets which we are forced to de- ecessary 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 fficiais 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 todayur 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 ss morally wrong. e:as.op;most leaders,ilt:stich groups,and it "responsible ownership" would eliminate 3. Frequently,we are told that dogs and ca time that we accept this opportunity. 0 i By H. DON MAHAN Executive Director $OlUt10f! td`' Southern California VMA OverpopulatiN�y An Inexpensive-Contraceptive veterinarians in California worked a full Is the only Solutionweek of eight-hour days doing nothing except �7 spays and neutering;the domestic pet popula- tion"would still continue torise. 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 leen 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- rarn 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 corner sume responsibility in preventing births of pet overpopulation problem. where the spiraling birth of domestic pets is unwanted pets. . j,OB Angeles SPCA threatening our standards of public health, In October, 1971 the SCVMA published,a 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 vials and we supported the argument with neutered at no charge by members of the not yet gained knowledge from our expert- 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 educe- 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. u 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 theirpatientmarket.Again fraise 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 ofCaliforniacontributed.Ifonly1percent 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 funding9 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 ofthis 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 ofharsh 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?Ifs erinarians indicating their fear that an effec- really that simple. 0 ROV IS Thi -" &LONZO EDMISTON,JR.,VMD Solution 'to Pot' Director Emergency Animal Clinic Overpopulativa San Diego.California Cost Analysis of A Sterilization ' Clinic Can a reduced-cost spay clinic be successful? Here are results of a trial protect conducted by the Emergency Animal Clinic, a refer- ral facility established in San Diego by 75 partner ueterinarians. THE EMERGENcY Animal Clinic partnership CAT CASTRATION SURGERY COST was asked to pilot a project for a reduce dministration ......................$ 2.85 cost sterilization clinic by the San Diego Coun- PRE SURGICAL EXAMINATION Surgery............................. 3.62 ty Veterinary Medical Association.and Checking Pet into Hospital- began Drugs and Disposable Items .......... 4.00 Temperature,Weight, History Hospital- by making appointments for mate 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 50.04: $0.30 and we discontinued the program on February SURGICAL PREPARATION 28, 1973. During that time, 1,046 procedures Veterinarian's Salary-Surital Administration were successfully performed. Tables accompanying this article show, in 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. of our expenses and the manner in which we categories listed above. 10 minutes x $0.04:$0.40 sustained the loss. At the end of the nine-month period, the SURGERY COST I . 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 tomy; 11.1 minutes for a dog castration; 23.2 cause of the a Assistant's Salary $0.04/minute x 34 minutes: S1.36 minutes for a cat hysterectomy and 8.9 mi- apparent reality that it was im- Average Surgery Time for Dog Castration 11.1 min. passible 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: 53.106 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 POST SURGICAL TIME formed at reduced rates. Approximately 23 Total ................... 24,96 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 Sure result, the program has reduced veterinary Surgery ............................. 4,33 i. 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 50.15 clients to seek the reduced cost program and 3. Checking Pet Out $0.30 to avoid the local veterinarian. Release pet from hospital next morning CAT HYSTERECTOMY 7.5 minute x 0.04(Assistant's Time) Average Assistant's pay S2.501hour or Administration ......................$ 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 ................................... S2.85 t RALL3TERILIZATIO M Number ' Average t A14. . Procedure Performed Fee Incurred Uf Cat Hysterectomy 373 $17:50 523.20 52, '11a ,w Cat Castration 125 12.50 15.36 357-50- Dog Hysterectomy 485 - 22.50- = 24.98 1.1 Dog Castration 63 15.00 - 19.75 299.25- T061 Loss 99.25To61Loss . .. ...... .. .. . ............,... ..... ...................... $3,975.95 ANSWERING SERVICE (3) $5000 FIXED OVERHEAD EXPENSES TOTAL MONTHLY COST $1,95888 HYSTERECTOMY PACK— Figured on a caseload of 400 amrnaIS per month,this 3 complete standard packs equals S4 89 per case (Each pack includes the following items) 1 Spay Hook-2 Allis Tissue Forceps-2 Straight (1) Straight Line Depreciation Mosquito Hemostats- 1 Angiotribe-4 Carmalt (2) Base Cost Hemostats-2 Oschner Forceps- 1 Needle Holder_ (3)Cost per Month 1 Pair Surgical Scissors-2 Towel Clamps- 1 Plain Tissue Thumb Forcep- 1 #3 Blade Handle-(follow- ing included on pages 58 6) 2 M10 Taper Needles- DRUGS AND DISPOSABLE ITEMS 2 #4 Cutting Needles- 1 #6 Cutting Needles- 45cm(18')0 Suprylon- 112 doz 3x3 Gauze Sponges- Surital 5 gin ........S3 40 125cc S3 40 1 cc-022 1 doz. 2x2 Gauze Sponges-24'x33 Drape Mate- t Occ-272 rial w,hole'.z"x4"(lap sheet)-Inner wrap 2 d spos- Scrub Brushes $4 80 Doz able 13"x17" Hand Towers-Outer Wrap 18'x16',' 1 scrub brush $0.40 Drape Material - 1 5 meter (18 0 Suprylon-3 0 3 Rolls of 'Net Proof Tape per amrnal w 235 meter(36') Lyophil t roll is used for 7 animals, its use cost 0.33 ANESTHETIC MACHINE (1) 36 rr,Og Autoclave Tape $099 (2) S1.35000 Tape Remover per can S2.50 (3)$3750 ANESTHETIC Surital 5 gm. S3.40 Halothane machine with Bird Respirator Oxygen Cylinder—approx. 100 hrs—S8 25 OXYGEN K cylinder 58.25 '12 hr. of Oxygen cost S 041 one cylinder lasts 100 hours Thirty minutes surgery time 50041 SURGERY LAMPS (1) 36 mos (2) S30000 SUTURE MATERIAL (3) $833 Sl 1 25 75 meters Suprylon 1 5 meters(18') $0 22 1.5 meters SURGERY TABLE (1)36 mos. S22 83 100 meters Lyophil (2) S40000 3 0 meters (36') : $0.683.0 meters (3) S11 11 DRAPING MATERIAL SURGERY STOOLS(2) (1) 36 mcs Fort Dodge Disposables 130 yards cost $31.20 (2) $8920 1 yard cost S 0 24 (3) S247 Innerwrap 13 x 17' Outerwrap 18 x 161/2 drape material CAGE FLOOR(10) (small-S24. (1) 120 mos Approximately 2 yds. per pack S 0.48 large-S36) (2) S1.260.00 (3) $1050 NEEDLES 2 #10 taper needle rg2,90,Doz. (i S 24 x 2: $0.48 RENT(1%of total value of (3) S1.433.00 2 #4 cutting needle Ca 2 90.Doz (u S 24 x 2: $0 48 the property per month) No. 15 Stainless Steel Blade $0 20,Blade CARDIAMP (1) 36 mos. Gown worn by surgeon S0.68;Use (2) S14800 The gown cost $1 88 The gown is (3) $4 11 worn approximately 3 trues It is sterilized after each timet is worn ELECTRIC CLIPPERS (1)6 mos Penstrep $5.95.,100cc SO-059/cc (2) 541.97 Approximately 2cc per animal $0.118 (3) 57.00 Atropine Sulfate $0 045'cc ELECTRIC CLIPPER BLADES (3) S500 Acepromazine SO 12cc sharpening of blades after 20 uses (3) St 25 4 Four(20) Gauge Needles (a 045 x 4 50 18 4 Four Syringes(disposable) (a 03 x 4 $0 120 VACUUM CLEANER per use (3) $06 Endotracheal Tubes (a 3 85 MAINTENANCE (3) $5000 based on 10 uses SO 38 per use Fluothane 125cc.420 • nines SO 298cc minute INSURANCE—Liability Property Damage (3) S39 30 125cc S23 00 SO 192.cc PROPERTY TAX 13) 5200 QO +ve age S gecn s ",me 3G T,nutes 0 298cc x. 30 minutes 8.940cc ACCOUNTING SERVICES (3) 53600 89aOcc x 0 192 S1.72 Tner—,ometers cost SO.90 WATER BILL 3! 51000 100 uses SO 009 per use S D G& E l3) S35 00 Surgeons G;oves Gauze Sponges 3 x3 10 p. s,;rg-ca pac :3 OFFICE FURNITURE (1)60 mos. Gauze Sponges 2 x2 25 per surgical pack SO 073 (2) $145 45 Disposable Burg cal mask ana cap $015 (3) $242 Baralyrne $1.75 Is There A Solution t0 Pet by DAVID M:"DRENAN,DVM Over o ulation Chairman, Ohio Task Force. p p 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. Tt:r 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 during 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 veterinarian: 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 spaying 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 unrealisticsolution. 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 misinformed 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 a I l 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 pet overpopulation.In the story we released,we' our profession. This nominal price tag in no parochial and isolated in their specialized en- way diminished the value of the advice. He deavors within the profession. Regardless, it 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- stead, we Consequently,our first step was to stead, we come forth with positive programs and suggestions.He suggested approachingth appoint a committee to make a study and estab- lish guidelines for the relationship of vet- organizations in a spirit of cooperation Th" erinarians with humane organizations.It was made sense because,after all,humane organi- called the "Humane Organizations Study and sations, animal control groups and practicin aoan�:ng birlits v a Upp as many of the ttea�13,and that arg baa B .H.�StBY fT - rosnted-*1,a a au. P e►1a- =daY is : to see it tibio is orcrpaP er seems ��:;r .s it se Y a:u cats ted y dop and cats. hoarav ; b ,. ._ sn^,• " ^e to opet- r SvciiE fen g la BT.. Pltal is . TfiOtT • bested t a baP r t?ttlo tura as tiffs�o� ander l `1?S8 and �;3. Tal'• ` to dcfe.-miast`=,pt titer to take a t:e �:ilof possible Paput"a" humare f at vet ere aL the et�t. a 1d wtW qn..rte.Pur 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 ofseeking 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 ForTomorrow,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 ofsubsidizedspay 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 t:itioners to follow in participating in pet popu- problem of overpopulation of dogs and cats.In the media. lation control efforts. Ohio, forty-three shelter organizations re- It is surprising, and gratifying, that vet- 1. Public education in the responsibilities o pow handling 280,000 animals last year.Of erinarians 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. is of major concern.Estimated costs of s rangopera - 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 public health problems.The capability of these 1. An estimated 13 million dogs and cats are groups to join in supporting research to develo animals to carry diseases transmittable to man put to death annually because of uncontrolled effective sterility or antifertility drugs. Th' breeding. Further, it seems likely that eutha- should include a concerted effort to raise publi and the litter in the streets created by these nanimals is of grave concern.In the city of Col- s nasia will continue to be a partial solution and private funds for this research. for the overpopulation problem for a long 4.Veterinarians should stand firm that sur umbra last year, there were dog bites time.This will prevail despite the fact that it is gical sterilization programs are to be don investigated.Packs of animals in choolyards cruel, wasteful and expensive. under the control and auspices of the veteri are great hazard. 2. Spaying and neutering clinics have been nary profession, within the scope of the sta All these problems add up to a tremendous tried in several parts of the country operating practice acL Responsible pet owners must cast to the public-The effect on agriculture ianimals isa in in different ways. All have limitations which protected against any possibility that the quay 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 mail ORGANIZATIONS LTENDING OHIO SYMPOSIUM ON PE ERPOPULATION 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.These programs run the gamut from good 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,l2per- 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 lawsin 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- Ohio 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 (Alexandra. 