A Time to Kill

Excellent article!! I think it's especially interesting that Kiska Icard is quoted as accusing previous adoption counselors as being "Adoption Nazis" when at the time those procedures were in place she was the Adoption Director.

What does it say about a non-profit organization that has either chased away its employees or cowed them to such an extent that they become parrots for the company line?

I have been a member of the SPCA (meaning I've been donating) for 25+ years and a volunteer for 5. What has happened over the past year, and continues to happen at an accelerating rate, is dangerous and disturbing to say the very least. I have removed my animal from the SIDO program and will no longer donate until things turn around.

We in San Francisco have always been proud of how the City of St. Francis treasures its pets and cares for homeless animals. If St. Francis himself appeared before me right now I could do nothing less than weep. But I would promise to work to see change.

Yes, I am a Cat Crusader.

For those readers who are concerned about the closure of the Hearing Dog Program, you can voice your support on the Internet petition and read postings of Action Alerts at:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/save-SFSPCA-hearing-dog-program

If you would like to be contacted about future activities in support of the Hearing Dog Program, or would like to contribute suggestions, please send your e-mail address to: hearing.dog.support@gmail.com .

Thank you,
Hearing Dog Department Volunteers

For those readers who are concerned about the closure of the Hearing Dog Program, you can voice your support on the Internet petition and read postings of Action Alerts at:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/save-SFSPCA-hearing-dog-program

If you would like to be contacted about future activities in support of the Hearing Dog Program, or would like to contribute suggestions, please send your e-mail address to: hearing.dog.support@gmail.com .

Thank you,
Hearing Dog Department Volunteers

As a former volunteer with the Cat Behavior Program at the SFSPCA, I applaud you for breaking this story and exposing the unpleasant truth about the new direction SFSPCA leadership has taken. With luck, and pressure from concerned citizens and animal advocates, perhaps the SFSPCA will turn around and return to the groundbreaking model of progressive animal advocacy it once was.

I want to express my strong support and gratitude for all the work the San Francisco SPCA does. They are faced with the daunting challenge of trying to protect thousands of animals of all kinds, and based on the size and scope of that challenge, the do an INCREDIBLE job. I hope people realize we are all on the same team here- we all want the SPCA to save as many animals as possible, and certainly do not want them to euthanize any animals unless necessary, but please realize that is what the SF SPCA wants too!! I am sure it is very difficult for the veterinarians and others responsible for making the decisions to euthanize animals, and no one should be judging them unless they have all of the facts surrounding the circumstances of each of the euthanizations.

I adopted a dog from the SF SPCA in August 2007, and he has brought incredible joy into the life of both my husband an myself. Our dog was on doggie death row in Turloch, and the SF SPCA rescued him and brought him to SF so he could be adopted instead of being put down. The SPCA was incredibly thorough making sure we understood what we were getting into, and they provided a wealth of very useful information insuring the success of the adoption. Everyone I encountered during the adoption process passionately cared about all animals.

I understand how upsetting it is to see animals euthanized, but please recognize the SF SPCA for all the incredible work they have done to save animals instead of focusing on the animals they have sadly had to put down.

Thank you for printing this story. The SF SPCA is no longer the organization we respected and even loved at times. When I was associated with it we were there for a purpose and that purpose was to help the animals.

Now the animals are commodities to be moved, sold, killed, whatever it takes. There is no heart there and no soul there any more and for the first time I fear for an animal that enters the SPCA.

Thank you for printing this important story. The current management and board of the SF/SPCA are coasting on the reputation and achievements of the past while dismantling the values and programs that made it great. I was a volunteer and donor for 10 years, but will not be again unless the SF/SPCA gets back on track as the No Kill shelter it used to be (not the Asilomar Accord) and until there is more light on the murky use of funds.

Citizens should take this as a lesson in due diligence. When considering which organizations to support, look past the goals and periodically examine the philosophy, governance, management, strategies, and tactics the organization uses to reach those goals. In this case, it seems that many people are angry because they feel that the SPCA is not meeting their expectations, something that the SPCA is not required to do as a private corporation. The recourse is for supporters of the cause to find groups that are better aligned with those expectations.

Drama Queens! Maybe instead of working against the SF SPCA people should use their energy and resources to actually help animals.

1) Open your own Hearing Dog Program. You have at least 2000 potential supporters on your petition.

2) Start your own cat rescue. Run it the way you like.

3) Go into rural shelters that have a high mortality rate pick out a dog or cat, train him and socialize him and make him a wonderful pet, then find a home for him. Then do it again. You can do that as a private citizen concerned about animals, you don't need to be a shelter.

4) Help out the other shelters like Rocket Dog. They need it!

Naw that sound like allot of work. Better to just bitch...

I have friends who volunteer at the SFSPCA. And I hear the rumblings.

It is not a perfect organization. Clearly. But what I find disturbing is the inability of the critics to see the big picture. For example, if the SPCA has say $100 to spend, why not save two or three highly adoptable dogs from an over-burdened shelter from the central valley, rather than spend the same resources on a single dog from SF Animal Control. Not that that the ACC dog does not deserve a chance. Of course it does. That is where the concerned citizen of SF needs to step in and take some individual responsibility. All of you with who take issue with how the SPCA is running things should go to the shelter closest to you, ask for their LEAST adoptable dog or cat, and take it home. Foster it. Take it to the veterinarian. Take it to the behaviorist or trainer.

Let the SPCA do what it can do best--Save as many lives as possible with a given set of resources. The unwanted animal issue is not just a San Francisco problem. It is GLOBAL. Easy for you to be smug and talk about how wonderful it was when San Francisco became "no-kill". Reality check--there are "real shelters" out there where perfectly healthy, young, friendly animals are being killed for lack of space. Let the SPCA go out to these shelters and get these dogs out of there.

And I don't think the SPCA should be blamed for "forcing" ACC to put down animals it doesn't accept. SF ACC is a municipal shelter. If they do not have funding or other resources to save these unwanted animals and to expand its services, then dear tax-payer, perhaps it is time for you to do something about it.

Lame article! Sounds like a lot of hearsay and drama from disgruntled ex employees and volunteers with an ax to grind. Lousy journalism too, did you check your facts? This reminds me of the last season of the wire.

Lame article! Sounds like a lot of hearsay and drama from disgruntled ex employees and volunteers with an ax to grind. Lousy journalism too, did you check your facts? This reminds me of the last season of the wire.

Wow Kiska, that's low......even for you. You trained, supervised, and disciplined these supposed "Adoption Nazis".

Your article has concluded something that has not been validated and that is: nobody has said animals are being euthanized at the SF SPCA to make monetary room for the new hospital.HE has assumed this and used it as journalism for his profit. Oddly enough nobody contacted me,a 4 years cat volunteer at Maddies, And the gang of 'former SPCA volunteers and staff" who have been interviewed by your writer (who seems to enjoy sensationalism while reveling in poor and unvalidated facts) have failed to convey they are in deed disgruntled former volunteers and staff. Change is good and perhaps it's beneficial they've moved on - who knows.

The author whose name doesn't deserve to be published, should report an equal opportunity report. I don't see any interviews with current Volunteers or current staff..just the folks who have a beef and who have made their issues public. I suppose I too could go that route, but would it entice the author of the article to interview me? Sorrowfully I believe this author wanted to write a one-sided article that might get him notoriety, albeit, amongst the numerous supporters of the wonderful San Francisco SPCA I don't see his point other than validating he's very poor student of journalism.

Yeh, i always heard they were a bunch of faggots in San Fransisco. California can go to Hell

After reading this article, there is one thing that is quite evident. Its apparent that supposed "journalist" John Geluardi hasn't written anything fact based here and he's been swept up in the hear-say drama that has always fueled the tragically misinformed volunteers of the SFSPCA. This is a call for help, thats for sure. But it's not directed at the management of the SPCA. It's more like an article that begs the management of the SFWEEKLY to find better writers or perhaps send John Geluardi back to school for some tips on gathering the truth. Was there any effort to see both sides of the coin here? What else has this crack pot ever written? Go back to writing for your town paper man. Big city news is not your specialty.

Dogs that bite people are not adoptable. Why would any organization use it's resources to attempt to "rehab" a dog who has a bite history or displayed aggressive behavior toward people? Dogs that bite people are a liability and unless that bite was provoked, it's very likely that dog was temperamentally unsound to begin with. There are countless numbers of temperamentally sound dogs dying in shelters across the state simply for a lack of space. Nobody likes to euthanize animals, regardless of the circumstances but there are situations where it's the right and responsible thing to do.

I've been a volunteer at the SPCA for the last year and I have seen nothing but hard work and sacrifice from the people that work and volunteer there. I've had people from our veterinary services come to Maddie's crying because they've had to perform euthanasia on an animal that was too sick or hurt to be saved. It is not something we do lightly.

There have been a lot of changes with the SF/SPCA's new president, and I don't have the insight or authority to speak to most of those changes.

But as an SPCA volunteer, a San Francisco citizen, and a person with high moral values, I can honestly say this is one of the most reckless and sensationalist pieces of writing I have read on the subject of animal welfare.

