Thousands of exotic animals seized in Arlington

NEWS: Thousands of exotic animals seized in Arlington
Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:50 pm (PST)

Thousands of exotic animals seized in Arlington:
http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Thousands-of-exotic-animals-seized-in-Arlington-79323622.html
http://digg.com/d31CwFp?e
by DEBBIE DENMON / WFAA-TV
Posted on December 15, 2009 at 12:29 PM
ARLINGTON — It's being called the biggest animal seizure of its kind
in the country. Authorities moved in to take custody of a many as
20,000 creatures from an exotic pet distributor Tuesday morning.

Arlington Animal Services served a civil seizure warrant on U.S.
Global Exotics, a multi-million dollar business that acquires these
creatures from all around the world — then sells them for premium
prices.



The collection includes snakes, wallabys, tarantulas, turtles and hedgehogs.



"We're finding huge amounts of dead animals in with the living ones,"

said Jay Sabatucci of Arlington Animal Services. "We're finding

turtles who are basically in a toxic soup of water and other dead

turtles."



The Humane Society of North Texas and the SPCA of Texas are among the

organizations helping city officials try to collect and catalog the

menagerie from the U.S. Global Exotics facility in the 1000 block of

Oakmead Drive. Veterinarians from around the country and even one from

Great Britain were flown in to provide their expertise into evaluation

and treatment of the more exotic animals.



"We have consulted with some experts," Sabatucci said. "Some of the

methods of keeping the animals are not within guidelines. There are

animals in there literally starving to death, not being fed. There are

animals in conditions where the environment is either too cold or too

warm for them."



U.S. Global Exotics will likely be shut down all day Tuesday as the

seizure continues. No criminal charges have been filed against the

firm, which — according to its Web site — has been importing and

exporting exotic animals for 11 years.



The Web site claims that U.S. Global Exotics is licensed by U.S.

Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and by

the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.



"I'm a dog man myself, so it's hard for me to understand how someone

would like something exotic like a wallaby or a tree sloth," Sabatucci

said. "But there are people who wish to have these types of animals,

and they will pay top dollar to have them."



Officials said the seized animals would first be removed to an

undisclosed location to evaluate their conditions. If a court awards

the animals to the city, the survivors will be shipped to places where

they will be properly cared for.



E-mail ddenmon@wfaa.com

Agenda for Wed. Dec. 16 AAC regular meeting

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/agenda/2009/downloads/animal_121609.pdf

ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2009
6:00 PM
AUSTIN ENERGY BUILDING, FIRST FLOOR ASSEMBLY ROOM
721 BARTON SPRINGS ROAD
AUSTIN, TEXAS

AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER

1. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL
The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

3. OLD BUSINESS
None

4. NEW BUSINESS
a. Discussion of potential Bylaws amendment related to change of time and location of regular monthly meeting.
b. Discussion of posting of Animal Advisory Commission agenda & receiving of backup material.
c. Report of FY11 Donation Fund Subcommittee Meeting
d. Discussion of Implementation Plan
e. Update on AAC Scope

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None

6. STAFF BRIEFINGS
None

7. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

8. ADJOURNMENT

The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least 4 days before the meeting date. Please call Gricelda Diaz at Health & Human Services Department, Animal Services Division at 512: 972-5805, for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.

agenda for Wed. Dec 16 AAC meeting

ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION


WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2009

6:00 PM

AUSTIN ENERGY BUILDING, FIRST FLOOR ASSEMBLY ROOM

721 BARTON SPRINGS ROAD

AUSTIN, TEXAS

AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER

1. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL

The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

3. OLD BUSINESS

None

4. NEW BUSINESS

a. Discussion of potential Bylaws amendment related to change of time and location of regular monthly meeting.

b. Discussion of posting of Animal Advisory Commission agenda & receiving of backup material.

c. Report of FY11 Donation Fund Subcommittee Meeting

d. Discussion of Implementation Plan

e. Update on AAC Scope

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS

None

6. STAFF BRIEFINGS

None

7. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

8. ADJOURNMENT

The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least 4 days before the meeting date. Please call Gricelda Diaz at Health & Human Services Department, Animal Services Division at 512: 972-5805, for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.

from South Carolina to Syracuse, N.Y. - dogs rescued from euth

Animal rescuer airlifts York County strays
http://www.heraldonline.com/120/story/1803548.html#