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 of major consequence.The loss of sheep produc- organizations,animal control officials,pet food tion.Non-surgical sterilization,it was agreed, animportant role in the question ofoverpopula- tion in certain areas of the state of Ohio is and supply companies, legislative bodies, holds the greatest hope as it would be Less ex- 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 in haveoccurred in poultry flocks.They also act as profession to start alleviating this problem. 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. all,we are dealing with a sociological problem any substantial amount.of money toward•re- It was brought out that,there is a need for search- The greatest amount of funding and that is the result of affluency of this country, more education inublic schools and intensive p 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 pons ibiIity is the fact that only 50 percent of the the improvement of animal control,the disad- this time. The veterinary profession recon 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 mg, and the medical advantages of surgical tomy as an acceptable means ofsurgical 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 fun&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 Public Education. t are urging prat- 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 opportunity to improve o seize ever d t hip,and y pp Dost programs open to the general public,either sdrugs with our surgical sterilization program.. exposure in this subject relations ex p using private veterinary facilities or govern- our publicOur 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 inof already sity College of Veterinary Medicine,The Ohio association will handle all news releases con- being surgically sterilized in private beadveteri- Department of Agriculture, and Ohio Depart- cerning the program, review all applications nary hospitals, plus the number at animals ment of Public Health.In this,we offer appear- for surgery,audit handling of funds,and solicit nary hospitals, nized, which is a permanent form is antes 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 collet- 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 ofeach 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 ofhis qualifications.The kitalsohas 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- includea program forsurgical neuteringofpets 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 i� 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. f 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 concer;J 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 , 1470. 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). Th..e 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, • 0 indicating as many as 2 persons per dog difference in these adjacent counties. The overall person to cat ratio was 10.8, 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 l cat was found in 46.9% of house- holds in the 2 counties on December 31 , 1970 (Table 4). Vere 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 35.810 of the households and I 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 l 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 6 was immediate marked increases in the proportions neutered until after 10 years of age, at least 90p 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 ll) 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 were 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 74.4p 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 1 itters 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 hesample 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 ± 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. tinder the traditional approach, • 9 ►paving 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 7.51. 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 l 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 1/2 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 90N 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 60,16 were neutered compared to 90A 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 - ' ..+._.. ....._ ..,ur�..,n ... ..... µ+i4 nr Ftt 33. carry out such surveys so that a better.understanding of the inter relationship of such factors as. age, .sex,. breed, andAreproductivity cane be achieved for pet animal populations. ^° n >r c F4 a .r.'J.•'Y'.'+.I `ra,+�Y?� C'; a Tf.S. L 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.M.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. D. iiockstim, 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: 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 telephor.e books. Table 3: Numbers and Ratios of Dogs, Cats and Persons Alameda and Contra Costa Counties,..1970. Category Combined Alameda Contra Costa Numbers: Dogs 224,815 131 ,329 932486 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 1 .6- 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 G: Sex and tleutering Distributions of Dogs and Cats, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, December 1970. Dos Cats Percent of Percent within Percent of Percent with' 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 .l Male 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 Uog 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 33.8 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 Table 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 Bull 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 -- Mixed -- -- 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 Mann 1 ,024 Burmese 500 Russian Blue192 Other breeds 458 Crossbred 14,422 - Siamese 7,322 Persian 5,264 Manx 1 ,107 Burmese 253 f. 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 1Z: 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 group 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 L 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 .10 408 442 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 l-ll 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 2.8 to Cats 3.6 4.0 In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California July 29 19 Z4 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 o 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 Seat of the Board of Agricultural Commissioner Supervisors County Counsel affixed this__2�doy of Tiny_ , 191�L_ County Administrator yJ J.p R. OLSSON, Clerk By !`� -v�-d( Deputy Clerk M 24 574 -12.500 L. Kincaid ODEPARTNIENT OF AGRICULTUR&5,',''IJt 3 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Date: July 17, 1974 To: Board of Supervisors Attention: J. P. McBrien ---- RECEIVED From 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 Anim R.n of s°��vrsoas Control (your Board Order dated July 9, 1974) raA cos;A CO. 211OAR 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." COM ENTS: 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: ins csoos CQ s . Board of Supervisors -2- July 172 197+ 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 9, 1972, and explained the ordinance and the continuing violations. ALS/n cc* Clerk of the Board i i r! i i 1 In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California July 9 19 74 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 TS 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. 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. William Stone Supervisors Agricultural Commissioner affixed this 9th day of July , 197 �. County Counsel J. R. OLSSON, Clerk County Administrator By � Z.4 Deputy Clerk 'tea -1:.500 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, JUL 3 ` 1974 William L. Stone I R Ot�2 CLERI BOARD OFF SL'?SUP Eiti1/ISORS CONTRA CQSTA CO. In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California July 29 19 74 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 o 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 Agricultural Commissioner Supervisors County Administrator offixed this 29th_day of July ' 19 14- J. J. R. OLSSON, Clerk By Deputy Clerk D. Harkness H 24 5/74 -12.500 • •DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Date: July 17, 1974 To: Board of Supervisors Attention: J. P. McBrien From- L.L. Seeley, Agricultural Commissioner-Sealer of Weights 6 J' 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 94521, 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 18 1974 •�• /� LA7�..a,C ltiJ. R. OLSSON TK S7/73 (500) D OF SUPEIVISORS RA COSTA SO. B . Ds CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A 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 IM In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California July 9 1974 In the Matter of Request of Mrs. Kathleen Darcy for Refund of Impoundment Fees. PA C*0471 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. 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 County Administrator affixed this 9th day of iiix , 19 ,71f- J. R. OLSSON, Clerk By 4d4 4 Deputy Clerk N 21 5/71 -12,500 Arline Patten "f x e� 121�.QiMaw.DeiN► Cioadbcd,Gam.94532 / f ' RECEIV - �-�--/ 1974 s, it oLSSora CE 00 W SU 8 ee• /41 ger° /2W 11-7 s, G^� L� � Ow" � 5G Concord Community Forum C� July 19, 1974 RECEIVED .lUU3 1974 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors CLE r fUPcRY Administration Building Martinez, California Gentlemen: t 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, Q2UL- t�- 4UZ�— Patricia Howlett Director, Concord Community Forum cc: Mr. Art Seeley Contra Costa Times Concord Transcript C , 01 FOR YOUR WORMATION CONCORD CIVIC CENTER 1950 PARKSIDE CONCORD CALIFORNIA 94520 TELEPHONE 682-6600 f 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, 1974 having submitted to the Board a written report in response to aforesaid request advising that he -', _. .. 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 am, Deputy Clerk Y &EPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURIO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Date: July 8, 1974 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 1974/75 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 RECLCQSTA.Co. ED 9� If�f0- JU I SORS 9 Deoutv 7,'73 (500) Concord Funity Forum 10 June 26, 1974 RECEIVED -J-,*)-?1974 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors B N`RA STA CO' De y hLj 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, Pat Howlett Director Enc: Letter to Mr. Seeley .r�.b • t CONCORD CIVIC CENTER 1950 PARKSIDE CONCORD CALIFORNIA 94520 TELEPHONE 682-6600 ncord D TCo:mmu:nity Forum June 11 , 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, td 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 CONCORD CIVIC CENTER 1950 PARKSIDE CONCORD CALIFORNIA 94520 TELEPHONE 682-6600 •.. dt dIP 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 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 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. 