I have no doubt this will affect how people think about the SPCA. Therefore, if we lose donations, adopters, or anything else that helps us find homes for thousands of animals every year, I hope John Geluardi (this story's author) realizes the terrible impact he's had.

Talk about wanton disregard for facts!!!! You title an article "Time to Kill" and then follow it with a sub heading : "Former employees and volunteers say the SPCA is now euthanizing more animals to save money" , but nowhere in the article is a fact that supports this statement. "One way to save money is to speed up euthansia" ???? Are you kidding me? John, have you ever volunteered at a shelter yourself? Have you ever tried to sit quietly with a feral cat that is climbing the walls and striking at you? Your sources for the load of dog crap you just wrote are just as worthless as you and this free paper you write for. Nice job spreading the rumors and rushing to put out an article that spins emotion into the toilet. You want to see animals die? Your crappy and biased article will add gas to the funeral pyre. Shame on you and shame on the weekly for allowing you to get a cover story for such garbage.

Nice story. Is your next scoop going to be something you read on a bathroom wall? I love animals just like the next gal and I understand that most shelters operate under a shroud of secrecy...and you know what....rightfully so , because if any of us were really exposed to the realities of homeless animals perhaps we'd all be motivated to help from a grassroots effort, instead of being critics of those who devote their proffessional lives to these creatures. I'm going to use this paper to line my kitty litter box. I'll tell my cat Shadow to aim for your name. Crappy writing. Crappy message to the people of SF. Get a clue.

For those who had read the article but do not know the situation or the history of the SFSPCA, I suggest you to find the fact first before criticize the author of this article. I was both a SFSPCA veterinary service (CVS) and Cat Behavior volunteer for a number of years. The CVS had never ever euthanized any cats or dogs just because they have ring worm or other light diseases until recently. We used to spend alot of time and effort to make sure the sick animals waiting for adoption had the appropriate treatment before they are transferred to Maddies for adoption. Putting the animals to sleep has always been the LAST resort. The so called Open Door Adoption Policy is a reckless and irresponsible act that put the animal into the hand of people who should not be taking animal home the first place. If the cats or dogs have been in the SFSPCA for a long time, the staff and volunteers will try to find ways to put them into other No-Kill organization and we NEVER euthanized them. The new president and her sidekicks rolled back all the hard work and time that numerous staff and volunteers contributed. They disregard and disrespect the staffs and the volunteers of the SFSPCA of the Hearing Dog Program, and by doing that 13 dogs which has been specially trained to help hear impaired citizens, are adopted out to random people after closing of the program, leaving the would be receiver of those dogs helpless. This is a disgrace for someone like Jan McHugh Smith who called herself a animal lover. And a sad future for the dogs and cats in the SF Bay Area.

You cannot 'will' something to be that which it isn't. The SF SPCA is not the organization it was. Donors have every right to know, absolutely, what they are now supporting with their bequests and their legacies. For those on this comments board who are spewing condemnation towards the author of this article, I would like to ask if YOU have done any fact finding, any research, any digging? Or are you someone who is happy and more than willing to buy a party line that doesn't challenge you? Do you always believe your boss? Your president? Are you drones or independant thinkers? The Board of Directors of the SF SPCA has become hellbent on building a hospital, which has always been controversial, has caused much division within the SF animal care community, and is not even necessary by many convincing arguments and in their determination to see this happen they chose to hire someone to be their "efficiency expert". No, it is NOT OK to sacrifice lives, to dismantle programs and dismiss individuals for the sake of saving a buck. It is NOT OK to choose the buck over a life, and for what? A hospital that the Board of Directors can pat themselves on the back for having built, even if doing so required dipping into general funds that people like you, donors, have contribued money to specifically to help animals? What? You have done your research? Don't think so. Here is my prediction - we'll see if I'm wrong. The SPCA will immediatetly take from Animal Care and Control sickly cats. They will do that right now so that when you contact them to say, "Hey, what's up?" they can say, that's all BS. Look, we just took in 12 ringworm kittens, 4 who have Upper Respiratory Infections and 3 who are FIV+. Then you track the dates and you track the numbers. Go back to one month ago and you find out how many of those same conditions were rejected, and then wait a couple of months and check the numbers again. I guarantee, you do this and you will see that what they're doing now is an effort to cover their butts, "prove" the article wrong, and envelope you in their smoke and mirrors deception. Do it. Track it. And again, before you condemn the author of this article, I suggest you do the same amount of research before launching your attacks. Or maybe it's easier to just buy the party line...

One point that journalists always gloss over, is that the Animal Shelters and Humane Societies aren't the ones causing the problems. It is the people who do not spay / neuter their pets; it's the people who don't properly socialize and train their pets; it's the people who don't seek basic medical care for their pets; it's the people who dump their pets in this throw-away culture of ours when they become bored with the animals; it's the people who continue to buy from unscrupulous breeders and puppy-mills.... Those are the people who are ruining animals' lives, and sentencing them to misery and death. Humane Societies do what they can with meagre resources to save the adoptable animals and attempt to educate an audience who just doesn't get it.

It's so much easier to point the finger at those who are trying to help than at yourself. This article will decrease the SFSPCA's funding, which will, in turn, move them further away from the no-kill goal.

Instead of attacking the messenger, why not deal with the facts. Fact: the SFSPCA Board of Directors made the decision to end the Hearing Dog Program on April 1, 2008. Fact: the employees, volunteers and animals of the Hearing Dog Program paricipated in the 140th Anniversary Weekend of April 18th -20th fully unaware of the board's decision. Fact: Jan McHugh-Smith officially terminated the Hearing Dog Program on the morning of April 21st and gave three long term employees one hour to vacate the premises. Fact; the dogs in the program, some of whom were fully trained, were moved to Maddies for general adoption.
Rant all you want about shoddy reporting and drama queens, but these facts indicate to me a change in policy at the SPCA that tends to treat people and animals as mere commodities that serve the bottom line. Once they are no longer money-makers, they are unceremoniously moved out- in a number of ways.
This is an important article and one that demands answers and not histrionics.

Disgruntled ex-employees, one anecdotal story about a cat with behavioural problems, and one program closed because of budget constraints. That is very weak evidence of "problems" at the SPCA. This poorly written and researched article will result in a drop in donations to the SPCA which will probably result in the deaths of more cats and dogs that any of the changes the SPCA has had to make due to budget constraints.

If you want to improve the SPCA, you donate MORE of your time and money, not less. There is no safety net for these animals. If the SPCA doesn't take them, they are headed to Animal Control where there is a much higher likelihood of euthanisation.

San Franciscans need to band together to build a strong and healthy SPCA through donations of time and money, not sit around second-guessing difficult business decisions that the executives and board members must make.

My SPCA rescue dog, Jackson, brings joy to my family's life every day. If it wasn't for the SFSPCA, he would have been euthanised in a Central Valley animal shelter and for that I will ALWAYS be grateful.

Bottom line here ... the article is valid believe it or not. I worked there long enough (which was actually only about a year once Jan McHugh-Smith took over) to see the move from caring about the animals to distributing them, and only the ones that are most adoptable. If you're saying ignorant things like "Open your own Hearing Dog Program" or "Start your own cat rescue," then you really have no grasp on the subject. The current SF SPCA talks hugely about "transparency," when in fact that does not exist, otherwise the public would be aware of all of these changes and this article wouldn't sound like "heresay" to some of you. I don't think anyone is out to see the SPCA fail, if anything we want to see it thrive so that it is helping every single animal that it can to the fullest extent. Yes, dogs that bite are a liability, but when you have one of the most famous dog training academys in the country and you can't train a puppy to not guard its food then that is a big problem; especially when now you have to pay for training classes, no more freebies when you adopt. All I ask is to not jump to your own conclusion. If an article like this came out years ago I would have been defending the SF SPCA, no doubt about it; unfortunately I cannot do that in this case. I loved working there when I felt the animals were priority number one, and we would do whatever possible to help them. Instead of going to other shelters and picking out the most adoptable animals to save (instead of helping the ones in this city, or even the ones in the high-kill shelters, that need a little bit of extra TLC) the SPCA should be spreading their knowledge of creating functioning low-cost spay/neuter programs and helping develop ways to reduce overpopulation; not just a temporary fix. Snatching animals out of high-kill shelters does nothing for long term solutions and it almost guarantees death for the animals who are maybe black cats, or a little old and shy, or a little sensitive. There needs to be a long term plan if you really want to save as many animals as possible. I ask not to stop supporting the SF SPCA but to demand honesty and hope that it can become the place that it used to be. I would love to return to the SF SPCA but until it remembers that EVERY animal is worth saving then I have no business there.