By Jason Foster - jfoster@heraldonline.com Ted DuPuis doesn't want animals to die just because no one wants them, so the 25-year-old Pennsylvania man has made it his mission to save as many as he can from being euthanized.
Since August, DuPuis has taken to the skies to rescue animals from Southern states where animal overpopulation has led to high euthanasia rates. He flies them back up North, where spay and neuter laws have kept the pet population under control, so they can be adopted into new homes.
Today, DuPuis' Cloud Nine Rescue Flights will transport 17 dogs from the Rock Hill area to Syracuse, N.Y. It's his fourth trip to rescue animals from York County.
“I'm willing to do it as often as it takes,” said DuPuis, an engineer by trade. “I want to see as many animal lives saved as possible.”
The program works like this: Local representatives from the Animal Adoption League identify unwanted animals in danger of being euthanized and find shelters up North that will take them in to be adopted. DuPuis then provides the animals' transportation to their new environment. He's taken as many as 22 animals on a single flight.
“I can't say enough good things about it,” said Kylie Troy of Charlotte, volunteer transport coordinator for the adoption league. “Without him, we would really have a hard time moving them up North.”
The flights are provided for free, meaning the nonprofit relies on donations to reach its goal of 40 flights per year. Each flight costs upwards of $2,000 for plane rental, gas and other needs. DuPuis doesn't take a salary.
In addition to transporting animals, Cloud Nine also works with organizations to transport children and adults for medical treatment.
“It's a lot of work on a number of different fronts,” DuPuis said of organizing the transports.
Cloud Nine and other similar programs provide a valuable service, said Chris Peninger, supervisor of York County Animal Control.
“We do have a huge issue here with animal overpopulation,” she said. “Animals fill up shelters in our area very, very quickly.
York County Animal Control takes in an average of about 800 animals per month. Last month, rescues and adoptions totaled just 148, while 446 animals were euthanized.
“It's a very different way to get animals out of shelters and into homes,” Peninger said of rescue flights.
These programs are a “win-win-win” for everyone involved, she said: The local shelters win because it frees up room, the shelters up North win because they can offer pets for adoption, and the pets win because they avoid being put down.
“It doesn't get much better than that.”
Jason Foster 803-329-4066

Dorinda Pulliam quoted in article on feral cats in Christian Science Monitor

Excerpt from Christian Science Monitor article:
“No one is going to snap their fingers and make these feral cats disappear; there has to be a program to deal with it,” adds Dorinda Pulliam, director of the Town Lake Animal Shelter in Austin, Texas.
Ms. Pulliam oversees an active TNR program that has sterilized 10,000 cats in the past two years. Whether such programs actually reduce populations is hotly disputed. She declined to estimate how many feral cats roam Austin, but said the numbers entering the shelter are declining.

Could that be because coyotes are eating them? Pulliam says she doubts that. But some residents suggest that Austin, which has a coyote control program, stop killing coyotes and let those predators take care of Austin’s feral cats.

Full article
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/12/01/outdoor-cats-are-easy-prey-for-coyotes/

Outdoor cats are easy prey for coyotes
Cats are known as hunters but when coyotes come on the scene, cats who go outdoors become the prey.
By Mark Clayton
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor/ December 1, 2009 edition

Print thisBuzz up!Email and shareRepublishGet e-mail alertsRSS

David Ponton/NEWSCOM
Coyotes like this one have turned to cats as a major food source – up to 42 percent of their diet in Tucson, Ariz., a study found. The study has exposed fault lines between cat lovers and bird lovers, who think cats should be kept indoors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cat lover Lisa Harris used to let her seven felines roam outdoors – until she saw a coyote waltzing across her front yard. Since then, Dr. Harris, a wildlife biologist who lives in Tucson, Ariz., has kept her cats indoors 24/7.



Long seen as miniature backyard hunters preying on everything from rabbits, birds, and mice to lizards, house cats have in some areas become the hunted, new research indicates.



In a new study of coyotes living among people in the heart of Tucson, cats were the coyotes’ most common meal, making up 42 percent of their diet, university researchers reported in the Journal of Wildlife Management. Among scores of confrontations between coyotes and cats, cats were killed more than half the time.



Birding organizations such as the American Bird Conservancy (ABC), which estimates that free-roaming cats kill more than 100 million birds each year, were quick to encourage cat owners to keep cats inside.



That’s something many cat owners are loath to do. It’s long been known that coyotes attack pets, but there’s also a sense that cats can scamper up a tree if they sense danger, says Harris.



That vastly understates the danger, she says. “A coyote can jump a six-foot fence and take a small dog or cat and be back in a flash – do it right in front of you.”