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. Pat Howlett Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Agricultural Commissioner Supervisors County Administrator affixed this 24th day of Tune , 19 2 J. R. OLSSON, Clerk By Deputy Clerk Aulene B. os ph H 24 5/74 - 12,500 C oncord E C .L j T unity Forum y JUN 1974 J. R. OLSSON U-- bUFtRVIORS June 1 1 , 1974 NiRA CPSTA CO. BIAut Mr. Art Seeley 161 John Glenn Drive Concord, Ca. 94520 11 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 Hail , 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 Marren Boggess CONCORD CiVIC CENTER 1950 PARKSIDE CONCORD CALIFORNIA 94520 TELEPHONE 682-6600 sly IR 17 ;, NTRA COSTA COUNT A. L. SEELEY • DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ' AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONLR •' 161 JOHN GLENN DRIVE SEALER WEIGHTS AND MEASURES , ■uCHwawN AIRPORT K. E. DANIELSON CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 04520 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ` Y 682-7350 ASSISTANT SEALER rou BRANCH OFFICES 100.]7TH ST.. RICHMOND 94503 1420 HIGHWAY 4.BRENTWOOD 94313 293.7060. EXT. 3253 934-3518 �+ July 5, 1974 R E C L L V D Mrs. Eleanor Kerlinger AL g 19F.4 333 Abbott Lane Alamo, California 94507 eo' COSo�SUPE as T g - u Dear Mrs. Kerlinger: IV 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 i Clerk of the Board In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa . County, State of California June 18 , 19 Lh In the Matter of Letter from Alamo resident requesting distribution of literature on County Animal Control ordinances . A letter dated June 6, 1974 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 offixed this 18th day of June , i9 74 County Clerk J. R. OLSSON, Clerk County Administrator By xzb PQ A ro Deputy Clerk H 24 sna -12s00 Charleen K. Travers June 6, 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 FREQUENTLY. mail some literature to dog owners in un-incorporated areas reminding them of County Ordinances? RECEIVED Yours truly, sura 1 1974 �• £ . r J. ° SU so�.s Mrs. Eleanor Kerli r � 333 Abbott Dane BO 1s °e Alamo, Calif, 94507 C ' q May 30, 1974 LRE`TVED Board of Supervisors 1974 Contra Costa County J. ousor) Administration Building D 0 SUPERVis0asMartinez, Ca. cora ca De 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 notppan on keeping any pets less restricted or more potentially harmful than goldfish. Yours very truly, Carmelita Pillsbury ion &aZz?,.,e-r,6 FOR YOUR INFORMAP011 r)J�U EIVED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY W 5 - 1974 DEPARTMENT Or AGRICULTURE J. R. OLS:ON ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION B �os un .Sots B YOUR DOG MAY BE INVOLVED IN A SITUATION T a x L 0 BE FILLED AND COST TOT CONS ERAS MO Y. Livestock owners are experiencing economic loss and emotional suffering due to dogs that are 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. As a dog owner you ire _'•"ble icor 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, wounding or persistently purvuing or worrying livestock or . poultry on land or premises which are not owned or possessed by the owner of the dog. r (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 dogs owner. No action, civil or criminal; shall be maintained for the killing of any such dog." Section 31103 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. No action, civil or criminal, shall be maintained against the owner, tenant or employee for the seizure or killing of any such dog." Section 31104 states: "The provisions of Sections 31102 and 31103 shall not apply to any dog which is inside the co-rporate limits of any city, or city and county, or to any dog which is under the reasonable control of 'ris owner or keeper, unless the dog is actually caught in the act of worrying, wounding., chasing or killing any livestock or poultry." Section 31501 states: "The owner of any livestock or poultry which is injured or killed by any dog may recover as liquidated damages from the owner of the dog tuice rile actual value of the animals killed or twice the va?:a.e of the damages sustained by reason of the in juries as I--a ca;o may be." .r: , - _ .yE T .. ,. .. - T`J � e , a 0 G at :Spar Section 5a. 2: «4•b� of t12e' County rd naiaice Cod ' .�u�.mals g , an . : .ng exson o � orP�ssep he a 1a - a�r" h±� :gasti�ar ►d car sine streG: •. cul p .acc� 'on- private property agairi$t -the 'wishes of .tlte =x cV«ner .ar,_::c ecu ant : Qr' in_ any manner car: place td ,aha injt .he over or: oceupat :off'. any ether r�xcrpery,. s used::Vin. .. y section A 3�a ge means an .animal: not:under restralnt by Z,e slh,$ not in An enc sed:area,: or �not under the :control ,and :t the-Immediate presence ,otate .�r��'.c•.�ltcar�= Codi .section 3t?� 1� �ie�iali. ii _iei.t Y% Oat. �rge real�5 'Gt:'Gs .tiE ;3 "nsrue .:garage, bui.ld3.ng,: enclosure., or vehie .e: ": ': t NOTE. This information.is not auitharizati�an .mar'.ang:' er ern: tai { f .rearr those ar as irYere::'stitch:>actio : s ci...schar�,Qz a ni prohibited ` P _ " , 73200 .w- .. .,1 ed `- : .4 n- 'row • >.....:.. . .. ..... ....: .. .. .. ..: rEas+.^�;+u.bi>�...,,.S.Si,$t.a!;'.ry.:`•+w.+,• :.`.'' May 30, 1974 Contra Costa County RECEIVED Department of Agriculture Animal Control Division , 161 John Glenn Drive Concord, Ca. Ca: 1O.. .. �'Gentlemen: . 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, �Qtirywt-L S f/ �t%`2�iv�.�tom' Carmelita Pillsbury VQ)L+75 t-oad cc: Board of Supervisors � �� Sheriff's Department rki,FOX rvurpes velox)fox is considered b to be the most Q'ti- r C ful of all American camiv In color it is vely p M �, grizzled white with light yellowish buff tones, tail tipped with black, as are scattered long hai t .p• 25 inches long, weighing from 4 to 6 pounds. 'is.a > desert dweller found an the westem plains and oothiIII APV— of the Rockies,where its food consists largely of lisards" .3 mas irysec{s and r tots. � �. Z ---.__ --------- e P CARD cr..->✓ � � Addres v ar WlLG , ts` • c �J DOROTHY YETTER 635 ELM 1 , EL CERA[TO TO CA 94532'" ,E. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY • �' � . S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE A42MICULTU ALCO H ss/ONER •: :;i^'.., • IE1 JOHN GLENN DRIVE surae wE1eNTs 6090 Musuea - S s';��` • OYCHANAN AIRPORT K. E. DANIELSON CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 94320 ASSISTANT COMMSSSIONCR x'p',•:""I' "'� 692.7330 ASSISTANT SEALER 77 �� off.. . sr�nUl)tt BRANCH OFFICES 100.STT"ST.. RICHMOND 94505 1420 HIGHWAY 4,BRENTWOOD 94513 123-7060.EXT. 3258 GS4-3019 May 29, 1974 RECEIVED MAY 2 91974 Mr. George F. Boscoe J. P. OLSSON 2240 Tamal ais Avenue EOA?D OF SUP.CW;SO?s p CNCOSTA,Co. El Cerrito, California 94531 LAI -----De 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. Ce-s ; 160CIKW FOR YOUR INFORMATION COZ41 Mr. George F. Bos -2- 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. $. 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 � � ♦ i v CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A. L. SEELEY •: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER Jr !/�� 161 JOHN GLENN DRIVE sura WEIGHTS AND MusuREs �'�,i�'s • OUCNANAM AIRPORT K. E. DANIELSON C;�•"L_�� ^ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 941120 ASSISTANT SEALER 662-7550 dsrw cOUtit{ ` BRANCH OFFICES 100-27TH ST.. RICHMOND 64009 1420 HIGHWAY 4,9RENTWO0D 04913 339.7000.[IR.3293 624.2910 May 31, 1974 RECEI ED JUN 5 - 1974 Mr. Louis H. Thomas 3 750 Roundhill Drive 106 ORLIF OF SUPEftVfSORS Pittsburg, California 94565 oCOSTA,C9. 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 Clerk of the Boar 1 In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California May 28 1971 In the Matter of Letter from Pittsburg Resident Relating to Animal Control Procedures. The Board having received a letters"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. 1 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 • Mr. Thomas Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of County Agricultural Supervisors Commissioner affixed this 2&h day of MRy , 19 74— County Administrator J. R. OLSSON, Clerk By Deputy Clerk H 24 5/74 -izsao Charleen K. Travers RECEIVED MAY 16, 1794 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CO'ITIRA COSTA COUNTY MAY.AO 1974 CALIFORNIA �. z OLSSW of50jv SIRS: I read a piece in the Oakland Tribune on :iay 15, 1974, concerning the shooting of a dog, by an animal-control Officer, which ::gas chasing a horse. The article read to the effect that, the Officer was being admonished for shooting the dog. I hereby fully agree with the Officer's actions, who 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 quarries, etc. I personally have counted 20 to 30 dogs running loose daily on my route alone. It is time that the bleeding hearts dog owners, who refuse to adhere to the County leash law, be silenced in favor of the persons who do not Trish dogs damaging their property. Contra Costa County, has been very lienient with the people, who 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 horn much a family"loves" their dog, these animals are becoming a hazard by being allowed to run loose, either by accident or otherwise. O,•ners, should be given notice, that their dog's will 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 repremanded for his action, you will be giving the dog ovrners a free hand to do as they Trish, letting their dog's run whenever and whenever they please, killing and maiming other peoples livestock and pets at will. Contra Costar County, should pass a law limiting persons to owning 1 dog per household The number of dog's in this County seems to be doubling each year. rT 3750 ROU."IrDHILL DR. @D• ,PITTSBURG, CALIF 94565 L 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; On 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. 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. Boscoe Witness my hand and the Seat of the Board of County Agricultural Supervisors Commissioner affixed this 21stday of May , 1974 County Health Office-FAMES R. OLSSON, County Cler County Administrator By Deputy Clerk Charleen Travers H 24 5/73-15M 2240 Tamalpais Ave. El Cerrito, Calif, 15GS3� M 10, 1974 RECEIVED f1AY 13 1974 Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County J. wj Martinez, California B Gentlemen, 0n Mag 8,197 ., I set a small animal trap in my back yard for' t4e purpose of trapping small rodents which have been destruying 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 t,o��,remove this animal from my yard. I was turned down. Since I"Veason to believe this animal was diseased I continued to contact various governmental agencies for assistance with the help of SupervisorsKi.nney's assistant. I was unable to find any agency of governtatt 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 hind 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. 4. Immediately contract wi t'r..aa private exterminator to prmvide such services of this type on a cost to the user basis. 9 I would be most willing to donate 'my time :and`serviceson any citizens committee charged with studying phis `Field and F earnestly desire a`rep ly to .`this`: letter stating what:you are` doing to rid Contra. Costa County of'hydrophobia.. Sincerely, eo e_ Boscoe - s k N, >� • CALIFORNIA HUMANE 1 COUNCL 4432 GNOGA AVENUE • WO ��I 20-1 9%a64--��IPhony (2 1 3) 3A7-41 7 3 Lt-C rVSD fay 8, 1974 Hon Edmund Lindscheid, Chairman Board of Supervisors flAY /S 19 74 Martinez, California J. R. 0=00 Dear Mr Lindscheid: C` J6 OSTAOF pE'SORS ey outy 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 80% to 850 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 riAJOR. STEP, IF STRICTLY ENFORCED, COULD HELP Ev-D 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. assemblyman Howard Berman has introduced AB 3922, a bill which will license breeders and control the numb_—rs of animals they can produce. We strongly urge you to write ,L- Berman, State Capitol, Sacramento, 95814, and offer your support =or AB 3922. Also write kir Walter Powers, Chairman, Assembly Commerce and Public Utili- ties Committee in support of the bill. Sincerely, `Circlidl :Ne1v ..a P_, Iresident This list of breeders is a very small sampla the 82.490 ads in two Los Angeles newsparom December 25, 1971 to December 25, 1972. At the time this Survey was ►Wade, ost breeders paid no city business license.#Jno sthte sales tax. On the basis of the Los Angeles pop6lotinn, it is estimated that the loss in state revenue from breeders amounts to approximately S15-16 million dollars. Since this Survey was taken Los Angeles City and the Board of Equalization are forcing animal breeders to comply::i=a the la:/s. Lna; I Rohrtach --ti.-M,at:r,..► as wsnata►Yi:+ Mrs.Greenwood t in1 K.fgrl Canyon Sun Va11cY ►v:r.ratgedwtnxu •fT`• r -- :1708950 Balboa,NoNorthridge Y:c_;; i.du!t dugs.Solis pups.5200 each 3 breeding females,sells pups S200-5350 each NO tax G.