Jan is just following the "party line" of her mentors Wayne Pacelle at the H$U$ and Ingrid Newkirk of PETA. "No-Kill" is not on their agenda. High Kill is. H$U$ advocates the killing of all "pit bulls' brought to any shelter as does PETA regardless of their situation. "Behavior" problems are determined by sticking a plastic hand into a hungry and frightened dogs food bowl. Try to bite the hand.. DEAD DOG...Feral cat climbs the walls? DEAD CAT..not Trap/Neuter/Release.
By the way.. to whomever suggested starting your own "shelter".. no can do.. limit laws ( supported by PETA and the H$U$) don't allow for that. Get a few too many animals and you will be arrested as a "hoarder" and your animals taken from you.. where do they go?/ back to the shelter to be sold or killed..
The Animal RIGHTS community had infiltrated the SPCA in SF.. Kill more and point out how many animals must die due to "horrible people".. and you can get more laws passed and come more quickly to the "final solution" . No pets for anyone. as Ingrid Newkirk says about PETA ( and the H$U$ which is just PETA with a better watch) "Our goal is complete animal liberation". San Francisco is furthering that goal daily.

It is very easy to sit at home and read an article such as this, make a quick judgment, then write a caustic comment, and feel good as you go on with your day. However, perhaps the naysayers should consider one or two facts: the ex-staff and ex-volunteers did NOT sit at home and make a flash judgment, they actually lived with these terrible changes at the SPCA for over a year (since new President Jan McHugh-Smith and her cohorts came into the shelter), and felt so bad and so helpless about the downward spiral of the SPCA that they made the big decision to resign. They gave thousands of hours of love and experience to the unloved, unwanted, throw-away animals of this area - (did you?) - but most could not stomach seeing beautiful animals euthanized. Some were tiny puppies and kittens, and many had very treatable illnesses for which in the past the SPCA had always given treatment. For example, imagine if YOU were “euthanized” because you had a simple cold? This is unconscionable. Think about the SPCA claiming “lack of funding”, never mentioning the many large donations they receive regularly, or the large loan awarded to the new President towards a new house, or the large salaries she and her new Vice President are receiving – all on the backs of helpless, lonely and unwanted animals. (Has the President or the VP offered to take a cut in salary - well, have they?) The SPCA will tell you with tears in their eyes that they are doing everything “for the animals”. This is pure propaganda. Make no mistake, this is now a business, and money is the bottom line. Think about these things – think about the fact that here, in the city of St. Francis, our SPCA was once the No. 1 no-kill shelter in the U.S. with wonderful state-of-the-art programs that became a model for many shelters around the world and saved the lives of thousands of animals, then realize that today it is spiraling backwards towards mediocrity at a rapid rate. Why – because the SPCA is building a large, mostly unwanted, FOR PROFIT hospital, and they desperately need money to build it. So, next time you want to sit in your armchair and make a snap, caustic remark based on what you think the SPCA is all about: (a) remember that this is NOT the wonderful, no-kill institution it used to be, and you still imagine it is, and (b) as you write a cheque to make your next donation to the SPCA, just stop for a moment and wonder where your money is REALLY going. You might be surprised.

It is very easy to sit at home and read an article such as this, then write a caustic comment, and feel good as you go on with your day. However, perhaps the naysayers should consider one or two facts: the ex-staff and ex-volunteers did NOT sit at home and make an instant judgment, they actually lived with these terrible changes at the SPCA for over a year (since new President Jan McHugh-Smith and her cohorts came into the shelter), and felt so bad about the downward spiral of the SPCA, and so helpless, that they made the big decision to resign. They gave thousands of hours of love and experience to the unloved, unwanted, throw-away animals of this area - (did you?) - but most could not stomach seeing beautiful animals euthanized. Some were tiny puppies and kittens, and many had very treatable illnesses for which in the past the SPCA had always given treatment. For example, imagine if YOU were “euthanized” because you had a simple cold? This is unconscionable. Think about the SPCA claiming “lack of funding”, while carefully never mentioning the many large donations they receive regularly, or the large loan awarded to the new President towards a new house, or the large salaries of she and her new Vice President cohort – all on the backs of helpless, lonely and unwanted animals. (Have the President or Vice President offered to take a cut in their large salaries, we might ask?) The SPCA will tell you with tears in their eyes that they are doing everything “for the animals”. Well, make no mistake, this is now a business, and money is the bottom line. Think about these things – think about the fact that here, in the city of St. Francis, our SPCA was once the No. 1 no-kill shelter in the U.S. with wonderful state-of-the-art programs that became a model for many shelters around the world and saved the lives of thousands of animals, then realize that today it is spiraling backwards at a rapid rate towards mediocrity. Why – because the SPCA is building a large, mostly unwanted, FOR PROFIT hospital, and they desperately need money to build it. So, next time you want to sit in your armchair, denigrate the people involved, and make a snap, caustic remark based on what you THINK the SPCA is all about: (a) realize that this is NOT the wonderful, no-kill institution it used to be (and you still imagine it is), and (b) as you go to write a cheque to make a donation to the SPCA, just stop for a moment and wonder where your money is REALLY going. You might be surprised.

Metcalf wrote: "Maybe instead of working against the SF SPCA people should use their energy and resources to actually help animals."

Actually, many of the Cat Crusaders ARE still working to help animals. Some of us -- in fact, many of us -- continue to work at and volunteer with the SPCA, despite our distaste for the current regime. I visit the cats who used to be in the Affection Eater program, which was dissolved recently. These cats need attention and love to encourage them to eat, because they are traumatized by either their previous lives or by the shelter environment.

Some of us foster kittens. Some of us go on outreach with mobile adoptions. Some of us have moved on and volunteer at ACC, or other animal shelters in the Bay Area. It is PRECISELY because of our concerns about the new SF/SPCA's policies that we continue to work with cats and dogs.

JB wrote, "I don't see any interviews with current volunteers or current staff."

Some of us have chosen to remain anonymous in John's article because to do otherwise could threaten our jobs, or our volunteer status. Whistleblowers have some protection, yes, but we expect that would be minimal, given the current climate at the SPCA. Rest assured that John talked to many, many staffers, past and present: his facts are accurate.

The SPCA opened up its adoption procedure earlier this year. Age restrictions were abolished, so animals such as Isaac in the story were going to homes with active children who, quite likely, played with them inappropriately.

Adoption counselors were discouraged from "screening" potential adopters for their suitability with the animals they were interested in. This has resulted in a far higher rate of returns. Cat Crusaders' tentative analysis of the figures shows a 7 percent rate of returns since January of this year, compared to Holly's figure of 1 percent since last June. And, of course, a returned cat that is adopted again counts as two intakes and two adoptions -- which makes the figures look good.
1. Long-term cats were suddenly free ("adoption sponsored") to a good home, devaluing those animals and encouraging the public to take one "because it's free," ignoring any problems the cats may have had (shyness, play aggression, overstimulation). 2. In at least one documented instance, people who were visibly drunk or impaired were allowed to adopt animals on the spot.
3. One recent adopter took an adult cat, Morley, who had known litterbox issues. The man was told about this at the adoption interview. Five or six days later, he called the SPCA, screaming that they had to come and get the cat before he threw it out of the window. Two staffers were called away from their duties to rescue Morley, who had either puked or crapped on the man's couch. This person should have been counseled what it meant to adopt this cat. Morley is currently in hallway 1. He's a fantastic cat who just appreciates a big, clean litterbox. Please consider giving him a good forever home.
4. Adoption director Holly said at a recent volunteer meeting that "There are always going to be stupid adopters. This is an opportunity to learn from our mistakes." Until recently, adoption staff were far better able to screen out idiots. Now we are seeing a higher number of animals bouncing back to the shelter, often traumatized (as was Tulane -- and I actually met that cat), often with months of cat behavior staff work undone. How many "mistakes" are needed for the SPCA to learn from?
5. The SPCA recently sent out a letter to potential donors trumpeting how it had saved a little kitten named Helga, who was born with a birth defect that affected her lungs. Great, you say. How wonderful! Yet ... this was a FORM LETTER that was also sent out by the Animal Rescue Foundation in Walnut Creek, with the addition that ARF is a 4-star agency according to Charity Navigator, which the SPCA cannot claim. Deceptive, much? The SPCA is using tactics such as this to tug at people's heartstrings. Meanwhile, it has a policy to euthanize kittens who test positive for FeLV, despite the fact that this test often throws up false positives. They just don't want to wait around to find out.

For any volunteers on this board who defend your "wonderful" organization, why don't you consider this? At a recent meeting held at the SPCA for volunteer managers from bay area shelters, your volunteer manager, said that the spca doesn't want volunteers anymore. They are useless. Only about 10 are any good, but mostly volunteers are just retired people who want to come in and pet cats. Going to the volunteer appreciation dinner?

I think all the folks who don't agree with Management are poo-poo-heads. So what if I got a loan for $500,000.. Er.. I mean if Someone got a loan. That does not prove anything. You meanie poo-poo-heads. anyone who says anything bad about the SF/SPCA is also a poo-poo head............... Sheesh.. that's about the level of the comments by the folks who seem to be taking the management side.... It's all about as subtle as watching 4th graders gossip...

I love how completely artless & obvious the pro-management folks are! They have the subtly of angry 4th graders. I suspect that this story, is just the tip of the iceberg... sounds like a the SF/SPCA is playing games with a LOT of $$.. and not the benefit of the animals...