Past research has indicated that the number of pets lost to wild predators is relatively small. But the new study, combined with the expansion of coyotes into suburban and urban areas nationwide, has researchers suggesting the threat to pets, especially cats, is much greater than realized.



“The number of cats killed by coyotes in the West and nationwide is a lot higher than many people think,” says Paul Krausman, a coauthor of the study and professor of wildlife conservation at the University of Montana. “Humans are setting a banquet out for them – leaving out dog and cat food – and even their small dogs and cats.”



The study also raises questions about the wisdom of “trap, neuter, and release” (TNR) programs used by a number of cities to deal with rapidly growing feral cat populations, says George Fenwick, president of ABC.



In a press release, ABC called TNR programs “well-meaning but misguided,” adding that releasing neutered feral cats back into the wild was “providing an all-you-can-eat buffet for coyotes.”



That has feral cat program managers arching their backs a bit.



“The bird people are always exaggerating the danger cats pose,” says Carol Ameer, treasurer of the San Diego-based Feral Cat Coalition. “What we’ve found is that TNR works and eliminates a source of food for coyotes.”



“No one is going to snap their fingers and make these feral cats disappear; there has to be a program to deal with it,” adds Dorinda Pulliam, director of the Town Lake Animal Shelter in Austin, Texas.



Ms. Pulliam oversees an active TNR program that has sterilized 10,000 cats in the past two years. Whether such programs actually reduce populations is hotly disputed. She declined to estimate how many feral cats roam Austin, but said the numbers entering the shelter are declining.



Could that be because coyotes are eating them? Pulliam says she doubts that. But some residents suggest that Austin, which has a coyote control program, stop killing coyotes and let those predators take care of Austin’s feral cats.



Austin bird lover Susan Schaffel comments: “People around here leave their cat food on the back porch so Puss in Boots can roam all day long killing birds, and then call the city when a coyote eats the cat food – and then their cat.”



Harris thinks the solution is to keep cats indoors. “I’m always amazed at how people can’t imagine changing their cats’ lives because they say it might affect their happiness,” she says. “But I think it’s better for your best friend to stay indoors and live a long life than to be eaten alive.”



Editor’s note: For more articles about the environment, see the Monitor’s main environment page, which offers information on many topics. Also, check out our Bright Green blog archive and our RSS feed.

AAC Meeting Schedule for Implementation Plan Topics

Nov 30th:
AAC Recommendation III: Structural Changes to Enhance Lifesaving
A: Revise Mission of Animal Services

Dec 7th:
AAC Recommendation I: Increase Live Outcomes
A1:Offsite Adoptions

Dec 14th:
AAC Recommendation I: Increase Live Outcomes
A2-6: Increased Capacity for Adoption
make-ready, behavioral, empty kennel usage, Davenport building use after shelter move, and increased public awareness.

Dec 21st:
AAC Recommendation I: Increase Live Outcomes
B: Large Scale Foster Program

Dec 28th:
AAC Recommendation II: Decrease Shelter Intake
A: Reduce Euthanasia of Owned Animals
Increased Return to Owners, Increased owner awareness of possible euthanasia, increased owner safety net services

Jan 4th:
AAC Recommendation II: Decrease Shelter Intake
B: Reduce Feral Cat Euthanasia
Increased feral cat spay/neuter, increased community care, and increased re-release rates

Jan 11th:
AAC Recommendation II: Decrease Shelter Intake
C: High Volume, Free and Low Cost Spay/Neuter
Increased services available to the community

Jan 18th:
AAC Recommendation III: Structural Changes to Enhance Lifesaving
C: Public Involvement and Candor
Increased Public Relations on all aspects of sheltering

Jan 25th:
AAC Recommendation III: Structural Changes to Enhance Lifesaving
D: Explore Outsourcing Possibilities
Increased community involvement to reduce costs and increase lifesaving

Feb 1st:
Finalize draft of implementation plan.

More information can be found at the TLAC website "In the Community" page…

Elkhart, Indiana needs Nathan Winograd

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34117457/ns/us_news-the_elkhart_project

ELKHART, Ind.— Each day at five, staff members of the Humane Society of Elkhart County close the animal shelter and hold a meeting. And each day, like clockwork, they begin hearing a “thump, thump, thump” from outside.
That is the sound of pets being abandoned by owners who either do not want them or cannot care for them anymore.
Among the recent arrivals left in “drop boxes” — kennels that are accessible through doors on the outside of the facility — are Sweet Pea, a Chihuahua being nursed back to health from near starvation, a cocker spaniel named Cookie and a “family” of three pets left together — a dog, a cat and rat.
These animals add to the usual traffic of strays, rabid raccoons and animals rescued from abuse. When the drop boxes are full, the Humane Society finds pets tied up at the door, or — as was the case with a domesticated ferret — running around in the parking lot. Recently a whole litter of kittens was left in the Humane Society dumpster.