-n vleve Robinson !',%)Las Virgenes Canyon Airs.Barbara Turner - r,11.: ap dng.: TC0,:o^'es Sheep dogs- nL0 tfrw Oa:aaC- M< -1--o•v71KSCKER3, Z A t, 000MMMOP wbwna 1941G Cohasset.Reseda ...c c_o♦ pop C"t. S uit-S_'S0 t'ot Jle;-S 100 each t�s��r� -q tR� � 3 breeding females i 1 in present litter ro3t xYAy?.Q TYµ���3:us• Naa Sobelntan IYt!`1Yl.LJ Q DA0.WE,�� -Mrs.Grillo 132 Coo!aansca,Woodland Hills 6174 Elba Place,Woodland Hills AhC 1-cups.Toys.ebf:ns CC__lc PUPS AKC 3U r1 r:> fur breeding: Porkies-S300 oHUTS �3(a 5 adult females: 12 pups at S100 each �i1-Jx,�t 3�:.ii3 - Bruce Tague t �` Mrs.Betty Hilton E ELGL N TERVUREN _ Greyhound puRt•ie' 8965 Herrick Ave.,Sun Valle - R ► 131HChwvz,Burbank ehart•pion sicr h r.fr Y I i. S-ncoatt Foe Terrier •1 wt-ding females Seal, rleart '& affect;.,. 19 dogs in 2 litters.Breeds Pugs,Fox Terrier,. nui•..r!mutts AKC.Snu• ate. Reas.xtable..&'.13,v tr2 &Belgian Terriers u 0 e t Oc my f?Ol/5L :,a if.Keller - _ D%L;=+ ,:h 2.6,81hii Her 3078.11.Lima.Surb;rnk %Its.Herba:rrHoltzman rtLk S:V_ itiS•C`J. _tors:all a_:•s,Ilred do-,s regularly 32214 Oak S ore Villa �,Nle;ttaka Village p SALLT1Fi. ��,.•�_a. g- ti:.:ll$lIU`D$AIDC S 7ti to S 125 each ; xa as,�+ v'Ii._ -_ 4 breeding females.Pups 5150 up -_� Cs .._,..:-: PLP t" J nr'. �f?l:u:!a.Rarla:r Lucia Gaetahetta 3i•c.:_ infra Pr 111•19S11ae,ticCst• Hfvy,:Malibu 220 Hamilton Rd..Willow Sprs•Ci_ =i breed.n• females:no tax 1)U B I;iLMAN pups. AtiC•' 121ittcrs not weaned-12 titters ex eetrrf soon,] p a ,..e o Woes sr•ri.on fiuge cli:unplOst t.:nes. WiU :.� Gtrn to S**�l_ a, s �, s I latef. 1_pups - t litter, 13 pups 10-15 pups per litter I litter, 16 pups-S50-5150 each deliver. $311 up i r4-8"• `� o:Cess-s'i.Vi-t! i rer� George Murray :,e+at es us'a a a.:ee ar,r C+ +. L,. - . w C/sf..3! real = Fz c Carr fD08£ � �a 950 N.Creek Rd..Ojai.Ca. s a 11:Z a+r It,za_-:&s i 17824 Burbank Blvd•,Enc.Apt 105 ( RMLiN pups. A:>t.. o; Ag+nt for dog breeder 44:FRutrt - a►.„ Dtfd• c sun Cr e`J":o<S 'see•" t►'ks• ~ti or r Sc shots tit Ul u 1i re::s dogs in a.sartr..crt,no tax: hold. 9a7.c?33 Ka+.�a-eV_Rtae,+nf Rel A b �.:t.'r; .:r�5,c 411:et e^ se is pups for S 176-5250 each Jean Citron __ ._. - f'a'-•».+ :o Me fell.tt•tn e.-,.es- n 1st one litter: )in another: 7 in third litter � 1050 N.Genessee Ave.,Hollywood - •rr r`•t- to � 11r•'.n r• d era. 25 pups for sate 7 svks to 1•r, r r,e•u p�•..�t xc<„r=. Me i.T.trntt �DL"s '�_� soya, !+ S200-S250 each,no t.r+rrz^v►F. „Qes r r «••, V t:�: wk3. 1 black .. 1 139431V•tldner,Pacoima rtnele.8sJ-SSfiS - �ceoal ti lisovd1-iq feni ales,pups S50-S75 each Chris McIntire �, v :. nr I I::0 i:u^yy•:ru,L.'rrsr�c;d TcrrK.. I _-,c i_ pups. AIX. t:enav Fr•::•man 3 litters,6-8 dogs in litter S75 and up wtll said tit Ch.istmas 11,,3;1%M.ctl.00.n,S.anland 5:+�1i.4%fi99-:1J3 :r$RbLiN ShephMon. 1 i.h••r •4 rttns-9 fn titter t � t :she,?:1u1 Allen rnRS div:.•► U S.G.V. i•►r, i m_a.. b.se' sst Ere 1 f,rr.. 3 da-vs.8 on litter &tans&blacks Te:2:'43 3633 Royal tIeadosti Rd.,Shcrman Oak, ,2t.ai Et�3 r.;-:� owl itmg for years 5 br.:cchng females.2 litters.S75-S200 each 3633 ROYAL MC40:.w ::rsy.,e Talbot SHSLTEES. -AKC. elt=p A.minW p,Ntzr`1,A O �7. a:. or 111.7 Fleet.aaud,Sun Valley sired lttt t t}p�e�n�ment, 1942 H1gh PI.,Santa Homer 6 inters.2 wks to 9 mas old all ages• P11.: E:artSLTt3a� 211cten,8-9 syks old S100,-S1 1`[o?ws+d ca ^ ;;� i esiit S 75 m S 150 each pup now.us-19:3-19:3 +•at.Ya•Y at r -- - Mrs,Richard Wendt BASSEET pat-a- K. ,Champ. .',1:11.0 Kennels sT• BgRNARnS C•roeae t-m 8108 Mammoth,Sepulveda - , ss site I.rp•-. - Shots. 2431 tit•n.lfet,EI Monte e,ro.,.:s o,n. s!t•SS7, r,--•.- 3 breeding females.►litters S75 up' Milli hu11. .,.�y^�i i 25 t+:+ps.5 days-8 wks :trfilall Xwa.. 4ie+:e George Toth - r�HAir •o t r.r riga+n.,z S W ea Hinman Cougar Hilt Ranch.Agoura.Calif.'..1 �s i•-,.t tr. to".Sss,cb. s . :. OLD 1••a. L"cis Cres- ae•n ...-�. 15 Calfa,tY:,1:d!and!'dos Ad speaks for itself «. IRn: . sf SW •, - - �s•tu• •.7 bf e•Y f.nq fCM,f1eS 52.13 pups IOf$15.7 ,.,tawnQr•C 1.11••x- Pa.$. #A,.atr .y_ c_;••5 "Ars.Scholl 3906 Morris,Sun Valley ARISH Setter C' ps.ReadY for S.r.rl-.1 Ines7 titers,S125-5150 Christen Z5. :_ rr & Fi•'id iShats -it-or-em 993-031? . 13G.15 1)Garmu13 in tetter ---�__ - -•- Y.•.•rd. n StBerarJs-t0-t2in otter +�RCTIC Socks .;0. Chin •r / toatdeb,% Crated male }. ilrr.rct• fox.a and afghans �tj,_5(j;Z l4lrs.SchrvinD e'tn»t! _s a t•• 19026 Keswick,Reseda illi _•:, '.1rs fDo.m•:y 3 totters.9 wks,9 mos.S99 each _ ?.M0'.i Archwood,Canoca Park 0RErtTt.Mw' for r niceciet.2 litters.6 6*.ks-3 mos Chrtatmas. kKC BrindlIq Air..B••nnett :^drt S250 eL.Ch 2ri�;�e=SlW up,347-55,A) 4151 Benesta,Encino `�.- 1 AKC a a-ls. bl-du: lily _ hree(Is 7 dogs regularly in buiiness for 35 y.tars 1 B1_-.r.L E _:ao. .eg-1114 t •..It. Evans IYi�fl Itl iCX3 AM t no tax:residential area - - --_.- --. i!A05 Sutton Champ. B100d Imes pe- t c.--g time breeder-nn tax disree papers.Shots.1%Yorm- Mrs.Carlson >ra•r.S100 5175 each DeC�I i 00-,-:5 !nmAYX a om S d ee}, geautitui pub• 299'}5 N.PAulhoilard,Agoura Co:rr� Srto:s. Stud uthnt Lttees ,,It told Lia CnrLi:2tus POODLES Hss 35 dogs-sells pups Eor 550-5350 Sir-cr_cog-6a:9 v < ,�rnarCa AAC Suv vaur tI: S-dt,r• A.. ::1 Kennt.i rf• o.aa:es Ellis r'tSC. $ wks o IZ-It- . tea»ua z wa it ta'a it r 7f,t.n►3 ..rr,:. 15 httefs o: JuP.for sale ,•�. comf:.•1 .U-+wa l,:.t s:,.•r. 16570 Parthenia.Sep-Ovedi �, 7 •k++] _ „l �sz;*_iv. Swwt .__YiZS 1+tt±rs S dozs -r 3 per stir o, '::5ttin�'O:i.Sunta::e FFxt S1c.G, s:.s. $:ff.:•>r.i:h l't: -•dos C=rsriett: :3-it 1.t ter,5100-150 eacn, / ksd5,333.6103 �_ 4:190 O,z Rey.Venice lfOi' iia- 150 dogs to sell-Sl Go up " Ciera PH1rrr"e•-Ta_ C+,••"ar +•o r ". __ etooAl•n.f_ -ara•ttrd. Six•a ' ,:t, 1 hrmps.m S(AZj tatinr•ae ktttr rs :tr Ouadaht Ph.378- t IuUl Beisemer,Encino i Phots Its. trained. i-'3 26551 Maeur Dr„Palo es Penninsula �..t,hs., 5 Atter per year L31-73 1 litter.4 wks• 1 litter, as: 1 liter,6 mos. _. ., ._ Has 12 cats.n0 gait.: i,..mttf it., 1.•-top1981.2617:/834229 - - i'r,ri,rs.r:: Et:ctno Gi--nreje Gorman 445.1535 *-r���aN0 was Ct+ Irnrs a �1 ,ji tri,-•,t.•1, 1 fitter -7 s. COLLISPL'PSAhC 21654Enuftr,TopangaCanyon ,��r»Cie-rWs Sir$$. t .t• 9 v.a S 100 and up � dll 215ea.Show& peL Studi pups 5150 up:Witt breed again - - pt t Qac '71'and p8 June'72' service_031 2617 or 783-422."1 Bought dugs from Joe Refinish below:no ta+r :,t•a.::.t-t.:y 5on.as 8898456 R0R21Rvaslan Wertltolwvll.' 41 Joe Heinish 547.0798 r:,t•nt rt Cnneir Ene4str OT Unrr. fnw..,eians Ord.sItKe K . . t7sn /tv.Pass 1895 Jaybraok Drive,San Pedro + is Cn:hrs and Borzoi -_'_ - His 6 breeding females-8yrbreeder �f 21) w?oi no.tax(?) BEARDED Calltei. tare M USA Holt.•rdue Aug. 15:.1litter due Aug.28 - Gresr itr.•twarnent,taeal fa•t.:e•r }{�.,d pulls to tr•trr:.S,ttlS for$200 C.ach Col;ws 5300 each ,"rn"vat-ans fornu tllteer /N/<Sar . Gto malt(abu•,)says when ARO comes L-n,ta!',tnrbaugh 353-2764 -neighbors tellthem that 3 of Rheinisch's - cas,Shadow Hills - dugs b,.-long to him. O GERMAN 1 SHE.P.PUPS 'r .ks. I later-10wks A% l t t,••• 3m:!s Has 8.-10 in titter " -" Diana Dnckios LOtKAPICOS 213/76a-io55. ' Tnl a.om..r•mooed from 11701 Kagei 8941 Herrick,Sun Valley ,s+mtz ver a4ectc u• ei ulsty,Has G breeding females Breeder.at•vays has 20-30 pups to choose Irv.i. 7 breedrng fematrs i r,IS ii icEJXH IS NOT IN THE COUNTY BUT AS PUT IN AS AN EXAMPLE OF BREEDING :as.Johnson UA. •e,.r„strtr alas,s v,ka s-k••,R 145 Peris Lane,Santa Paula per Term-.-, ars ?west. • , Rhoades 21 pups An 11.Vo:ittersS100-S125each,no tax +t,mw-�,Pacoima �g C Billson wrtce/ 4R2S:i Sc c pup +t%'. ?: =nr h.:d tv p,.p�Z:,,s+:td CiftEAT DAtif:S:\KC s06- ,.,.-,noa.Sur.land i Dt:al Ch+uz;n?au.-old and I litter expected soon, blac;a pups: ttuy earn Has l0 adult dugs,9 pups tt lite t•,ord nr' Cf..a raget&icrtfice price. S1Ut1 up.3a3••it54W3,6 t it-.:•ng lemates and 1 male. how parents x964039 — ! , ??, 19+3,Has four litters.2 fitters at - Terry Kirkman r N w:r Yasaan, 18557 Arminta,Ph. 7920 Salama,Van Nuys I -J? cc,qsare 2.vks old. 1 litter at Says she has 13 breeding females at variot.- .t Rica Icarrel,13484 Fillmore. _ prices:usuallyhas 2-3 litters at a time, t eERJ.gives Axa mer.a zom -. -� _ OiaGZ.I ti CN.11nea ra., •ta+• F Pr.-38.7325.Mrs.Rhoades had rGABr\T AST.-ES A!{C 11 _ A w P _• _ c°,1, �...i a the past 7 mos.She sells dogs t-uL+ & lots of Harlequin to Sti00.Each one of these dogs show & paL 14 fittcrsf11 Plush Puppy' c.ttt b_bred again.Has been breeding for •Terms.11old on depostL CW-403912123 Hawthorne,Sun Valley { 'I; CCCKAPCO$,=Ic 1ct', arse Zone RS !Btects• •:s i Ye k •- -r=--�- -- - Always has 8-121itten to choose from spl-rs:ecla.s.. oexoyA11 eras^ tz:,.sssy� „».n Cr'. xznmAW short hair. 's Mrs.Stacey - - - yr., Bover Puppies AiGC' -i 3•aalev.Sylmar I male, field. $IS. 2 lb. chi 9317 Hutton Rd.,Chatsworth Lake I3 Bouncing;babies it .4 d..,: 1 1 pup. htitshua SS 367-9534 Has 13 dogs:pups$75 up 34q=1662 _ P tui Elaine Scholten tg�1t ��o Pups 14500 P3:k,S I t95H _Cl![K Pups r Ca S.t';c•ndl,uus Huls YORKIES A ,.t: t ors . �y mar pc L:a!lrsvr_ S 150 and up- t8 dogs l'SHIK Trios fZ oot.ts t:tsw 32 dogs for safe:no tax.SISO-S175 each AKc_ f:etd. T. These ads are placed by breeders clubs and agencies.Members of these clubs do not advertise but sell their animals through their club ads. f: +n=•-aN Et.\HOUND Far Into SOR:01 CLUB OG CAUFORNIA SCrrtvlu2ER-rAtN.SCHr1Lt ` !MASTIFF Perlis AK Siad ter. C. -.:F.E. ao. ,aat,an Prsrd"I ,Pena:+n wvitft%_ds ll-MY two W'S.G O72!- WDi•74 S,YS73b "-vka.,Fres uaantre,.. 71 UAIy3y7—a :. . ta + �-•t PVr,C Srrvles Ade. Ia1•asS2 lt1.236 -. -•.�..}�w++��r: -. � 2222 _ C_D tao.,n Snrentov Cleo of S.Cj r^� o c PUPS oW •Sit p-I1-a t-at gra ►a a 6 liners of - DA11 from! servee l+hen, tr-s+r•fw..d-at-a-M f a. P •.•el :CEESnONO CLUB OF S.C. t Raton i Setteorec Oaaets'Xenetro' -•e-.ter♦ logo: }Tilt/>. -ear r_ n. s�,T_- le via :13 :,i lsslor t1o/'t7diS7 t2at Si1•t£2. EXAMPLE: DAL'AATiON CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Puppy list for February 1973 sj i.--C iarc':Atrcun Mary Ellen Rich r 7? 07 Ether Ave..N,Hollywood 8500 Mooreraft Ave.,Canoga Park 1 DOBERMAN pu71 AKC bhJt L tea.- Rlfteltd: C . .:RtoOolte!tJ. AQ..Jrsi, Ini sale - 2 litters.for sale ava.gtNa.Oanie Kmrst. 323-i12t. Barbara Ann Rose ?ii1 T ::ale a,San Bernardino 9342 Ld Canado Way.Sunland t',xptas and older dogs for sale 3 litters,various ages'. _. +�+ w�: , .,.r r p•nw..., tom- ; 'AN t!SE 50;, OFF 3 S 1rE:I2ER r: cc., t,:...c e:i pops S45'C �� i. 23 WEEDS cats 510: tcx s,. ' f • �. .,� All Register3bta �� L•t-i i 1..l T$ 8454',fi0 f+t C:O TOWN-ptAtt - Persian S hans•+ran (rt•rns 2 let>7 itarrtMrna tit.Tarr�r<t. ,�-a=�a,. Alves. Mslsmut =-oi ns Y=_PS•23 Puz-4. .s: hurt. SCrtsu[er AKEPuppies-rill Breeds Mir 77 '•:t oz• Peasxeialr. leaWas bar. EianounAr i` -_ T ,KC PUPS , . esv ArC Res. Lhinushuss O•d Enp,si ApN ON C1SAteBEAGLPS S73 PayBe•rnOsnwds. CAac . v mDT 4e 11 Sat.L Sun.74t41117errs OY cCA TERR4ERS Carrs. Scntt•s. Mn Stnnsuert 1 z Cstbn Tar Peoate• • St>oeerara N,r.'te:r 7•rs;en. Itee j _•: -ese 5175 _ _ u mien l ,`P ootr D 11:13 . ,r ens as. r,ar. E1.nx,Ad.. -Che s SAMO1 t:.D L ad L Uaoer - 1''t-ZS r� M� •n. Alsskisn.Wta+nute% Gets - pY gena Salters Sr.drrn.rd, t ua a rlu:0i 5250 up - Ratr.e.s•s. Germ. Serpnetds Ole. Z1aIe �t if'7ttasM.nKG+ Keeatwrss yrs aT3 i:i:ttea_ ' £...•t+Sreee.arL Sr_aern+•ds. Stt dSet'ricv .KJ.:A2-ZIrO'�: .._.Wrta.- *iiaetti 'J6etres _i •-_ _ O:.e+Ce•1v t19 S,:a.!t•_ _ Gere. S^ i=••rs a• ���� }� 1� �l flanaArowichrerMat:at Ctwas Go•tr•s Retrtr.an cle�L1T f pr SHOP $4.57.1 • Ott::ST13hS. Alct 1S Yff asl, li3ra6 rS Wettles UALIT. + PUPPY RAkCH PET CENTER r, rtarss_... Le:asa Aesn Mei-emir Fes Tarr_ �a+r•••?<•= - OPEN.Su N. 12•a P M. P:ay.Reseda I19q N:�trxx 8r.d.,Totunp Orin Eu. Mon. Touts..Fd.' �i 3-:'211_ 222,L2.5722 - _ _ f•-t1 IFF PU? � � 1y�tMiHrs'^,v:O7CE•tTES " 5:ffG T_''t pugs. r\i:C.fi w;cs i • j Fr., araCnure_ _.inert E sss2e Wn,mN at. a ran Ara, S:el:,c stun service. st2afa i,pse Ctt. —&.I- A. mole,• a.19.•ISW. ..nrru�aERS.-P _1ry_�y�r N c p Z Z g K 9 o 3 -'c ; m O 0 0 _c D n O • N _ C v 7 rj O D O ZJ O •G < 7 O r .. N L1 .. tb .r ,.. tT lA G) p D t7 O O N t0 x O C.) 1 V C L. A V al co V W N I W V O� W 0 7 D '' C O n X _d V i [^ c - O r,2 N V W W Oo tD i -+ O V O O > N O C 3 CTI C.G q N r.