This article seems like the writer seemed to try to talk to both sides & tell their views. It's interesting that only one side.. the management side is bitching about how unfair the article is.. It's almost like they are hiding something & over reacting... You know, like it seems they hid their plan to sack the folks in the hearing dogs program for a few weeks.. then kicked them to the curb like... Hmmm...

Over here on the other side of the street it's a different angle. Because the SFSPCA has changed many of its policies about taking animals from SFACC sadly enough more animals are declined by themfor things like upper respiratory infections, food guarding, or whatever else they decided not to take that day. They got to pick and choose what they want because they could. While rescue groups had to take whatever else was left behind by them. Burdening rescue groups and SFACC having to euthanize more animals. The pact with the SFSPCA was great because they could take what couldn't be put up for adoption there. What really gets me is that the SPCA had changed drastically. They are no longer about saving lives or educating people about the "prevention of cruelty to animls." That's what this organization was founded on and now they are not doing even that! I find that seriously wrong and it bothers me a lot. I applaud John Geluardi for this article and I sent him an email yesterday thanking him because I have been waiting a long time for this and have been watching from across the street the whole thing unravel and I am glad it has been blown wide open! I see a lot of people who know nothing about what has been going over for the past several months making ridiculous comments, people defending the SFSPCA, ( I always knew there would be a few that would do that.), and then those who attack the article saying it has no validity as a story. I say to those who are unhappy with the SFSPCA to put your money where your mouth is and support SFACC! Because that's where the real life saving work happens. They have an 82% live release rate with the help of rescue groups, good people adopting animals, and well the SPCA use to help with that but now they kind of don't. You want to make a donation you say, well give that money to Friends of SFACC. I support the Hearing Dog Program volunteers for having their rally. I was there and it took a lot of guts to do what they did but they did it. I'm with you guys all the way!

While there have been many changes this year (changes that employees are not happy about), the reporter who wrote this article should be fired. The story of Tulane was misrepresented and some important information left out. As for Isaac, he was returned by his adopters for aggressive behavior (read: a bite which broke skin) toward children. The spca, along with every other responsible animal adoption organization does not place dogs with a verifiable bite history, especially when it involves children. I can tell you first-hand that no (ZERO) cats/kittens have been PTS because they have ringworm or a simple URI. They have always taken in RW and URI kittens from ACC and will continue to do so, provided there is room in the appropriate iso wards at the time. Ringworm and URI are both considered treatable medical conditions. With regard to the comment about "Helga" the kitten: She was a real kitten who had a very serious condition which was successfully treated by the veterinary staff. I was there, I watched her come in, go out on foster and I saw recover from surgery and be adopted. If some other organization used her story for a form letter, then shame on them. I'm certainly not trying to defend upper management here, I think some of the recently implemented policy changes have done nothing but add insult to injury to the people who care for the animals. They've driven away volunteers in droves and it's those very people who have really been the backbone of the organization. I absolutely agree that the sfspca is a newsworthy topic right now and I'm glad people want to know whats actually going on... but gets your facts straight because it's the animals who suffer when volunteers abandon ship and donors pull their money.

While there have been many changes this year (changes that employees are not happy about), the reporter who wrote this article should be fired. The story of Tulane was misrepresented and some important information left out. As for Isaac, he was returned by his adopters for aggressive behavior (read: a bite which broke skin) toward children. The spca, along with every other responsible animal adoption organization does not place dogs with a verifiable bite history, especially when it involves children. I can tell you first-hand that no (ZERO) cats/kittens have been PTS because they have ringworm or a simple URI. They have always taken in RW and URI kittens from ACC and will continue to do so, provided there is room in the appropriate iso wards at the time. Ringworm and URI are both considered treatable medical conditions. With regard to the comment about "Helga" the kitten: She was a real kitten who had a very serious condition which was successfully treated by the veterinary staff. I was there, I watched her come in, go out on foster and I saw recover from surgery and be adopted. If some other organization used her story for a form letter, then shame on them. I'm certainly not trying to defend upper management here, I think some of the recently implemented policy changes have done nothing but add insult to injury to the people who care for the animals. They've driven away volunteers in droves and it's those very people who have really been the backbone of the organization. I absolutely agree that the sfspca is a newsworthy topic right now and I'm glad people want to know whats actually going on... but gets your facts straight because it's the animals who suffer when volunteers abandon ship and donors pull their money.

"At a recent meeting held at the SPCA for volunteer managers from bay area shelters, your volunteer manager, said that the spca doesn't want volunteers anymore."

If they don't want anymore volunteers, why did they have a big orientation for new volunteers this past Saturday?

And what does it matter what any of these negative people think? If I abandon my commitment, I'm abandoning the cats that need me. I'm not volunteering for the sake of the management. I'm giving my time to help these cats find homes. Period.

"At a recent meeting held at the SPCA for volunteer managers from bay area shelters, your volunteer manager, said that the spca doesn't want volunteers anymore."

If they don't want anymore volunteers, why did they have a big orientation for new volunteers this past Saturday?

And what does it matter what any of these negative people think? If I abandon my commitment, I'm abandoning the cats that need me. I'm not volunteering for the sake of the management. I'm giving my time to help these cats find homes. Period.

The story of Tulane came from staff and volunteers. His sudden euthanasia was shocking to several people who were familiar with him. Would you mind explaining what was left out of his story? A little dramatic to suggest the writer should be fired, don't you think?

Interesting that you say the SPCA doesn't adopt out animals with a verified bite history. I can think of several cats in Maddie's right now, available for adoption, who will bite and/or swat if given the wrong kind of attention. I'm almost positive that information isn't going to be given to potential adopters under the new Feline-ality rules (and why, by the way, isn't Canine-ality being used?). You'll merely learn that a cat is a "Private Investigator" or "Secret Admirer."

"They will do that right now so that when you contact them to say, "Hey, what's up?" they can say, that's all BS. Look, we just took in 12 ringworm kittens, 4 who have Upper Respiratory Infections and 3 who are FIV+"

I don't have to do the research. I was THERE last weekend, volunteering like I do every weekend, and there were three rooms with ringworm kittens in them, multiple URI rooms with kittens, and two FIV cats.

Why don't YOU do some research?

Hi, I recently adopted a russian blue domestic short hair from the SPCA. After visiting there 4 times, I decided he was the ONE of ones. It was looking in at him seeing that he was quarantined and had flees and a bad cold. I wanted an all black girl, but he was sooooo friendly and sweet and wonderful, the thought of him getting euthanized for being ill made me ill, and I adopted him. I named him Pishee which means kitty in Farsi, and he has become the light of my freaking life. When I come home, he purrrrrrssss and drops to the floor and rolls over when I talk to him. He sleeps right next to me every night and I know he loves me too. I know it must be hard to protect each and every animal, but for all of the fuck faces complaining, my only thought is HAVE YOU ADOPTED A PET? If you are so concerned, you should adopt the kitties. There is also awesome groups like the Wonder Cat Rescue who go and get the kitties that will be put to sleep. You should volunteer to be a foster Pishee mom, donate to the organization or more. But I agree its horrendous and shocking to think a city as great as SF puts even one single kitty or doggie down, and its great the SF Weekly is airing the dirty laundry, because I too thought that they are a no kill shelter or have a no kill policy, and it makes me want to rush into the streets to get to the shelter as soon as possible to rescue any precious baby kitty that will be put down. But I am greatful to the SPCA and the volunteer Charolette who convinced me that my kitty was great, and its a blessing that I have this cat in my life, giving me so much love. Yes I am a cat junkie now.

"I'm almost positive that information isn't going to be given to potential adopters under the new Feline-ality rules. You'll merely learn that a cat is a "Private Investigator" or "Secret Admirer.""

Not true. The entire Feline-ality assessment is now posted on the door to each cat "condo" and any "behavior" information is still available on the cage cards.

It's called a NEW system (officially implemented one month ago) and if you had some patience you'd give them time to work out the kinks.

Wow it looks to me that the ones firing back from the SPCA aren't even humane to fellow human beings with all of the personal attacks and mean comments to the writer, volunteers, employees, ex-volunteers etc. I am a current volunteer but don't want to be part of an organization that acts like Peta, completely tearing people down. I truly believe now that these people backing the new management of the SFSPCA are not rational enough to be moral and just and perhaps explains why these horrible new policies can actually be carried out. I am saddened. Thank you Mr.Geluardi for writing such an amazing article.

You know why those URI and Ringworm kittens are there? The URI kittens are there because they were initially declined by the SPCA (for being sick and mildy undersocialized), but after ACC pleaded with them to take them they finally broke down. If ACC hadn't pushed for the SPCA to take these cats they would be dead or in some overloaded rescue who doesn't have the funding to treat these little guys, unlike the SF SPCA. And the ringworm kittens came from a public surrender, which they later figured out had ringworm. If those cats came from ACC it's very possible they would not be at the SF SPCA right now. Who is it that needs to do their research, again?