With as many as 600 or 700 animals arriving each month — sometimes 30 animals in a single day — the facility, which has space for only 266, is in crisis mode.
'Unsavory position'

The numbers are “staggering” and resources are stretched, said Ann Reel, the Humane Society of Elkhart County’s executive director.
“Since the economy has been like this, even rescuers have been down,” she said, referring to nonprofits that provide temporary homes until animals can be adopted. “(Now) we’re in the unsavory position of having to euthanize because we just can’t turn animals around fast enough.”
In one month alone, the shelter had to euthanize 600 animals, she said. Carissa Ray/msnbc.comJack O'Lantern, an orange tabby cat, was thrown from a car in front of the Humane Society of Elkhart County's shelter over Halloween weekend.

The Humane Society staff believes the poor economy is behind the high rate of abandonment — forcing people to give up pets when they run out of money to feed them or lose their homes and move into apartments or in with relatives. It’s impossible to know for sure because many people drop off their pets anonymously in the drop boxes and don’t fill out the forms that would help the Humane Society staff understand the animal’s health background and breeding. Since October 2008, the shelter has handled 5,783 animals, 42 percent of which were abandoned anonymously.
“For the most part, people just cram the animal in the door, get in their car and speed away as fast as possible,” said Reel. “Occasionally we have someone walk through the front door and say ‘I’ve been laid off my job, we’re moving into an apartment, we can’t find anyone to take them,’ and do it responsibly.”
Looming cuts?

The number of cats dropped off is especially high, perhaps because people have been reluctant to spend money to spay or neuter their cats under current economic conditions.
The Humane Society is struggling to meet the increased demand. Its budget for free spaying and neutering of cats was shot by April. The pet assistance program, which provides free pet food to help owners who are struggling financially, had 444 requests this year, about two-thirds of them first-time requests. This program is important because it keeps pets with their owners, avoiding unnecessary abandonment.
About half of the Humane Society’s $700,000 annual budget is provided by the county and cities, under a contract for animal control. But the organization is anticipating cuts in the next round of government budgets and, like many nonprofits, is casting about for new fundraising ideas, and trying to expand its donor base.Carissa Ray/msnbc.comA dog sits quietly at the Humane Society of Elkhart County while awaiting adoption.

Meanwhile, Reel brought in a fatigue specialist to work with the staff of 16.
“We are overwhelmed in trying to decide who stays and who will have to be eliminated,” she said, referring to animals that have to be euthanized. “It takes a toll on our staff. It is not a pleasant job. “
The staff also grapple with a year caring for and cleaning up after all these creatures — many which are in terrible condition by the time they are dropped off, with severe such maladies as ringworm, fleas and mange. That requires careful handling, and a lot of bleach to prevent the spread of disease.
When people ask Reel, “How can I help?” she tells them to “adopt, donate or send bleach.”

Las Vegas enacts mandatory spay/neuter law

Las Vegas enacts mandatory spay/neuter law
Nov 23, 2009

DVM NEWSMAGAZINE

Las Vegas -- Las Vegas residents will have to make sure they aren’t keeping intact pets without a special permit starting this spring or they will have to pay hefty fines.

Las Vegas City Council approved an ordinance to mandate spay and neutering of all cats and dogs by the age of four months after hours of deliberation Nov. 18. Some questions arose over whether four months was too young an age to require sterilization and whether mandatory sterilization programs are really effective in reducing unwanted pet populations. Still, the measure passed 5-2 and will take effect April 1.
Exceptions are included in the ordinance that exempt animals medically unfit to undergo the operation or specially trained service animals. Breeders who have specific permits also will be exempt from the law, but violators will face misdemeanor charges and a $225 first-time offense fine. Fines for the second and third offenses are $500 and $1,000, respectively. Owners who can show proof of sterilization within thirty days of an offense can get their fines reduced by 80 percent, according to the legislation.
A portion of the fines collected through enforcement of the new law will be used to set up a fund to provide public assistance for pet owners who can’t afford to pay for spay/neuter procedures.
North Las Vegas passed a similar law in January 2008 and Clark County, Nev., also is considering a mandatory spay/neuter law. A statewide mandatory spay/neuter law has failed more than once in California, and cities like New Orleans and Chicago have considered, but never passed, similar laws.
Letters will sent to new pet owners about the law’s requirements, and pet stores must turn over new pet owner information to authorities each quarter to help achieve full compliance.