•D NC) j O v O ? p d W t0 d W N d C) N O CD n S O q -+ d A tD A M O O t0 N W - ul CD to G N S 7 C7 C_N Z oa n - -!D cn CD 3 0• -•! 0 1 '> c - m• r w o ds to w nl to a " c< p �7 p c� cmC.) OI W W I CD U C L O V _V Q CC) CoW C) W W V a a V N W d W C) N A O �O '0 n 0 to -� N V ? ` - 0 0 V CO0 a W W N Co N V W d d I > C V O O ? d W N N W co Q W V N a to CTl CD co ~ O CZ ' p -t W - tT N N < io C 0 .. r n f!) V W 1 to W c ? cm N N a -� � � V N t0 1 W y O C'3 w 00 C 0 co OC7 j d L t7 N O ? W O W A C) to tT 'to V A Ul W �! CI C) v 7 � 0 ='1 D 7 d t7 d O w CTI V .O V m C) O A O O W W V 1 W -4 ,. O.D to 0 3• > 3 t? Z W CI p n p 0 -+ V W W W -+ V O d W V N N ! O ,N '^ CL 3 0 to •� O CL M. a c c� co 0 N CD V V w t 1 p Si N I N N ! I W -+ tD p -+ v o m L j cr pni o VC) W O) 1 cn N I i Q) O to A N -+ W - O p .. CL N W O J 1 ? I O N N m I O t4 ( I CO CTI a -+ rn C) = cr OS 0 0 0 = m d V p O -+ V -+ to d O W O CTI -+ C7 V tD W �! % 7 7 .••� S_ 7 O Q b 1 to C7 t. A N V I 1 A N N A 1 -• -+ I 1 N N v -Ci O - v O G 2m V W p r I ...� I f:1 r .,a jV I p ( ( �! d a ta Ct 1 a 6 O , C3 O 9 tD D O N CTI W N I O L7 ( ( O O O A -+ I N O) O N N O CA3 CD O N W ! V W W O -• V W V W N tT I N V co �• -..SO O Q• .V C3 N to 7 D Efl ffl f J EA V> a CA) v a < C N. W N C71 N N W W O 7 7 O 7 > > 7 7 7 7 7 O -- 0 .-O O O O ^� O C O O O O d 0 O O O C O O O to< 3< C D { j Ef E$ 7 �3 C f O � O 7 O 7 7 7 7 7 7 O Efl 0 O - C o tT CTl 0 > D r ` o t71 q O 4 4 to to A to r7 J [T to co C a a� C N .. W C] N L, -- 1 C O co G 1 '~ N I L1 •3 N CTl W N tY) Q tD ?O ra O tD CI 1 •w W > 2 O d to w d -+ N 2.o G'1 N ! V ? t: O m d 0 w O d m OI a W -+ V O V m w N Cm S-C to O O d C) OO 0 to M d -+ O O V O CI O N co d O co C3 m to C to ~to = !Z G�-� to O• m0•� An n 0 7 I I N O 7 O A 7 I 7 7 N 3 3 p 00 W m. 0 W 1 C W N W N V ! 0 3 0 7 Od0 O CI O I 7 7 Q N N -0 0 OO d N O 0 n ( Oo v ! O o o to o e� 1 to n .,is. co m � o �_m< t, Q � v � O � C002o O � , - c0 tc UO2 tmDoto C a ,.. ^ 7D 0US .0 O m Co O O O ic d0c� 0Og O O O ca --jM co d w d CL 3 O n 0 O m 7610 co t7 C rTmI c 1 N W O O O N r Nm f�D n C r= O v c O c 0 0 co � 0 d O O 0 O n n 00 O J 0 - 0 0 C) m� C G W co d CJ d S a A co - J tS G ai co < 7 W O.O.O M r-=r L7 I N C _. N ! ? • N N 1 1 n O �� DAO W tr I CD ` ti O -+ �+ 01 V W d O tTt N N I I O d " C O to o 4T O O N W I lA n' co O N 0 co O O '� d rj to N =M 1 i c Z: �2 N o l V- ae .r o a �l l ! o o n o c tv)< vOi 3 Q to rj 0 O N I o N i l 1 1 1 _• I I I I n c) � F10z a m o i "' ` w o -- iv ! 1 i ! ( I to I I I o �+ v =D n n 1 I o w o 1 I dE ! ! I w I ! I 1 * 0 " v)D Uc o =r a• n n � W N v tj W a 0 C1 V _ _ m D y.� „_,.Ciji Y CJt > --` ? G: N C7 O 0 tD W O W N -+ ... p �.. I A ') X ^O; C) L7 -r C :.^. L7 O L1 t31 UI V t7 V t7 C7 O C3 W i co O O S N O v O L C O ? O O O� W O O7 tJ'I N N w t.1 I t.� O CJI O O O co O A M CO O t0 O V CO J O C) O O CJ O O W O O W O OI W A O W O O O Cf a 0 I O se - '•�: ... "Qac•'iP t 7 O m N O z z z r r r r = -n m n 0 o co > > n < � -1 -I w cn N w to to cn cn n O O O �' O ry 'O O CD > _ vi O CT 7 c j oft = 3 C 4 © 3 _ O '� •-� C 5 co - o = C. c o c d :, o n G ^ n O = q D is `` ri O w n `N `; = L CO n e O C -ti �� n � O m O _ U A r- • W o W D W Cn V O N O N V O 'U V CT CD UT p tTT N . N O V c) O W L co N W N V 0 CO o CO W LI N W CTT O CO O -+ -+ C M to W W to n W m V O O O G) w N C m > - m to w C) co tD D. O V O O O) N N O co C) CO a.- W CO O W W ? V CD U7 UT > = W W W 0 V 0 W 1 NO Ul -+ N tD V N W to C) A V to O A C) N A Ln A N ? CD co N O I -+ W W A C:) co I r01 •-+ -� tO M N to CT) G) tO pp C) �T ? CTT to N A A U1 N N I N a a W (7 C) ( •+ Ln W N m W CTT to 0 CTI N W V A W A C) O CTT O co C) A CD 03 O N C) V CTT C) .> A j J r r N A .r n _. - - [V ri p r _, CA 1 C31 W m to to N W W -+ tD V A w -+ N O O V O N a D. N to A Co p ! sn O O = O m A O w w co A V N O m N O W to N m O C) N V tO0 A O O -+ O N A. V O V ? G1 W ? Ul -+ vo 1 I I w w V l I I 1 1 1 ra ° I `N' O I W w l p i l Ila o ^ o I o I V I is N t3) 1 ( 1 I W i aT I w A pp ° I ,�� 1 tJ w I n n 1 Gi o O J � Z: a ! N ! 1 W N I i I l o l m i an W i o N I m N ( to t C) N Cl I :b UT to to N N O C) iD O -+ N O N m C2 GI OT to Cn cto n co a cn •+ ao p O N A a 0 I 1 I I 1 t t I p 1 N I N n 11 C l c a I I N 1 O G) O I I I A I I CD O V I '� �^ I A p i m C0 Q I c) 1 cn I A m o l 1 ( I w i o to O 1 D I w to 1 .+ co l a o a ! N N N N to Q CD CA V ••► ?. co co cn O -+ N CTl ✓' G !Z. CA Cn Hf to W 4% 4% 4% 4!! 46 6% 4A Q Cn V) 4A 4R 4A 4fS 4Pr O C/) W N 7 to 7 O ,'a W ? Cl O O O O O O �� O to O O _ 0 O O O O O C O c< O 7 4A ifl 4A d! D O 4AD E!3 ... 0 3 7 4 ca A 4 CA 4 S`A Q A ? V A Q N m c� o O m 4 3 o V n n CA A Q ca r O C7 O is o ^ o V v o c o N — w a t cap . , N 7 O A t73 N -+ ( I -► tD 1 r V A a N -a N _V -� � to 0 -j •r to m w to C) V N I N A V O N CD ? C) 2 to a A N O - 1 W N O m 4 Ul CD V CD -N.. I I O O t>7 a CTT m O C) V A -+ V O to C) N V o 0w ! V Q `• Co C) O T 0 d o D Nto 0 v cn to -4 i { Ulo 0 v -+ CO W tO ci O r O O I N 7 7 1 CO N W N V 0 0O p w o j 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ca 1 C N O U) 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 � 0 ca C.3 CTi A �a V C C') n V N N N N V N o o j• o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 o d o w a 0 0 0 o c o 0 o i o n o 7a I I ? ! N N I 01 1 1 .n. 0 cN� C) Uf N -' I cz W -� a a j to» I w co i N co v o j J sov 1 1 w" de C) 1 o CA) ! 1 1 ! ! ! 1 I I ! a _n t J I > a A ^) tW^. N c A N o I N l o l I j l -c l T tT t { o i ! w 1 V i N N 1 N v. ( m O t7 7. 4 °� ! v cn cD C W tD r O COD C0 N N O O N W w N O CO N A. X V N co O A W -- CA m to O x N N i W -_. -+ CD T -+ O con A C:) -� W N C3 N Gl p A z C0 V O -• -' W 1T V tJ � -+ U CS -' 1N ! ? m O O m tD O m O N O O N C) to C) 4 O O W CTt S1. C) U �! V A Cl (� Gt = _ ? to tT7 O N O Q tD C31 O O CQ V N O O O N V V W a L'1 ? to O CTT co O O O O W O V W O O O W W O CJ a N O O -+ N V m O V O N CL O ? M A c i ch l) to oz mc, -04 -0, a - m F -a m t m Z> > > o 0. cn o 0. w -a 3 0 0 > r, rj cr < o 0 c, 11-4 c 0 > M Z Z C*fft:1 CO r I r- (A . < j 5 .e. Cl c* — o m > co N 0 A. to No o co 2; C) 0 in co K) -4 in o C) in o co W li c" m 0 0 co m 'i B. w 0 -j a* < Z& K) Z6 Ull 0 0 co w co a CO 0 w No V 0 > -c w C, A. ca r%) 0 - !j S4 I M c,3 C.) Im co K) C) 0 K3 M cn w C w " 0 w w 0 w (n — " 4) Q = 0 cn 0 0 to CO (M to 11*4 licii'll ca J:b z tj ha cn z. N) o ca V -to co -0 -a -A- m 'co Alo In 'co ",J M rL t" M co 0 C co Q M m as Ij — ca 0 0 m En to Ej En co Lo co CO M 0 w al ca r m 0 W r- 0 XC ca ZR C�l 0 'i C* O 0 o 0 1 -ca En _0 -0 co -1i a) co C oto 1 .5, Zj in o C5 hi 0 W G Lt to A Ul co 0 co co cn V C:) to to cil N3 m N3 0 h3 C4 Nn C CL -0 cn cn co 'o in en -(A I= c 3 C* -cJ 'n 4�b cS 0 V 1 Zj -40 0 -j — N cn 0 K3 0 " w cn -4 IEO 64 61 o w o w 0 o o 0 0 bi (n6q M 1%) W(ft 0 rj rj0 0 M cc CD 0 H3 60 (A 'A M 'i V1=2 ri cn 0 G-1 w 0 0 o r cj r.L .L K3 0 =r CO 1J4 411 W%J to —M COO tWb %t4i co -4 co 0 M �j w W 0 CL IIc* [to z 0. a,z c: w 0 0 c 0 CD 2.r—9 rr cm rL 17 0 cC4 0 ri v3 m 0 tit K) 0 ci C) -• c" tw 0 o 0 0 LTS U) w CO 0 -4 0 0 co Ilm 0 " 0 0 o CL x —— 0 : w J J 0 O co :3 c �j cl 0 0 0 CL R cn 0 o C-3 co (n w cl) m 0 n L A C. 0 m cz lu C3 0 0 0 a 0 (n :3 0 C :3 00 0 c cl cc CD co ri o 0 c IN km -="Dj -0. 11 C, 'a n C 0 CD m a '2 W 1 co (A3 to p 0 C — ca ca I I - ET SL-ra- W i� to 8 C, in in Fo 1 0 C, 0 0 cn 0 0 ag ae I e aie I rj :5. u 0 0 = 0 N3 C) o ca o I cJ) C2 m --J m 0 e X c= c* c- m 3 ca =r (n M M to K3 W U"I X6 O x C3 tj P :4 gn 0 0 (M C3 %J 16— cn c) En0 f.CA3" 03 0 M LnM c r- c- %4 N U, o C7 O Q co W 0 0 CO C:; (0 ,0 CO tj w C > c- ca CL CO G CL LS Q 2. In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California April 29 1974 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 , 19 774 County Administrator)AMES R. O((L;;SSON, County C BY L. Deputy Clerk Charleen K. Travers H 24 7/72-15M ""f ( rprnhrnnk *Bates Assnrialinu. fur. 300 GREENBROOK DRIVE DANVILLE.CALIFORNIA 94526 AREA GOOe 415 037-302A R C1 E D tpril 25, 197h Supervisor Edmund A. Linscheid P.PRaf 1974 45 Civic Avenue 1. R. OLMN Pittsburg, ca. 94565 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS wTNI A O. a . Dpty 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 tfe dogs would be removed as expeditiously as possible. The number of dogs was subsequently 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. Gould's 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. (per; �cic.-sc�cr5incerel,Y, Ken Smith Enc. (3) Manager cc: Animal Control Complainants f April 23, 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 Lir. and liirs. 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 coqalaint (see attached ). Sin---e January 9th the dogs haze 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 soundin_ fights with other dogs while many youngsters were in the area qlaying. It is our belief that any dog which can fight viciously could possibly turn on a human and do irr-:)pairable dana .e. The attached letter is an example of what we feel could be a most serif--,us threat to each of us. Again we state that we feel that these dogs should be R MOTED BEFORE; someone suffers bodily harm as opposed to waiting unti er some- one does. Until these dogs are REMOVED from the premises, we feel that not only can we and our chi ren not enjoy our court and our ,arh, but also we cannot feel safe in our own front yards. nn Sincerely yours, 4i Mr. and Mrs. Jas. Smith Lir. andlirs. Thos. �ialter kl1 s ,;,!r. -and ,'.rs. Glen Gregory Mr. and Mrs. Dan DeaOuden 1�tr. and tSrs. George Stevenson Mx. and Mrs. !K. Chimenti Enc. 2 ;Ind `7n 4v- 79? L`l�snw a: a April 229 1974 To hom It fthy Concern: On Sunday , April 21st , I was sitting in the middle of my own front ltwn. My husband vm;ts working in thq front yard also. Suddenly I was "ehlarged" by :ne of the neighbors many German Sher;)herd dogs. The dogs belong to ?ierce Gould. The attacking dog carae 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. came within inches of striking and had it not been for Pierce Gould's shouting, I believe I would have been severely injured. I rias terribly scared and frightened and after twenty- four hours have not completely calmed down. During a conversation following this bad incident, ?1r. Gould was quoted -as saying, "I'm riot s ra what the results would have been if I had not been there i-o call off the dog." The mere presence of these "attack dogs", as labeled by their owner, o�, this court ;poses a severe threat -to the local reside.:':s. T�2ese dogs '­-en tiie :Dose 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. G Diana DenOuden t za ' c z sAa i l wh. - 7. 1 # :� ti. '#�`'* , zIl �} tt �+ --% S1� i {f 3i s Pry } "i 1 - - I'llv x '" k k'{^Y N'. to fig-�' s " ;n t z nr i----�7;1��V'n } .t!' C vJ Gt F . �!., ,!^ 1 "�-"1, I-----��--:,� . �-,0. �,�'i- " I , ,-.-- ,,, -:�"��I�41' ,:�,, -��......�,,��'. , , ii . - I " ,, ,-',� ';-�,-!,�Iij!�4�,�,� ,," '? * " ";, ,�,,��,�14"� � .I---,-,�,t�,,`�-,,,�,,��:�i��— -,, �l �- , 1. . � , , ;�-i;�,�,,:_z, ,�,:,". K 4 t�1.11 47. A t 1 S awn.' ? i� x�,+ �* r } m" Y" k J xs� v s, K. i s r'xH ,,, 'ha M�r. yu" n '.,� r ,t. �4 '7 tt. 'a sr j a; t a e� '3 r .o?F 'a+rr,-4da -ay r ,. # `4.""= {u•{"'y «� r 4 ,,t. +v r a w�4'r{i of s y.yM x n S ¢,war ra'"�s�- k; t'-'moi, //11 I '�f "f#.h'"" `-„ '' '"*y, "• vt it t"'{—11z 1 .-�' .r .- '`^ �`? u s r,+ 1 irz' "" .rt I v :�r P''^+' �`,,, `"' r.-r*�,1 . : x r s "�r ryy�t7�-}w� �'` ��.t�. S6 ra,.s�"z' r j _ ,"M '5 x^-. �, r s r n ni��WM4Y yi. F ,•it,.y �,3a . . 1. �' T a. s,1`^t<g x r *z''G. '�+' d x +� -T �,c J 1" k✓`+_�' .fie Owl- ��l „t �3•�'�# n ,mom,.,....- •3 2 ,z ( e :. x'.n C *r'e rte'": Z 7"4�.+ 1r.^ n 54 'r t P4 wy. r 'Ey#�'4C^ti m `"'{ £ v . t f 7" T HR., 'f r s -x. TM"7 4. F ... �"z.4 t4 r:r s a, �, 3"yr .rYr �,,v,"r"3 +e ' sI-E11 - ' ^..; .�3 i s ° ' € '* y r ilr`11y xa , ��'�j iy� t p } Yk, 3 �p 5 r. Jkk x2t ` 3a 4 f'§ �ce W ,.yt ,z. 8 .� ✓:2 a r' FryM.r sf;�." T re -.i. _ ,.r a n; `^''�5.'�; �,f5�+``T�-�c4 r" y t� `�t' ,C f, s .E-1 ' 1 u i 1 rJ.s'i { 1�*t ^ 1 !7 h 2 YR ,{, Tr r t ..,, s°. s ._.L r ,2 + ,•r r .Y1 r,-�,'*{: 11, 4 Q' ...L: l , .