And "facts please," no kittens have been euthanized by the SPCA for URI or Ringworm, that's what you mean to say. Unfortunately, behavior plays a large role in this and if a kitten is sick, that's one thing, but if a kitten is undersocialized (which many of them are) and sick then it's screwed. Ask ACC about that and let me know what they say. As far Tulane goes, please elaborate on that info that was left out. If it's crucial to the story then we all should know. And as far as bite history goes, Isaac was a puppy, I believe 7 months. That's just sad that the SF SPCA can't work with a puppy, or find soeone who can. They're just giving up too easily these days.

GOOD BYE Anon - enough from you - get a life and do something good for hte community. You've had 5 blogs on this site and that's about 4 too many.

Good By Anon - you've had 5 too many blogs. Get a life and start spending your energies on something worthwhile - give back to your community as you sound like a very disgruntled cranky person - in cat life you may be in a full time Hiss Fit. You're complaining doesn't make it with we public folks:)

Do you all realize the over 2 million animals are euthanized yearly in America? This article reminds me of why I HATE animal welfare! SHAME on you Ex employees, ex volunteers, rescue groups, other rescue group volunteers for bringing your dirty laundry into the public lime light. Why must you bash on another organization who is trying to do exactly what you are doing, helping animals! So what if the SPCA is looking at numbers and focusing on "Highly adoptable" doesn't this give you rescues and crusaders one less animal you have to focus on so you can help the others that they cant? Why not utilize this anger you have toward the SPCA and put it towards those people who do not spay and neuter, who chain their animals in the back yard, who think its no problem to make money by selling their kittens puppies in front of Walmart, who do not look at their animal as part of their family? You guys are like a bunch of religious zealots who have fought for so long about the king marrying out of his religion that you don't even remember who's the bad guy!! Until you people can learn to work together and not bash the people who are trying to do the same thing you are just in a different way, millions of animals will continue to die.

After all the comments and dust settle down there's one salient fact that remains. The SF SPCA is not the same organization it was in the past; the nation's first no-kill shelter, a model for all the other no-kill shelters that followed. It simply is no longer no-kill. That phrase has been removed from all the literature, and at a recent meeting to explain new policies, one of the topics was the "problems of no-kill." BUT the shelter administration has not publicized this change. In fact, when asked recently what to reply if asked by a member of the public if the shelter is no-kill, the new Pres, Jan McHugh-Smith replied, "Say yes." So not alone is the SPCA no longer no-kill, it is also deliberately deceiving the public. Donors are now supporting an organization which no longer exists. And the fact that it no longer exists is being deliberately withheld from the donors.

The San Francisco "no-kill" pact between the SPCA and SF Animal Care and Control---while a very worthy goal, has actually never been a reality. While millions of dollars poured in to save every cat and dog, those of us who volunteer our time and resources to advocate for small companion animals, such as rabbits, hamsters and guinea pigs are keenly aware that the euthanasia of healthy, loving and adoptable small animals is exempt from this pact. Until fairly recently San Francisco euthanasia statistics were only broken out into three main categories: dogs, cats and "others", which lumped together all the small animals into one nondescript group. Correspondingly, funding and resources allocated city wide for small animals is miniscule compared to dogs and cats.

There is no Maddies Fund, free- microchipping clinics or much else beside rescue for the "others." Need a low cost spay or neuter for a rabbit? Forget it, because no programs exist. Want to foster a rabbit---well, no official foster program exists for that except through our rescue group. And yes, that sweet, but neglected little floppy -eared bunny left outside the shelter in a box will get euthanized unless our small, volunteer- run rescue group will take the rabbit in record time and completely fund her medical care through public donations.

However, I have also met some of the kindest, most caring people who work at San Francisco Animal Care and Control, including those poor souls who are required to euthanize the animals no one wants. SFACC is the only city shelter that takes in small animals. You try sitting behind a desk all day long while people dump their animals. We also work with some wonderful people at the SPCA. Change is really needed at a much bigger level and not just by management at the shelters. Hey animal lovers in San Francisco... it's not just cats and dogs that bond with people for life, learn their names, feel pain and suffer.

Which brings me to another point. While it is illegal to sell a rabbit as a pet in San Francisco, it's perfectly legal to sell them live for meat at local flea markets. We San Franciscans are just so PC and culturally sensitive! You can also go to a fancy restaurant order rabbit off the menu. Because rabbits are not even protected by the Humane Slaughter Act, that rabbit entree (the very same pet bunny breed you'd adopt at the shelter) isn't even guaranteed a sanitary or humane death. If Golden retriever was on the menu or Siamese kitten, people would be outraged. Laws would be enacted, obscene amounts of money raised, celebrities enlisted for the cause and everyone would feel great about saving animals.

This crucial time of upheaval, changes and media coverage of animal issues actually provides the perfect opportunity for a genuine change in the way animals---ALL animals are treated in San Francisco. The underdog is not actually a dog, but a rabbit.

Marcy Schaaf
Founder, SaveABunny
www.saveabunny.org
"A New Generation of Rabbit Rescue"
Save A Bunny. Save A Life.

There are many negative comments on this post (could Jan McHugh-Smith's staffers be furiously writing many of these e-mails?) but (as an ex-volunteer) I would like to put forward a few items for you all to think about. (a) I personally watched as the SPCA adopted out a beautiful dog to an obviously homeless, drunken man (who smelled up the lobby) to the horror of the other volunteers who were also there but, unfortunately, were helpless to do anything against the new policies of Jan McHugh-Smith. I have since heard of at least four occasions where cats were adopted out to drunks. In the past, the SPCA had a great screening program so that animals went to the right person. Now, because of Jan McHugh-Smith's new policy, they are given to anyone, now matter how drunk, homeless or unsuitable they may obviously be. May I also say that in the past a kitten or a puppy such as Isaac was almost never adopted out to a family with young children. Now they are just handed over, and tiny Isaac paid the price. (b) Next, to the person who griped that volunteers had abandoned ship - did it not occur to you that this very article is all about what those very ex-volunteers and ex-staffers are doing now? Abandon animals - don't be ridiculous. By the way, may I ask what you are doing for the animals? (c) The SPCA has a pact with the ACC that the SPCA will take animals from the ACC first. ACC is now very overwhelmed. Why, you ask? Because the SPCA is only taking the few beautiful, healthy and easily adoptable animals (they make money faster that way) and leaving the ACC with the burden of frightened, sick and lonely animals. In the past, the SPCA would have treated these animals and almost always found homes for them. Now, the ACC is left with the burden of having to euthanize them. (d) As might be expected, since this article was published, the SPCA has miraculously decided to take some sick animals from ACC so now they can assure the public that the article is all lies. Well, ask the SPCA how many sick animals they took LAST month, or the month before that, then try again in a couple of months and ask them. If they are truthful the answer will be None, but somehow I think instead you will get a convoluted, glib answer crafted to make the SPCA look good. After all, they still want your donations to pass on to their new, FOR PROFIT hospital.

Alright then, regarding Tulane...Everyone involved in that situation felt horrible about the outcome. You can talk all you want about how we wantonly kill animals but you obviously have no clue how hard it is for everyone involved. You think anybody feels fine about having to end the life of an animal we've been caring for? Nobody feels fine about it, ever. Tulane was originally a feral kitten, that's true. But he was socialized and adopted into a home, just like any other cat. He lived in a home for over a year. Granted, he "hated people but loved cats" as his adopter stated upon his return, but he was not "feral". How do you think he would fare suddenly faced with life on the street? He would have been absolutely terrified. More than likely he would have been hit by car sooner or later...The life of a feral cat is one I wouldnt wish on any cat. It's wonderful that they have people looking out for them, but they live hard lives. And medical staff didnt just decide he wasnt eating, one of the cat people repeatedly made reports of his lack of appetite.

Thank you Former Employee for your posts, particularly your most recent. It is heartening to get back up from someone who was actually employed there and was privvy to information and can substantiate facts that others who have posted have been slammed for.

And I believe Tulane could have benefitted from being given the time necessary for behavior volunteers to have worked with him as well as affection eaters volunteers. Cats like Tulane, who do need a little extra help, need to be given a little more time. Sure, that costs a little more money, but how valuable is a life? A year ago Tulane would have been given that chance. The report I am aware of was that Tulane did get along with the resident cat, but that the owner chose to never, ever interact with him. For the entire time Tulane lived in that home, he received no socializing attention, so it is unfair to paint a picture of Tulane as being pro-cat, anti-people.