Sheryl Crow takes up cause of wild horses in West

Sheryl Crow takes up cause of wild horses in West


RENO, Nev. — Sheryl Crow is joining others in calling on the federal government to halt wild horse roundups in the West, branding them as inhumane and unnecessary.

The Grammy Award-winning singer is asking President Barack Obama and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to scrap a proposed roundup of 2,500 mustangs in northern Nevada.
Crow campaigned for Obama last year and performed at his inauguration. She opposes Salazar's plan to move thousands of wild horses to preserves in the Midwest and East to protect horse herds and the rangelands that support them.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management officials say they plan to remove 11,500 wild horses and burros from the range over each of the next three years because booming numbers of the animals are damaging the range.
http://www.austin360.com/music/content/shared-gen/ap/Recordings/US_People_Sheryl_Crow.html

Agenda for Wed. 11/18 AAC Meeting

ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA


WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2009
5:30 PM
AUSTIN ENERGY BUILDING, FIRST FLOOR ASSEMBLY ROOM
721 BARTON SPRINGS ROAD

1. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL
The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda.

2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES

3.OLD BUSINESS
Report of FY11 Donation Fund Subcommittee Meeting
Disease Control & Cleaning Protocols
Available City & County Buildings

4. NEW BUSINESS
Discussion of Council Resolution to expand scope of the Animal Advisory Commission.
Discussion of potential Bylaws amendment related to change of time and location of regular monthly meeting.
Discussion of posting of Animal Advisory Commission agenda & receiving of backup material.
Discuss Implementation Plan Process

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None

6. STAFF BRIEFINGS
None

7. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

8.ADJOURNMENT
The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least 4 days before the meeting date. Please call Gricelda Diaz at Health & Human Services Department, Animal Services Division at 512: 972-5805, for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.

Austin Chronicle on Item 40 debate

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A912880

City Hall Hustle: Call Us Ambiguous

City legal once again yanks council's chain – will they finally yank back?
BY WELLS DUNBAR

Once, the Hustle asked City Attorney David Smith the color of the sky. Six weeks later, we received an opinion from the Texas Attorney General defining the answer as privileged information.
All right, that's a little bit of a stretch – emphasis on little – but currently relevant, as the city attorney's office, and its operations and reporting, are again in the limelight following its opinion on a relatively straightforward City Council resolution last week, which seemed to suggest that council has no business directing city programs.