�G 4�,;r 'z v''".={ � }mow..^'1­1a� '. , z�: r qr�„ t'�5 e" 7� f`J ! , 4 z n� �% r 'dX. G_eeal�rooz� ,icpe!�1^� n^rN� Ac:oc�.a�ian A 1M j � '"'�d a, -+��ti� ;., "s '� .t div'° r t f �w t cry �'+ � .� i _ CJs<•sy " FR z r zSu w { X00 GACenI?�oO:. �Xi?Q � p 4 �} - - n,i -t i. z. . - �'.,: 3�}Tx a S"�w ;.w'r -c ru�* s u.t 1 ,y';`.a � �1 t-� S 7''y 1"` �� , _, t .e, jr 3 rx "+.,r a..fi. a.a y:`� „int' -.y.. "� J �-T, 3 - dfi..r °" f. y - ,4.!*'��.. ,.r''s,�R ✓ ++ ..n-v:,, -''a'=� 'a",''�,,,o x""' `'s -+v,s. ""�M z kw:9 ,e'x i'z C t 3�{ a: i' �j`h'. 3 .11 ,� �,,s .,rZu, �"`G' ', ".§ �{;� I•_, ,,,,.. f a ,3vr.�n { ';4,„a d F+v', ,.y,�'�""" ��� „mac p r'i l ^g., �'1 .Gi , L n Via'% * C fix; is ;0F�". f y »4�� y 'rem ys 4 +r .`L',,�ate. xq& ':c -ft ;i+ r x. �` t+„f, ''t 't�z ' G.Y Y 4 "� ,"zr .;,s*+'�'rz r.,^-c 3n�,ff �rr,3' z rl.f�! ,, i x°„•cr f^.r"''y ,,,� �'1aa. . N� LL.' howl ru^ ' s a te ( "s"' 45- r ",,t #ts i, ,fry ,..:Z• r t._t 'f' i1 ! "'!Z "'� rf... S�y1�1141�peYn ,f� n.f<.$ •r''sv •� w.I' .1 r ? a C + 4"4x` -,m `�� Asa 1 Q .V 2 _ C.t.; l v� ��4 c�n.v b�' .a. LT y �j �1'J� v hr's�I�� w�� r. n+•+,� zL/�,dc t ln�.< A ..h-.= a, k�, `i...b"tiry �i ,y �rw *n i1� dilll�: k'�T t Dr/1 A /' ",q qty ' "✓- ,;,4 . eii .���ll,.111 ,.IMS . t ri s..�^.e G� t �. `/ V�Ir i.L"���.J V�#li-.If y C ia��,py � .,/A� /� y �t r*r z`-� YS i...., , ^ ,y' �y�'�,,„� �i yi,,� - ' "" N _. Imo.{.� ,k,Y LQii-�eI. �M 1 is �s C Z r i 1;y .4 L tti.Q 1=00 ,111 �'- �'s, S, aZt �� , diij 1�0 i r'`":�J"�^t T !! . r 7 ray k �5' d S «t us.G ,,.2"'' .,.` :.t r•- x�{*rk�'`r r .,r 1. 1 !) rj.m�ll.zllLr-,-o�� c?acc rQ^i(Iir� trerc. ' ua Z opa�1� r _% jr, ccZ li � ^.,-- r.: w? �'t3� �Q CC a^v:��1:Z f 1�4� .' CC`s`t `r7'`JO' 1.�7> es : a ?.0 psro7ct ed� jr, �z G n - a �r. j ,: r,� 1. y riaCCmLi-0 � .! °1.973, 3: �r4t;].i21� i1;.. Ir;,iJ�. j�iLr �1.i v:.nT�= Ort.}•uMC _ *"r7 CtQi"+..�.orOi rOiL''=COl�.I' ^:�; ru ' 1: I7 �.�; Cs0 :;2 4�w .; v ^t • 3 aiAd-ii� ]..,.LQ 1t. :ti , � .�::d ezz, : �...,�r �a i;; euro•. i yin+` tt ^a2 '�„ec'.i,. �n tli) �i'� - � t r i, ^to ..i orc.I , •s �-.r�, �� I ii 1 4 I ila n t�i+lu c:i��{ o:2of'3'6 iC: n�,r" Ors iit Y?ZCt=- Q4r,.i rch .' i �t' =a'-„�',sic ais tt rws.L„ :=u 1.c�alrc q�r3. o lri�ltt• ���ia iso �� a lc�r^n r:i� r�r_t .t L�.-1r ,:h, 0 4.14� ��ocaG dflSc Ire o;: rcibed -nti ,ht r.�s,.to�►t 2owsL ` zd }} 1,.,, 1' s" a^.l� i'OC', to 1"ti�2 riTOVi :2 t7'tt0 �'c?.'w'd.`3� _. z72'� �� � 1 tt'c "�cl taJ;lt �11c;o d • C ai�tii;'u. be ro -o�rod B rye cOuCOao -`^uSt ry G F r .. _ b�:-:, , ,.. -- w_ o. orad; to ,:,. `t r.:� rltil :rf or- r:•:•rtio o-A ar��3. .i���il' �� .� . hc.�© Uo c axe ro o�re11",it fr„.��. �F10 ar U:r S.cec, r o (7 o r.ot H eol { a Ertl.. I"," onr'c��ilc.rQn,c,' -- :olr `c -ii j o ' oto. cotter ^s.d our j rl a 21aanI you in ac�vanaa for ya=Jr..coroidOr'- an -G ronain X _ � 1. �1 -•. :rte ,-F ,"* t7. 'u 1 �j���i�.i� OQ r �;r'rc.r� 4 x�a Sf-`t t x s �i•g o- � . sJ a t E. 1 au 4-�,rr s r IFxixi '•#r w z �_ 1 idr. and„lira Jaa `S�ith •,iaVIN, ti ' ►qtr.r a: 1 0 : til tar' t I 4 :41 t ? 5 ' r^' �. ter a yrs GI nGro ' ��o Tf a�dt rtrc.� DwDer01 o };�,Y t � 4 r r ,, tdEn, i a. �t � , , -. � � R 4 a y � , and 1�co, Gt3o;ao Sto�eneoII 3. T,�, -aA -t_y 3^,"y. '`'.1'4 s ".^ k' .�`""a°' r .. ? 4"y«f i-,,=�. a,.{� i 1 .,, ,' ,,,s'' "r t 's * v �."fi aP`%. &+t. '7 .#` ;fr,4,�;,.�rb{44,»yr r9 "` ; s q r r i� ;.. • ,.. tai 'i.. I,' �"''''I,i � 4 ?t"�:„e``h�" �L 1F..f 14` 55 ., .'r`t`zG S tit y" -I. * 'ra e j �{ b= •, "I - a yr. :.c,t.> ,... ,...+. '` �c..... o-. k t > t "';1..-� fL.,n`" 35' t'tfe April 22, 1974 2168 LaMirada Richmond, California 94803 RECEIVED M'r. Arthur L. Seely Agricultural Commissioner APL?L11974 Contra Costa County 1611 John Glenn Drive J. R. OWON Concord, California I aERK BOARD of SUPE ,S 1SOR a Dear Fair. Seelyi We wish to bring tD yolir attention some inacurrate 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. Attac?:ed is a copy of Mr. Ted Brasierts description of the sh�,oting of our pet dog which lair. K.E. Danielson sent to Supervisor Dias. A copy of this report was also made available to Assemblyman Knox and Senator Nejedly. Acconpany4�ng Fir. Brasiers description was some "Addition- al. Facts and Backgrounds' 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, May Road and Dam Road. This dog, owned by Mr. Kam;enski, hung itself trying to leap a fence with a chain attached. This dog was unlicensed". The report concluded by saying "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 Iarge.We have several witnesses who can testify to the fact that our dog was not alive on August 24, 1972. 2. We never allowed our German Shorthair type of dog or any other dog we ever owned to ever "run at large". 'Itle dontt know how ,your office arrived at the conclusion that we allow our dogs to run at large. We have lived in Cali- fornia for 4 years and have always owned two dogs. Never -2- in this 4-1_s year period were we ever cited by the Animal Control for any dog offense. It is our opinion that your - concluding statement wary included in the report to discre- dit us as responsible dog owners which we are not. In an April 17 conversion with K.B. Danielson, I in- formed hin of the inaccurate information contained in the Animal. Control records and that we could prove this in- formation was 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 1, 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 know anything about this. We Imow that the District'Attorneyts office has this information in his files and that he said were were pre- viously cited for dog at large. The District Attorneyts 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- nation against us almost resulted in a $35.00 fine. We— have a witness who accompanied us in court who can testify that the District Attorneyts office tried to use this evi- dence against us. Mfrs. Mary Lumsden of the SPCA is also aware that this information is in my file. She mentioned this information to Mfrs Carol Strauss in their April 22 telephone conversa- tion. Because this incorrect information is in the Animal Control files, ue 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 ode jedly that the information regarding the German Shorthair type of dog is incorrect. 4. 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. Sincerely, ;Xaa Francis and Patricia Kamienski cc: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Supervisor Al Dias Charlie G. Crib. Edgar Vovsi-Pinole City Council K. E. Danielson piichael Phelan-Chief District Attorney I3arch $, 1974 Supervisor Alfred Dias X. B. Daniolson, Assistant Agricultural Commissioner - Seal or Wsig/s 'a d Aasurc3 Ir:zc d I� Camel , - 216$ L�23irada, Richmond ( Yo m:�of ...rch 1t 1974 ) t . Cn Klazrch 1��. 1974 after receiving; a call from your secretary I called -L-:r. Kienskl and, ^ftor hearing his side of the do,m s?:aa 0'1 incide.�t. I requc BEd reports -,-x=a our Psii3al Control su arz;isor and the Animea Control Officer involved. ' Our records shotr that Officer Brasier :� patrollin; the c:o� of San Pablo Dam ;loud and Greonrid,,,o Drive when he observed a do chasing a: colt in the pa taro. As the officer waI':7::1 toward tho to ebtempt to impound the dor, it ran up the hill. Gf_iccr B a-aier shove up Greenidge Drive to Upland Drivo Fx_d got out of his truck and the dor, a Golden Labrador, tirao again chasing a horac. Ralchcr than risk the chance of the dor injuring the horse the cog eras dispatched, using a single shot from a .22 caliber r_:'f?,e. At'; this time, Nrs. ;tamiens ci arrived 1t tho scene and stated her dor ::mss loose and not to shoot it. The officer* advised her that he hrd just c_iot a Golden Labrador chasing horses and rec::oated i•Irs. :t-am;enski to remain at the scene to identify the do;;; ho::evar, she decliadd to ideWcify tho dog, but stated sho had no licence and there was an identification tag on the dog. Tho officer trent to %there the dor; was lying, came bac:: and dcccribod the dor; to its. Iiamzicnaki and she accopted a cotut citation is.-Led for "An3mzal. 1t Large", a violation of Section 1r1C�-1;.402 of tho County Or dinanco Coda. The officer then brought t::e clot to the Anin<•+l Control t*&mck and removed a rod leather collar with an identification tar stamped, Prank .Camionski, 2168 Ixjax ads, Richmond, 223-2630. ADD M 101TAL FACTS AVID BACICG::OM D 1. Supers icor Ron :.00n on :;arch 6, 19?4 accompanied Officer 2rac_er to roview the site %-there tho Cor :1-^s ehot and determined that the pasture is open hillside and there uao no clanger in using f1roarns at this location and in ;;Wcr ioor Alfrod Dias -- the direction fired. The pasturo as far a can be determined is in the unincorporated area. (California Agricultural Code, Section 31101 permits the killing of any dor- "actually c^urat in the act or v.,o inr, wounding, chr.sinr-, or killing any livestock or poultry" (cmphas s 4u ed) v.hother in corporate limits of a city .or unincorporated stetz. ) 2. Thrre have been numerous problems of dogs chasing livestock in the area. 3. The Kamienzki residence is appro.-dmatoly one block from the pasture whore the dog was shot. 4. Officer Brasier was at the steno 10 — 15 minutes attempting to impound% and/or shoot the dog. 5. The court appearance date for the citation iesued Yxs. KazaiensU is 1:arch 18, 1974• 6. Augur 24, 1972, one of our officers investigated a problem reZa.rd .r_g a Ger--.an Shortuhair type dog running at large on Greenridoe, clay Road, and Dan Road. This doG, otmed by I:r. Ka niencki, hung, itself trying to leap a fence with a chain attached. This dog also unlicensed. it is quite evident that the KamiensUs are alloiring their cog to run at large and failing to license in violation of the County Ordinance. KED/ac In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California Apr 11 16 19 7, 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 : 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 : Ms . Madruga Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of County Agricultural Supervisors Commissioner affixed this__Jb_thday of Anri 1 , 19 County Ad minis trat 03UAMES R. OLSSON, County Cle B Deputy Clerk Charleen K. Travers H 24 7/72-15M V- a � j=EIVED Ir � .� opw, APR s 1974 SUPMMM ezw /V • !�Y.ZfiLC.t� �f.��2 G/ ,yl Ute• � /1.d3z.c/ 41ol 104 April 249 1.974 RECEIVED • APR 2 51974 Ms. Virginia Hadru a �. R.D OFssor, , ` g BOARO OF SUPERVISORS 5103 Clinton Avenue NTA+ OSTA CO. Richmond, California 94905 a °e Dear Ma. Madruga: The Board of Supervisors on April 16, 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 "stray". 2. The Special Animal Control Roview 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. 3e As noted in the next paragraph a "leash law" does not stop people from permuting their doggs to void. themselves on a lawn, ecce even though the dogs are on a leash. Me. Virginia Ma a -2- 4/24/74 4. Section 374(b) of the California Penal Code may cover this problem but the personwitnessing the violation would probably have, to sign a formal complaint with yiour City Attorney. Such a law (curb law) is extremely difficult to enforce and/or gain compliance« If you have wW further questions, please feel tree to call use Sincerely ywars 4 4 Arthur L. Seeley, Agricultural Coaotiesioner- Sealer Weights Measures Ahs/ac enco k cc: Clerk of the Board J ` - f xituwn-64 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. Seele 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 rr. 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 AUTBORIZED to train and utilize one of his weed 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. E. Moriarty. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. cc: Special Animal Control T r-rt'* tt:nt Uhl: :: a Wt. true !_• correct copy of Committee :'r• :ttr•:�.! ::-+c':! n::?••:i !: rn ..^.!c In my orrice. Review ee =.id tn^t it uas lw-w-d r. ndapted by the Bnard of County Agricultural Commissioner :••^•�:v*:o:: cc d"ni:n �'^-sa i-�n::!,r. C.