Hi from Arizona - I appalled that when a cat is taken to a shelter that they decide to 'kill' the animal. These animals need love and protection not the death row. All my cats were adopted from either a vet or animal shelter. The animal shelters go to the State run shelters and try to get as many of them off death row. The no kill shelter is the only one I will go to for a companion for life. What is a home without someone other than another humam - happy - dogs, cats, birds all bring happiness to humans otherwise there would not be as many people buying cat,dog or bird food in the supermarkets today. I adopted a cat that was deemed not friendly. When I held her in my arms it was like holding my baby daughter for the first time. It look at me and said love me forever. They even called in the owner of the shelter as the cat had never taken to anyone else before. Yes she said this cat has been waiting 5 years for you to come along and love her. A friend of mine has a 'deaf' dog and when he takes it for a walk it is attached to his other dog who can hear, can you imagine the bond they have. Give them a chance, do not kill for the sake of 'I need more space' of "this cat does not have a hell's chance in being adopted'. I know the love of a cat waiting and waiting for the right person - it could be you. Are the other comments from people without a pet. Shame on you if you are, you do not know what you are missing. Regards
VW

Hi from Arizona - I appalled that when a cat is taken to a shelter that they decide to 'kill' the animal. These animals need love and protection not the death row. All my cats were adopted from either a vet or animal shelter. The animal shelters go to the State run shelters and try to get as many of them off death row. The no kill shelter is the only one I will go to for a companion for life. What is a home without someone other than another humam - happy - dogs, cats, birds all bring happiness to humans otherwise there would not be as many people buying cat,dog or bird food in the supermarkets today. I adopted a cat that was deemed not friendly. When I held her in my arms it was like holding my baby daughter for the first time. It look at me and said love me forever. They even called in the owner of the shelter as the cat had never taken to anyone else before. Yes she said this cat has been waiting 5 years for you to come along and love her. A friend of mine has a 'deaf' dog and when he takes it for a walk it is attached to his other dog who can hear, can you imagine the bond they have. Give them a chance, do not kill for the sake of 'I need more space' of "this cat does not have a hell's chance in being adopted'. I know the love of a cat waiting and waiting for the right person - it could be you. Are the other comments from people without a pet. Shame on you if you are, you do not know what you are missing. Regards
VW

You are so right!! Tulane would have benefited from attention and love from volunteers. Of course, this takes time and effort to do correctly. But wait, here' s an important point: There were NO VOLUNTEERS HERE when Tulane was sitting alone in his kennel. You quit. But sure, dumping an adult cat with no socialization inside into an outside world in a strange colony would be sure to help its appetite. Which death was more humane?

To "JB" (No. 47 right now - don't know if this ever changes). There are a few posters using "Anon" - haven't you guessed that? And they can certainly post as often as they want to. To "jesus christ" (No. 58 right now). Don't take the easy road and blame the volunteers for what happened to Tulane - there have always been volunteers at the SPCA and they are there even today. So please stop the jabs, take off your blinders and lay the blame where it really lies (have you finally guessed where that is?)

Actually, I some volunteers did spend time with Tulane, he was not abandoned by volunteers. Time was what Tulane needed, more than the newly desired maximum stay of 14 days. Some cats like Tulane benefit from long term consistency and attention, from behavior volunteers, volunteers focused on helping him eat, etc. These special cases simply need more than 14 days. Their lives have value and if supporting them for a longer amount of time means they cost the organization a little more money, then so be it. If they can thrive, then every effort, every chance is what they deserve. That used to be the case when the emphasis was on lives not numbers. It is troubling than now saving a dollar is the priority over saving a life.

For the record...There is no "maximum length of stay". There is however an "average length of stay". The shelter medical staff, together with our wonderful foster care program have succeeded in bringing that number to an all time low. We have been working ourselves into the ground to make sure these cats spend as little time in the shelter as possible. Those animals who need more time can stay as long as they need. We have cats in maddies right now who've been there upwards of several months. And to clarify what I said about Tulane earlier...the quote "hates people, loves cats" was taken directly from his adoption return form. The point I was trying to make was that Tulane's behavior was a result of an adopter who never made any attempt to even interact with him during the year Tulane was in his home, not because he was feral.

Ugh...and to whoever wrote comment 52
Are you really sure that you, being an ex volunteer can give everyone following this story accurate info on how the behavior and medical departments decide which animals we can accept from ACC? If you are, you shouldnt be. How bout the facts from someone who is actually involved in the intake of animals from ACC? First, we have always accepted ringworm and URI cats provided we have room in the appropriate iso wards. Several weeks ago (before any of this crap even started) I did intake exams on 15+ kittens from ACC who all had URI symptoms. Some were clearly sick, others just beginning to show symptoms. There was no mention of declining any of them and they are now either recovered or well on their way to recovering and being placed into homes. And last week we accepted 3 kittens from a feral program volunteer who were very sick with URI/Calici and had visible ringworm lesions to boot. They are currently being treated and doing quite well. So get you facts straight people...if you dont have the facts, then dont post hearsay and second hand stories as truth. All the false info being posted isnt hurting Jan or Dori....it's hurting the animals.

61 comments--61 this is repulsive and outright outrages!!! If 10 of these jerks who protested the article were to have the same passion toward protecting the homeless there would be none in San Francisco,and probably in half the state of California.This whole experience of reading the article and then the comments has affected my mind--- perhaps for EVER!!!What planet do these people live on? Are they really people or is it possible that perhaps we have Aliens from another planet living amongst us as a book title a few years back [in the 1980`s]claimed.Could it be possible that we the rest of humanity have discovered them and that they live out in SanFrancisco and that they go around disguised as animal lovers???This is outrageous. Maybe one or two comments made any sense and those were the ones pertaining to the outright corruption the new President and Vice-President of the SF/SPCA[not at all unlike the outright corruption being perpetrated on the American people and the rest of the World by this country`s currant President and Vice-President with their oil rich cronies].I am still trying to figure out if this has been for real or if it is indeed just some cruel little hoax.I just can`t believe it and furthermore I can`t believe I`m leaving a comment.WHAT ABOUT HUMAN BEINGS, THE HOMELESS, THE MENTALY ILL,THE ABUSED, THE FALSLY IMPRISONED,THE DISEASED,THE LONELY,THE FORSAKEN,THE HUNGRY,THOSE THAT ARE PREJUDGED,THOSE INNOCENTS WHO ARE BEING KILLED BY BOMBS AND WEAPONS MADE IN OUR FACTORYS SO THAT OUR RICH PEOPLE CAN MAKE MORE MONEY IN THIS COUNTRY, AND OUR POOR YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN CAN BE SENT OFF TO OTHER COUNTRYS TO RISK THIER LIVES AND EVEN DIE FOR THE SAKE OF THE WEALTHY IN THIS COUNTRY!!!!WHAT THE FU_K IS THIS ABOUT ???IF THAT SELFSERVING PRESIDENT BITCH AND HER ASSKISSING VICE_PRESIDENT BITCH GET THROWN IN JAIL FOR WHAT THIS ARTICAL HAS UNCOVERED, THEN AND ONLY THEN WOULD THIS ARTICAL HAVE BEEN WORTH THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN IN!!!YOU ALL ARE NUTS!!!GODDAMN CRAZYASS WHITECRACKER STUPIDFUCKING GREENGOES YOU MOTHERFUCKERS!!!

Wow. Someone forgot to take their crazy pill.

As someone who has spent time volunteering at ACC, I can verify that we have offered kittens who had nothing more than a simple cold to the SPCA, only to have them turned down. It has only been within the last week that the SPCA started taking sick cats. They knew that this article was coming out. Coincidence?

#65: Yep, and that's not the only curious coincidence. Thank you for posting that.

Comment 62-factplease. Sounds like you are a big mouth piece for the SFSPCA, and have that oh well we have tried, too bad what happened to Tulane attitude. Do you pay you to write all those comments for 50 cents per word? What happened to Tulane is despicable and wouldnt happened in the SFSPCA before Jan and Doris. Sounds like you havent been around long enough to know the difference.

I am a current volunteer. So what if it is a numbers game? Numbers translate to numbers of lives. You people need some perspective. It is okay for a private citizen to spend countless hours and countless dollars on one animal. It is not right for the SPCA to do so. It would be mismanagement of resources. All you people whining about how in the good old days, this or that would never have happened are delusional and sadly SADLY mistaken.
You try telling that healthy 2 year old Turlock or Stockton or Yolo cat and all his friends that they need to die because the SPCA has decided to invest all these resources into ONE CASE. "Kin" and company need to step back and consider the big picture. There are animals being killed in shelters outside San Francisco. Animals that would fly out of Maddies adoption center within a day. And yes, to GOOD HOMES.
And you people who are so hung up on "no-kill" need to get educated. No-kill is a myth. I repeat: NO-KILL IS A MYTH. Whatever organization says they are NO-KILL, unless they are OPEN ADMISSION and they have a 100% live release rate, then they are lying to themselves and their funders about being No-Kill. Has anyone here even heard of the Lied Shelter tragedy? A shelter can be no kill if they RESTRICT intake. That is because SOMEONE ELSE is doing the killing.
Sometimes, animals have to be euthanized. Plain and simple. Is letting them die in their cages better than active euthanasia? Would you people rather the veterinary staff let an animal die in its cage and report that death as "natural"?
And stop saying the SFACC is being forced into this or that action. ACC is funded by your tax dollars. Give them more money so they can help more animals.
For those who need guidance with the BIG PICTURE: If you want to help, help to expand spay and neuter programs. Get puppy mills shut down. Tell your neighbors to get their animals fixed. Become a foster home. Volunteer your time, socialize a feral kitten. Trap some feral cats and get them fixed. Spread the word that animals are not disposable. And I don't mean just animals at the SFSPCA or in San Francisco.
It IS a NUMBERS game, and from what I see as a volunteer, the SPCA is doing right by all these animals. I look forward to the shelter releasing some details on the NUMBERS of lives they have saved this year compared to previous years.

I am a current volunteer. So what if it is a numbers game? Numbers translate to numbers of lives. You people need some perspective. It is okay for a private citizen to spend countless hours and countless dollars on one animal. It is not right for the SPCA to do so. It would be mismanagement of resources. All you people whining about how in the good old days, this or that would never have happened are delusional and sadly SADLY mistaken.
You try telling that healthy 2 year old Turlock or Stockton or Yolo cat and all his friends that they need to die because the SPCA has decided to invest all these resources into ONE CASE. "Kin" and company need to step back and consider the big picture. There are animals being killed in shelters outside San Francisco. Animals that would fly out of Maddies adoption center within a day. And yes, to GOOD HOMES.
And you people who are so hung up on "no-kill" need to get educated. No-kill is a myth. I repeat: NO-KILL IS A MYTH. Whatever organization says they are NO-KILL, unless they are OPEN ADMISSION and they have a 100% live release rate, then they are lying to themselves and their funders about being No-Kill. Has anyone here even heard of the Lied Shelter tragedy? A shelter can be no kill if they RESTRICT intake. That is because SOMEONE ELSE is doing the killing.
Sometimes, animals have to be euthanized. Plain and simple. Is letting them die in their cages better than active euthanasia? Would you people rather the veterinary staff let an animal die in its cage and report that death as "natural"?
And stop saying the SFACC is being forced into this or that action. ACC is funded by your tax dollars. Give them more money so they can help more animals.
For those who need guidance with the BIG PICTURE: If you want to help, help to expand spay and neuter programs. Get puppy mills shut down. Tell your neighbors to get their animals fixed. Become a foster home. Volunteer your time, socialize a feral kitten. Trap some feral cats and get them fixed. Spread the word that animals are not disposable. And I don't mean just animals at the SFSPCA or in San Francisco.
It IS a NUMBERS game, and from what I see as a volunteer, the SPCA is doing right by all these animals. I look forward to the shelter releasing some details on the NUMBERS of lives they have saved this year compared to previous years.

Last month I surrendered a group of kittens to the SPCA. They accepted the healthy ones and made me take the sick ones to Animal Control. Luckily, I met a wonderful woman in Animal Control's lobby and she agreed to take the sick kittens into her rescue group, nurse them back to health and find them homes. I'm certain this kind soul had far less space and money to care for these sick babies than the SPCA. They only want the perfect ones.

#68/69: Maybe you can open this by doing a copy & paste. If you can, scroll down to page 31. Brief article by Richard Avanzino.

http://www.animalsheltering.org/publications/magazine/back_issues/may_jun07_pp23-45.pdf

#68/69: An interesting read; you can buy it on Amazon.com for as low as $9.99. The paperback edition came out Sept. 07. "Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America" - Nathan Winograd, Author.

Also, what the SPCA ought to be doing is helping struggling shelters establish spay/neuter programs based on their highly successful s/n program, and continue to care for SF animals as their 1994 pact with acc determined.

Animal Transfer: Perspectives
Sometimes , one conversation can take a backburner
issue and move it right to the front of the stove.
So it was when a Massachusetts veterinarian called
to talk about what she saw as a disturbing trend—the
importation of puppies and small dogs by rescue groups
and private humane societies. She argued that cute and
cuddly imports basically meant a death sentence for the
big, old, and rowdy adolescent dogs in the state’s municipal
shelters. “If people would put the same amount
of time, energy, and resources into saving animals in
Massachusetts that they do in trucking animals from
down south, our own community animals could be
saved. If a community’s healthy or treatable shelter
animals are dying, you’re turning your back on those animals
if you’re importing. We used to be people finding
homes for dogs. Now we’re finding dogs for homes.”
Her comments certainly reinforced my own thinking.
Here’s how I view dog transport:
First, no matter how the contribution is made, saving
lives is important.
If a family falls in love with a dog on the Internet
and transports the animal to their home 1,000 miles
away, great!
If puppies from the South are going to be killed unless
they are transported out of their community, I can
see why folks would want to ship them to shelters that
can place them.
Our Obligation to the Old and the “Uglies”
If we don’t rehome all the treatable animals in our own community before importing more, says
one national leader, aren’t we expecting more of the public than we do of ourselves?
By Rich Avanzino
But I fear that when puppies and small dogs are imported
from outside a community, those animals will
get adopted while older or unappealing local dogs languish
in animal control facilities and other community
shelters and eventually get euthanized.
Some argue that importing puppies and small dogs
benefits the old and “uglies.” They claim that the cute dogs
bring in more lookers, thereby stimulating adoptions for
the hard-to-place. I would like to see proof that this actually
happens. I’m guessing that the more difficult dogs
would get placed faster without puppy competition.
Some even criticize the very idea of saving the old,
ill, and poorly behaved. They contend that spending
money to rehabilitate and place a few troubled pets is
a poor use of resources, claiming it’s much more costeffective
(per capita) to import and adopt out animals
who can be quickly and easily placed.
Maybe it’s time to ask ourselves some tough questions.
What is our mission—to save all of the healthy
and treatable dogs in our own community shelters or,
more generally, to save as many dogs as we can? Is it
our job to fill a market niche and import the canines the
public wants, or do we have a primary obligation to the
dogs in our own service area? If individual shelters import
puppies and small dogs, will it negatively impact
the death toll community-wide? If we talk about creating
a “humane ethic” and if we represent ourselves as
community-based organizations that champion and
protect the animals in our own jurisdictions, should we
place imported dogs at the expense of the less appealing
canines who are already under the care of our community
shelters and need homes?
We ask our community to make a lifetime commitment
to the pets they adopt from us. We screen adopters
and make them sign a contract to hammer home the
importance of being responsible pet guardians. We want
to feel confident that, should the dog break a leg or acquire
a behavior problem or simply get old, the adopter
will take care of the animal and not abandon him. We get
upset when someone surrenders a dog because he has a
minor behavior disorder or a nagging medical condition.
We would be especially annoyed if, after surrendering
such a dog, the individual went on to adopt a puppy, making
the choice to have a companion animal but sloughing
off the relatively hard part of the responsibility—the time
and expense of dealing with medical, behavioral, or aging
issues. Should we do what we tell our adopters not to do
Rick Edwards
32 Animal Shelt erin g May/June 2007
Animal Transfer: Perspectives
and abandon the more difficult cases in our own community
shelters? Should we use our scarce resources on
imported puppies and small dogs to the detriment of the
dogs we already have under our care?
In my opinion, once a canine from the community is
admitted into the shelter system, we owe that dog the
same commitment of time and resources we ask of our
adopters. At the very least, shelters should provide a level
of care equivalent to that typically provided to pets by reasonable
and caring pet guardians in the community.
Shelters can provide a safety net of care for healthy
and treatable dogs community-wide by working collaboratively
so that the lifesaving commitment is shared
across all organizations within the service area. What
this means in many cases is that animals will be transferred
from one agency to another to fulfill that community’s
lifesaving obligation.
But I believe that as long as dogs are imported, they
will divert attention and resources from the treatable
and hard-to-place, and many of these animals will be
euthanized. However, once the healthy and treatable dogs
within the community are guaranteed a home, I would hope
that shelters would reach out to other areas to provide a
broader safety net of care.
I admit, adopting out treatable and hard-to-place
dogs is challenging—it takes extra time, money, creativity,
and patience. Placing an adorable fur ball is much
easier and more fun than looking for someone to take a
grizzled geriatric with cataracts or a hyper adolescent
with separation anxiety. And finding homes for all of
our community’s healthy and treatable dogs will require
tremendous leadership. But I believe it’s our job, as
animal welfare advocates, to sell the public on the idea
that old, less attractive, cast-off animals deserve to be
saved—that every life is important. If we don’t value the
animals in our community shelters by finding them loving
homes, how can we ask the public to provide a lifetime
home for their pets?
Instead of viewing hard-to-place pets as low-priority
in terms of lifesaving efforts, I think we should figure
out ways to create a demand for these animals.
The Tompkins County SPCA, an open-admission shelter
with an animal control contract in upstate New York, is
one example of an organization that has done just that. All
over town, billboards and posters depict old, fat, and disfigured
animals with the tagline, “You’re Not Perfect, Don’t
Expect Your Pet To Be—Both Are Perfectly Lovable.” With
a live release rate of 93 percent in 2006, Tompkins County
has clearly found a marketing strategy that works.
Rich Avanzino is the president of Maddie’s Fund, a family
foundation established in 1999 to help fund the creation of
a no-kill nation through grants to local animal welfare coalitions,
spay/neuter initiatives, and shelter medicine programs.
Saving the Puppies of Spruce Pine
Without a transfer arrangement that ships puppies to Rhode Island, this North Carolina shelter
would be euthanizing many more dogs each year
By Ann Crowder
I have worked at the Mitchell County Animal
Rescue and Shelter in Spruce Pine, North Carolina, for
four years, and I became the manager in September
2006. We have been transporting animals to the
facility we now refer to as our “sister shelter”—the
Potter League for Animals in Middletown, Rhode
Island—since October 2004.
It all started when Potter League volunteer Barbara
Sears saw one of our puppies on Petfinder.com. It
was love at first sight, and after calling our shelter to
make sure the puppy was still available for adoption,
Mrs. Sears made the long drive from Rhode Island to
Spruce Pine.
When she got here, Mrs. Sears could not believe
how many puppies we had. When she left our shelter,
she took not only her own puppy home but also a couple
of littermates to pass along to the Potter League.
About a week after Mrs. Sears’ visit, Potter League
operations director

#71: #68 here. I have read that article. And my own home is filled with "olds and ulglies". In reply to the rhetorical question that is the article's sub-heading, I DO expect private citizens to do the more than the shelter. Be it not disposing of their old and ugly; or going out there and adopting the least adoptable animal they can find.