•e!t:o:r.!a. on ?!s 1t••• •�vt �.. .rv..i: J. IL C-USC=DtF C!er ��cs•a:it:sa CirrL of said Bo^rd of$r persUOM Ly Deputy C:ark. on �t. In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California March 25 , 19 74 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, 911518, 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 hollowing 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 , 19 7-k- JAMES R. OLSSO unty le By Deputy Clerk Charieen K. Travers H 24 5/73-15M L E/ 1 fONTRA COSTA COUNT 7 A ... 0 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE A. L. SEELEY 1 1..:�.1L'•' AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER .rf��� ♦♦�;:' '. 101 JOHN GLENN DRIVE SEALER WEIGHT-' AND MEASURES . '• BUCHANAN AIRVORT K. E. DANIELSON CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 84520 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER 1, 602-7350 ASSISTANT SEALER °ra coi��t� BRANCH OFFICES 100.37TH ST.. RICHMOND 94405 t420 HIGHWAY 4.ORENTWOOD 94513 233.7060. 10M. 3=3 634-53t9 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. HARX 1974 03, FOR YOUR INFORMATION 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 In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California March 19 1971 . 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 -14 JAMES BOLSS�1ON, ounty Clgrfg _ BY `/��nu�- -� , Deputy Clerk Charleen X. Travers H 24 7/72-25M 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 4X 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; or 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 , ig 74 Commissioner JAMES R. OLSSQON, County Qerk By_�i I �n Deputy Clerk Charleen K. Travers H 24 7/72-15M In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California March 5 19 74 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, 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: County Agricultural Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Commissioner Supervisors affixed this , County Health Officer -- thL---dOY of March 19 74_ County Administrator JAMES R. OLSSON, County Clerk _ By C 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 FES"1974 County Building Martinez, California 94553 • J.Rrn of aviroRs TRA TA CO. Dear Sirs: B 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 'PONTRA COSTA COUISA A. L- SEELEY ••.' �� ,i.• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER 4. 161 JOHN GLENN DRIVE SCALER WEIGHTS AND MEASURES DUCHANAN AIRPORT A :.: ;, .= K. E. DANIELSON x; CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 84320 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER 682-7330 ASSISTANT SEALER a njjj�yt BRANCH OFFICES 100.77TH ST.. RICHMOND 94009 t420 HIGHWAY 4.BRENTWOOD 54513 233.7050.EXT. 3235 534.3315 January 151, 1974 RECEIVED Dr. and Mrs. Russell Schulze: JAN 171974 12 Camino Encinas J. R OLSMN Orinda, California 94563 aux ARD Of SUPEAV SM RA =CO., 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 3, 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 known 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. Seeley" Agricultural Commissioner Sealer Weights & Measures ALS/nw enclosure cc: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County Administrator RUSSELL SCHULZE, M. D. • �� �� ��' ; 1 f`y�! �� 17 CAMINO ENCINAB �•-7 •• �, I �� ORINOA. CALIF. 94863 JA H 7 January 3. 1971 Alfred Dins, Supervisor 4300 Garden Road L1 Sobrnnte, California Dear 51r 1 -A/-On the 3rd. of December, 1973, our two dogr, t.nre 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 inforr^atien. It was after 4130 p.m. before I was finally advised that the door. hrcJ been picked up, and it tins then too late for urs to pick them up. -A -The following day my two daughters, ages 16 and 12 yr.-ars, .,;cnt to the pound to pick them up. They had to pay a fine of . 27.00 to 1-.ail them out, due to the fact that a previous doh, that we Unned had b^.en picked upJ!Y-It is my understanding that the atmosphere at the pound uas a very belligerent one. �.rl,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 uu the street. Sure enough, they had picked up the puppy, right in the front of my hour e. 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. :9-f--The leash law was implemented to oolve abuses and protect prop- erty, and not to be used with undiscriminate power. If my taxes rare be- ing used to provide a salary for two men, one a supervisor, on a n ui et street in Orindn where not even a school bur, comes around , then our priorities are definitely wrong, tlhen every other house on our street has boon burglarized it seems incredible to wasteour. money and manpower In destroying the qualitybof life in our county. •A 4-The only protection I feel we have is a good wretch dog, and we cartt even have that. It is a pretty sad state of affairs. I have talked with different people during this holiday period tend had the opportunity of discussing this problem with them. I found that the animal control "service" has created a tremendous amount of nnino^ity and bitterness, at least in Orinda-fl-It is one thing to eliminnte 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* lily 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, Mrs. Fiml Schulze and Dr. Russell Schuze col James Ploriarity, Supervisor Chas. Crill, Director Animal Control Center In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California Janu ary 8 19 74 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 Eacinas, 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. hinscheid, 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 Commiss jRAg OLSSON, County ier County Administrator � I By � f1'Clim .� c�-c.ti/. Deputy Clerk Charleen K. Travers H 24 5/73-15M RUSSELL SCHULZE, M. D. ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY 2023 VALE ROAD �U RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA 232- January GSU53, 1974 CEI JAN g 1974 Alfred Dias, Supervisor 4300 Garden Road a� J. of sum El Sobrante, California s i , 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 $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 taxes 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 wastc 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 carat 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 aliminate 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, i Mrs. Fimi Schulze and Dr. Russell Schuze cc: James Moriarity, Supervisor Chas. Crill, Director Animal Control Center CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTME T AGRICULTURE L CONTROL DIVISI 1974 RABIES VACCINATION CLINIC SCHEDULE (Hours 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Sunday) For Does Only - 4 Months of Age or Older January 6, 1974 PLEASANT HILL RECREATION BUILDING — 233 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill January 13 , 1974 r 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,;74 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 19 1973 12/73 2M � a otssor�t #57 . of suM�sag t CONTRA. COSTA COUNT ,t t. '•�A. A. L. SEELEY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL commossloNER •• t ,'�•` ��' • SEALER WEIGHTS AHD MEASURES 161 JOHN GLENN DRIVE BUCHANAN AIRPORT K. E. DANIELSON CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 9AS20 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER 1Q 682-7350 ASSISTANT SEALER -71 .t. r t Iii�t� BRANCH OFFICES 100.17TH ST.. RICHMOND 94808 1420 HIGHWAY 4.BRENTWOOD 94811 299-7060. EXT. 9298 1$4-3811 October 24, 1973 RECEIVED Mr. Paul J. Myers OCT ZS,iGi3 1820 Mason Street W. T. PAASCH San Pablo, California 94806 CLERK IWARD OF SUPERVISORS TRA COSTA.C9. • Deputy Dear Mr. Myers: '' 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 e4rth+- 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. Respectful au rs cc: /Contra Costa Board of Supervisors San Pablo City Council p Contra Costa Pet Memorial Park /-, Mr. Lawrence Blythe �CE1 T OCT 10)1973 W. T. PAASCH CLER BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ONTRA COSTA CO. LY Deputy In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California August 14 —, 1973— In 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 Aurrust , 19 L - W. T. PAASCH, Clerk By Deputy Clerk Lourette Kincaid H 24 5/73-15M William W. & Helen Myers Route 2, Box 254-c Brentwood, Ca. 94513 August 3, 1973 Board of Supervisors Administration Building Martinez, California Re: Animal Control Center ode wish to appeal the action taken by the Animal Control Center on August 2, 1973 for the following reasons: On SundaV, JujZ 29, 1973, our house broke out of her corral at approximately :30 P.M. 'Je failed in our effort o catch er, 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. dve 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 they took a more comp e e 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 lyewspaper and mut 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 appealing 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. Pdrt 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 korgan was ours, we could have been there in 5 minutes, opposed to the 30 plus minutes it took to come from Martinez. 3. 4e were .refused, when asked if we could borrow a ten foot o d rope, because the horse would not enter the trailer in its r :E5 . usual manner. He said he was not permitted to loan out \ any equipment. He did later loan us the rope. When I asked all of the above questions to the officers at vo 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. We spent 4 sleepless nights thinking about the possible 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. Mr. Sealy assured me that the revenue was not the reason the Center did what they did. Mr. Seely could not give me a good reason for he lack of communication and I told him of this appeal. • CGGLss 5. When we asked why we were not notified- on Tuesday, the clerk said the-horse was 2 miles away fy,oar our house, and they didn't think it was ours. 1 then asked them how many reports they had on file for missing, Morgan Mares in the Brentwood area, These r. answered by telling me how many horses there are in Contra Costa County. We 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. Mye*s Y CONTRA. COSTA COUNT? A. L. SEELEY i:• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER �• X _ -` 161 JOHN GLENN DRIVE SEALER WEIGHTS AND MEASURES •, '`1�`.: '':• SueHwHwN wuroRT K. E. OAHIELSON z.*�;:•..'••.. _,,,�,� Asals7wNT COMMISSIONER CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 94320 •� •-•:' v e7T, ASSISTANT SCALER 602-7330 Osr�a il!rtt ` BRANCH OFFICES 100-37TH ST., RICHMOND 944107 1420 HIGHWAY 4,BRENTWOOD 94313 233-7060. M. 3253 4114-sale August 3, 1973 Rk-E.CEiVED Mrs. George Sharkey 221 El Sobrante Drive Danville California 945z6 w T PAASCH f CL Or SUPERVISORS C STA C Dear Mrs. Sharkey: By _ _ 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 �. � � 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. b. 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- 8/3/73 is "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 �eelJ� Agricultural Commissioner Sealer Weights & Measures ALS/nw attachments cc: Clerk of the Board County Government Operations A`TACitt ihid 1 12-13—7 2 There are no records on the number of cats that are impoun+lod and housed at the centers so wo cannot estimate very accurately the costs to vaccinate. 20:T Or VACCIIIATIOtI 1. 149968 dors each year for vaccination at "►1 each for recommended 2 cc doss vaccine, vaccine cost = �14pn6l 2. Cat vaccine cost = 7P500 3. Salaries for 3 veterinarians (not includinc frince benefits)., 46,044 48 salaries for 3 animal handlers (not including frinno benefits) •• 24r - 2;.2 5. Salaries for 2 clerks (not including fringe benefits) = 13,721 6. Syringes and noodles 5,013 " Total Total 1111,535 CCC/ed r • f J 1 ���... .may _ J •� � 7 ACt RECEIVED � • JUL 121973 'J • W. T. P A A S C H 'LEAK C QOARD SUPERVISORS LL � CONTRA CO COSTA CO. Oy Deputy In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California April 24 , 19'jam 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 revfew 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. 