Animal Transfer: Perspectives
Sometimes , one conversation can take a backburner
issue and move it right to the front of the stove.
So it was when a Massachusetts veterinarian called
to talk about what she saw as a disturbing trend—the
importation of puppies and small dogs by rescue groups
and private humane societies. She argued that cute and
cuddly imports basically meant a death sentence for the
big, old, and rowdy adolescent dogs in the state’s municipal
shelters. “If people would put the same amount
of time, energy, and resources into saving animals in
Massachusetts that they do in trucking animals from
down south, our own community animals could be
saved. If a community’s healthy or treatable shelter
animals are dying, you’re turning your back on those animals
if you’re importing. We used to be people finding
homes for dogs. Now we’re finding dogs for homes.”
Her comments certainly reinforced my own thinking.
Here’s how I view dog transport:
First, no matter how the contribution is made, saving
lives is important.
If a family falls in love with a dog on the Internet
and transports the animal to their home 1,000 miles
away, great!
If puppies from the South are going to be killed unless
they are transported out of their community, I can
see why folks would want to ship them to shelters that
can place them.
Our Obligation to the Old and the “Uglies”
If we don’t rehome all the treatable animals in our own community before importing more, says
one national leader, aren’t we expecting more of the public than we do of ourselves?
By Rich Avanzino
But I fear that when puppies and small dogs are imported
from outside a community, those animals will
get adopted while older or unappealing local dogs languish
in animal control facilities and other community
shelters and eventually get euthanized.
Some argue that importing puppies and small dogs
benefits the old and “uglies.” They claim that the cute dogs
bring in more lookers, thereby stimulating adoptions for
the hard-to-place. I would like to see proof that this actually
happens. I’m guessing that the more difficult dogs
would get placed faster without puppy competition.
Some even criticize the very idea of saving the old,
ill, and poorly behaved. They contend that spending
money to rehabilitate and place a few troubled pets is
a poor use of resources, claiming it’s much more costeffective
(per capita) to import and adopt out animals
who can be quickly and easily placed.
Maybe it’s time to ask ourselves some tough questions.
What is our mission—to save all of the healthy
and treatable dogs in our own community shelters or,
more generally, to save as many dogs as we can? Is it
our job to fill a market niche and import the canines the
public wants, or do we have a primary obligation to the
dogs in our own service area? If individual shelters import
puppies and small dogs, will it negatively impact
the death toll community-wide? If we talk about creating
a “humane ethic” and if we represent ourselves as
community-based organizations that champion and
protect the animals in our own jurisdictions, should we
place imported dogs at the expense of the less appealing
canines who are already under the care of our community
shelters and need homes?
We ask our community to make a lifetime commitment
to the pets they adopt from us. We screen adopters
and make them sign a contract to hammer home the
importance of being responsible pet guardians. We want
to feel confident that, should the dog break a leg or acquire
a behavior problem or simply get old, the adopter
will take care of the animal and not abandon him. We get
upset when someone surrenders a dog because he has a
minor behavior disorder or a nagging medical condition.
We would be especially annoyed if, after surrendering
such a dog, the individual went on to adopt a puppy, making
the choice to have a companion animal but sloughing
off the relatively hard part of the responsibility—the time
and expense of dealing with medical, behavioral, or aging
issues. Should we do what we tell our adopters not to do
Rick Edwards
32 Animal Shelt erin g May/June 2007
Animal Transfer: Perspectives
and abandon the more difficult cases in our own community
shelters? Should we use our scarce resources on
imported puppies and small dogs to the detriment of the
dogs we already have under our care?
In my opinion, once a canine from the community is
admitted into the shelter system, we owe that dog the
same commitment of time and resources we ask of our
adopters. At the very least, shelters should provide a level
of care equivalent to that typically provided to pets by reasonable
and caring pet guardians in the community.
Shelters can provide a safety net of care for healthy
and treatable dogs community-wide by working collaboratively
so that the lifesaving commitment is shared
across all organizations within the service area. What
this means in many cases is that animals will be transferred
from one agency to another to fulfill that community’s
lifesaving obligation.
But I believe that as long as dogs are imported, they
will divert attention and resources from the treatable
and hard-to-place, and many of these animals will be
euthanized. However, once the healthy and treatable dogs
within the community are guaranteed a home, I would hope
that shelters would reach out to other areas to provide a
broader safety net of care.
I admit, adopting out treatable and hard-to-place
dogs is challenging—it takes extra time, money, creativity,
and patience. Placing an adorable fur ball is much
easier and more fun than looking for someone to take a
grizzled geriatric with cataracts or a hyper adolescent
with separation anxiety. And finding homes for all of
our community’s healthy and treatable dogs will require
tremendous leadership. But I believe it’s our job, as
animal welfare advocates, to sell the public on the idea
that old, less attractive, cast-off animals deserve to be
saved—that every life is important. If we don’t value the
animals in our community shelters by finding them loving
homes, how can we ask the public to provide a lifetime
home for their pets?
Instead of viewing hard-to-place pets as low-priority
in terms of lifesaving efforts, I think we should figure
out ways to create a demand for these animals.
The Tompkins County SPCA, an open-admission shelter
with an animal control contract in upstate New York, is
one example of an organization that has done just that. All
over town, billboards and posters depict old, fat, and disfigured
animals with the tagline, “You’re Not Perfect, Don’t
Expect Your Pet To Be—Both Are Perfectly Lovable.” With
a live release rate of 93 percent in 2006, Tompkins County
has clearly found a marketing strategy that works.
Rich Avanzino is the president of Maddie’s Fund, a family
foundation established in 1999 to help fund the creation of
a no-kill nation through grants to local animal welfare coalitions,
spay/neuter initiatives, and shelter medicine programs.
Saving the Puppies of Spruce Pine
Without a transfer arrangement that ships puppies to Rhode Island, this North Carolina shelter
would be euthanizing many more dogs each year
By Ann Crowder
I have worked at the Mitchell County Animal
Rescue and Shelter in Spruce Pine, North Carolina, for
four years, and I became the manager in September
2006. We have been transporting animals to the
facility we now refer to as our “sister shelter”—the
Potter League for Animals in Middletown, Rhode
Island—since October 2004.
It all started when Potter League volunteer Barbara
Sears saw one of our puppies on Petfinder.com. It
was love at first sight, and after calling our shelter to
make sure the puppy was still available for adoption,
Mrs. Sears made the long drive from Rhode Island to
Spruce Pine.
When she got here, Mrs. Sears could not believe
how many puppies we had. When she left our shelter,
she took not only her own puppy home but also a couple
of littermates

#68. You sounds like you are not a volunteer but a current staff of SFSPCA. You are just paraphrasing what Jan and her sidekicks told in the town hall meeting not long ago. What you said about the good old days is 139 years of history, Jan and her incompetent court is only about one and a years old, hopefully not for longer. It is SFSPCA job and duty to spend endless hours with the less desirable animals because it is what the generous donors expect them to do. No-kill is NOT a myth, it is an IDEAL which started by current board member Richard Avanzino (do you know who he is???). Jan and her gangs should uphold that standard instead of egoistically think that they know better and what is good for SF. If they dont understand this, they should go back to Denver for good. At least I use my real name, do you?????

Kin...Sorry to take the wind out of your all-knowing, yet very mistaken sails but, Richard Avenzino is not a current board member as you stated. He left the sf/spca (where he was the president, not a board member) several years ago. Like I said before, get your facts straight.

Poor factsplease, still hiding behind the pseudonym huh, maybe you should try to face the fact that alot of people agree with what the article said and you are the sad minority who have drank the cool aid from Jan and co. Maybe you should go to the board of supervisor meeting to tell them everything in the article is false including the Hearing Dog Program and also the cat behavior department. Or go to stage a supporting rally for Jan and Co and tell the 'fact' that you think y