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. c c: Mrs . Geissler Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Agricultural Com. Supervisors County Counsel affixed this-24= day of April , 1973— Administrator 973Administrator J/ - W. T. PAASCH, Clerk By ��/ ki 6414-6f , Deputy Clerk Lourette Kincaid H 24 7/72-ISM . t ✓ April 15, 1973 LZD Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County IpAsMartinez, California Dear Sirs: It has been brought to my attention that the Board of Supervisors has formed a special committee to 'Study Animal Control operational. 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 ?nd courtesy in this matter. /7A 61.1 --.J Mrs. Val Geissler 271 Lomas Cantadas Orinda, ''alifornia 94563 415 254-8247 cc; Contra Costa SPCA P.S. I have some suggestions regarding the change of the ordhnce which may be of some interest to your committee. At In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California April 3 19 LL 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 , 1973 j/ W. T. PAASCH, Clerk By /L uuc Deputy Clerk Lourette Kincaid H 24 7/72-15M f `• �3 Q r�'1Qrr%tf bVANCE COPY :. ���..:::�.. Sar f wb �v, �►• 9�P'o6r . . . -< ... 37 San Yablo, Uat2X. TO Contrn Uosza Uounty R,strict Attorney's Uffiee " San Pablo Cit- Iddress tea Au -- r TO �'�3�,:,.T.�_. ice. r.c.x•�-----------s ��--��?����.�.-�.� LS: !�' _a i i t .: • - ;VA CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A. L. SEELEY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE - AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER 1151 JOHN GLENN DRIVE SEALER WEIGHTS AND MEASURES �_! }r •UCHANAN AIRPORT K. E. DANIELSON � CONCORD. CALIFORNIA 041520 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER +. •• -• HJ'� ASSISTANT 6EAL[R 15152-715150 4T1 itiiiNl<i BRANCH OFFICES 100.37TH ST.. RICHMOND 04000 1420 HIGHWAY 4.DRENTWOOD 24913 117-7060. []R.3199 0>N-7010 March 20, 1973 RECEI� II",AR-2/19)73 W. T PAACICH CLERK D OF 9upERVISORS Mrs. Stephen C. Erlenheim By COSTA rA. Deputy $b$3 Longford Way Dublin, California 94566 Dear Mrs. Erlenheim: Your letter of March, 1973, 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 animalis 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 eas*1 identified as to breed, then we must try r 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, A Arthur L. Seeley Agricultural Commissioner Sealer Weights & Measures ALSjac;h ....-�1 ac: Clerk of the Board t 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: AkES: 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 o 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 By ! Deputy Clerk Dorot A. Harkness H24 4/72 10M /7 je �'./7✓" div:..1..:. l `-•mac 4.'?C/ �L.L.�%'�:.:.j�C 1. •�-� �ice. . �: ��t.��.�.,�`���tc c_� �,c���..,v �.. f r e I �3 ER-VI Wim c:P i...Lt t' 7` G �t Cf Gi --- G t.. Al �-C; . G"- i _ G �•Lt ��'�,i GG�i c mac;__.- < 2 ec,r 67 !% Zc: ze Cie-, ice' el 11 42 ZL /! In the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, State of California February 26 ' 19 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 4!128 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 iletters are 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 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. • Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of cc County Agricultural • Commissioner Supervisors County Administrator affixed .+his 26th d of February , 19 'j3_ David R. Lowe W T. P,AASCH, Clerk Lila Van Zanten B Deputy Clerk R. R. Reynolds Sandy Stimler Ann B. Olmsted ,� Phyllis J. Jarreau H 24 7/72-15M V/marsh creek kennels (415) 682-2156 p.o. box 194 Clayton, California 94517 February 22, 1973 RECEIVED Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Government Operations Committee �r R P 81973 Administration Building W. T. PAA 8 C H Martinez, California 94553 CURK k cF g�FC0.ISORS ey dub 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 'know 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, *62,6/70 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. We 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, I'd like to make a couple of sugges- tions that I hope can be passed along to Air. 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. We all have our bad days, and maybe hers is not the most pleasant job in the world, but "if you can't stand the 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 was 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 "You'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 thew 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 507 of the other stories I hear are at least 507 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 e-.c- 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. V8ry truly yours, COSTA SAFTS Y `� pORT Cob-TA 94569 BOX 59 RECEIVED 1973 /•��°" W. T. PAASCH -1-[RKBOARD CO. RA CTA CFORVISORS (� it 064 Deputy 4 e'� ......... /% J'/ _ y - COSTA RAFTS PORT OOSTA 94564 BOX 59 •� 100 Oak View Terrace Danville, Calif. Feb. 15, 1973 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors � ` � Government Operations Committee E Administration Building -fin -! Martinez, Calif. W, T. PAASCH =&R'K BOARD°OF'SCIPER#AISORS yTRI► CO. Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors:. 41w- 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 other wildlife that have been killed by dogs. It was my unfortunate experience to witness such killings on two different occ,r.sions. At both times.' it.:wea a single dog. I make this distinction because the local newspapers often refer to "dog packs" as the culprits in livestock and wildlife killings, and may leave the impression that the family pet cannot also be destructive. I would like to see the animal control staff made more visible by expanding their patrol capabilities: 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 enforced by the courts. I hope your committee will take positive steps to solve this problem now, because wildlife killings by dogs will continue to orsen as building in our hillside areas increases. �CrL»2Gn Sincerely yours, G% 4428 Taft Avenue Richmond, California 94804- Februar, 15, 1973 Supervisors Linscheid and Kenny [�j� County Government Operations' Committee 1 EC EY, � County Board of Supervisors rrn ^ 1974 P. 0. Box 911 Martinez, California 94553 W. T p A A S 0 H. N= CLEAK'ca'n a OF SUPERvisoRS MAIBy _ Dear Sirs: I am pleased to learn that you are going to review the County Animal Control Program. The situation with the dogs and the cattle and horses is a dramatic manifestation of animal control problems.-'. Lest you .confine your review to the problems of cattle and horse owners, there are two,issues I would like to bring to your attention. One is a personal encounterwith the Animal Control people which I found most unpleasant and the other is a general situation which I am sure affects all of us,,in the County. I recently bought a home in the Richmond Plaza IT development after living in San Francisco for seven years. Upon moving in.,`l discovered that the back yard was a haven for cats, complete with a litter of kittens. They were all diseased as evidenced by Foaming mouths, matted eyes and ` scaled skins. I called Animal Control for assistance, explaining.the condition of the animals and mar reluctance to go near them because the adult". cats (I had seen at least five different ones) attacked when `I� approached them. The lady at Animal Control scoffed ,at my timidity and suggested I ask one of the "neighborhood children" to bring the cats out to-the- shelter,: ,. since the Control people' aid not "do that sort- of thing." This -angered,me." because I am a strong, independent farm-bred woman do` A3I'my-own maintenance work including repairing the roof, and'have .had plenty of contact with animals, but approaching, diseased wild animals without the proper protection and equipment, much less allowing a child'to do so, is-not my idea of sound judgment. Because they refused to help, I had to rent cages, trap the cats one by one and transport them one at a time in my small sports car out to the shelter where I had to release them fighting,, snarling and, defecati.ng, with rabies, fleas and all into the night box*' After each trip I had to 'fumigate and clean my car, hope that whatever ailed- the cats did not affect me, and spend the next three weeks after the last trip fighting fleas on;me, in the. yard and the house. f d (more). ,G4at�JG�C`CZ .0 paw 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 them 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 beard 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 fot a police department faced with the major crime rate that occurs in Richmond to have to spend so much time answering dog complaints. ,�d Otiv I strongly feel.that Animal Control should provide at, ,3east``the °' leadership for 'a citizen-involved effort td,:( up this problem. rtx Even in a people-congested area, :a bance .of natureIS,necessar�r. There ou t to be room for all. of us ,-- ole da s cats bzrdsrand �a pe P s g s. .: beattti`ful lawns. But:this Won't hapgen,,writhout controls and a�rareness: x*}{ S urge you to .view this problem:�as -sera ous.� I tf � n — i xx Sincerely, a. ;�tsej' r6: .Ja au ' Y cc: The Independent-Gazette The Richmond Posts G^k `Richmond Police Chief 4t, tx y� - #W. 1 { h. Lwy a."r 'Ak w » :w *r s: — ` t «a i? `ti, .. ^.� ..x s ry ,. :» .+wc,;�*z.�f a.S�.y`?a•t »,.:`.,s�.�,5..,. �s.-. ?R'-a.„�+ .. .;°ita t�:?.�,�ti..G �.•.»%r�' .iS .�.tCg.w.Tr,�"i" :1i,^.. .. Rr Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Governq,ent Operations Commitee ' Administration Building L?C . . , Martinez, Calif. LF/ Mr. R.R.Reyrolds RMC 1-111 3629 wren Ave Concord, Ca. , 94319 r-rn ?01973 W. T. PAASCH CLERK 604RO OF SUAPEORVISOR8 2113173 RA CQP - SY DeaatY Dear Sirs: I reed in this mornings paper that Jar. Seeley called for a CONPREH,EWSIVE 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`-, ray 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 anima Ls 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 meantirne, one thing I feel would work very well is to place a few of your exisiting men on the 4112 and 1218 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 ture because there is not regular patrols at night, these people MU;T be shorn animal. control Laws will be enforced at night as well as during daylite hours. if you can not send two men out on the buddy system I will personaly volunteer my assistance if he needs it, all he need do is knock, regu2rdles3 of time. .Another method a little more ,severe but effective, I think, is to inform all pet owners of their liability to the property own,ar if their animals do destroy property. In keeping with this thought you might also inform the property owner what steps he a 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 stets jaw traps around his trash container. Eleetrifing the trash can 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 know you will find discontentment among your officers if you put them on the night shifts but I dont know of any law enforcement body that the men dont work these shifts. After all we pay their salaries and as such we have the right to demand around the clock protection. And like tfteV say, if the heat in the kitchen is too hot, then you must got out of the kitchen. What 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 ►gust be delt with and soon. I really think it ail comes down to strict enforcement o; 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 Rex R. Reynolds cc Gary Bogue 14 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 wets 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. Krenzer 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.) /L 197 J. T. PAASCH CLE BOA 17 OF SUPERVISORS Qy.' -Deputy 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 officee 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 n ANIMAL CONTROL REEL# POSITION4 02-7%3 Predatory animal control 1972-1973 Special Animal Control Review Committee 1973-1974 Proposed Spay Clinic 1971-1974 Misc correspondence 1973-197 STORED: BO7C ,_.,._.._.