The action in question, Item 40, directs the city manager to work with the Animal Advisory Commission in developing an implementation plan for the commission's recommendations regarding the Town Lake Animal Center – things like a larger adoption program and low-cost spay/neuter programs. But council discussion hinged on the worry – propagated by our old friends at city legal – that council was conceivably overstepping its powers in giving direction to City Manager Marc Ott, specifically by directing that city staff work with the commission. Bill Spelman drew out the issue, asking Ott if the direction gave him "any heartburn." Ott replied
him "any heartburn." Ott replied that after speaking with the city attorney's office, he had concerns that the resolution "may blur the lines" between "the policymaking responsibilities of council and the manager's responsibilities for the administrative services and management of the organization. ... It's a little ambiguous."
Ambiguity was in the air all week, as city legal had been corresponding with Item 40 sponsor Laura Mor­ri­son. Legal, natch, declined to share its advice with the Hustle without an AG opinion, but Morrison's office forwarded an e-mail from Assistant City Attorney Cary Grace. Sent the day of the meeting, it read: "The under­lying AAC report does not clearly differentiate between policy recommendations and programmatic and personnel issues. For this reason, language requiring an 'implementation plan' blurs the line between council-manager authority."
Back in chambers, discussion centered on the concept of "programmatic" powers to develop and implement programs. Grace told council that pinpointing "what is programmatic versus what is policy is sometimes easy, sometimes not." Deciding which is "less of a legal discussion and more of a policy and administrative discussion." But seconds earlier, Grace seemed to vest those powers solely with Ott, saying "in essence, it depends on how the manager manages as to whether or not he believes a particular directive to be programmatic."
"The word 'programmatic' was problematic," Morrison told me afterward, noting "the word 'program' is not in the city charter, with regard to the city manager." Taking a more bullish approach to council's powers, she points to charter language – that "all powers of the city shall be vested" in council – as supporting her claim it's "absolutely within the council's authority and responsibility" to develop programs. Moreover, she says, "It almost seemed to be suggested by our legal department that it was the city manager's responsibility and authority to make the decision as to ... what was under his authority or the council's authority. I think that that was possibly suggested by some of what was said, and that is a position I would certainly disagree with."
Item 40 passed; as all it does is develop an implementation plan, Mayor Lee Leffingwell voiced the consensus it's "basically a direction to go forward and develop a final product," one that will be further vetted by council. But some on the dais chafed at the discussion they'd just witnessed. "What is going on up here?" Randi Shade asked, saying the debate over the item's direction to Ott was "splitting hairs." And astutely, she wagered "the reason why there is this angst" is because staff and the differing animal constituencies "have not worked as well together as they could in the past." Reached later, Shade could "think of countless examples" where Ott worked with stakeholder groups on issues. And she feared the discussion obfuscated the larger issue of animal welfare.
Mike Martinez was characteristically blunt, saying: "If the city charter doesn't allow us to direct the city manager to sit down and work with people, then we have a serious problem with our charter. It just blows me away. ... It's very simple: the council reserves the right and the authority to direct the city manager to implement programs, to create programs, and even be specific. "I'll be supporting this motion," he concluded, "and if we need to do a charter amendment in a few years, I'll support that too."
By coincidence, the day after the meeting, the city auditor issued a response to a question previously posed by Morrison: How common is Austin's city attorney arrangement, under which the office reports to the city manager (as opposed to, say, the council)? Of the nation's 50 largest cities, only 19 have Austin's council-manager form of government, and of those 19, only three city attorneys – Austin's included – report to the city manager. After last week's constitutional crisis in miniature, those numbers should be on everyone's minds in City Hall.
Deliver your opinion on Twitter: @CityHallHustle.

AAC Recommendations to City Council to Reduce Killing of Homeless Animals

City of Austin Animal Advisory Commission
Report to Council Regarding Recommendations

Dear Mayor and Council Members,

On January 15, 2009, you passed a resolution observing that the “City of Austin has a long-standing goal of ending the euthanization of adoptable pets at its animal shelter, but we have much to do to meet this goal,” and directing us “to evaluate and make recommendations on policies and programs proven to be effective at reducing the killing of homeless animals, including, but not limited to, policies and programs related to reducing the intake, and increasing live outcomes of shelter animals.” We have dedicated five Commission meetings to implementing your directive, and we thank you for the opportunity to provide input on this very important subject.

Report Summary:

It is our conclusion, that with a renewed focus on and dedication to life-saving solutions, Austin’s Town Lake Animal Center could save as many as—or more than—ninety percent of animals that enter the shelter within eighteen months. Austin is a progressive community of animal lovers who overwhelmingly support our city’s lost and homeless pets. The City of Austin, along with non-profit organizations like Emancipet, the Austin Humane Society, Austin Pets Alive!, Animal Trustees of Austin, FixAustin.org, the ASPCA and countless others, have dedicated tremendous resources towards improving the outlook for homeless dogs and cats. If the City’s shelter rigorously implements the proven programs and policies we detail in this letter, Austin can and should quickly join the ranks of America’s “No Kill” communities.

I. RECOMMENDATIONS TO INCREASE LIVE OUTCOMES

A. Comprehensive Adoption Program

Town Lake Animal Center should immediately design and implement a comprehensive program to increase adoptions of impounded animals. This program should include:

1. Off-site adoption locations throughout the City and County staffed seven days a week in high-traffic areas. This is a core life-saving program of highest importance to reducing Austin’s kill rate and can be expected to save several thousand additional lives each year;

2. Mechanisms (such as a partnership with EmanciPET) to increase the capacity of the shelter to make more impounded animals available and ready for adoption;

3. Employing training techniques to solve treatable behavioral issues in impounded cats and dogs;

4. Ending the option of killing any healthy and non-aggressive animal while cages or kennels are unused;

5. Developing a plan to maximize the utility and usage of the Davenport Building and existing shelter structures in compliance with the Council’s October 2007 directive; and,

6. Implementing a public-awareness campaign to educate the public about the adoptable and lovable nature of shelter animals (including establishing long and short-term media partnerships).

Each of these programs, if implemented, should be anticipated to increase the number of impounded dogs and cats adopted from Austin’s animal shelter. To maximize live outcomes and avoid budgetary increases, staff should train and trust volunteers to conduct core life-saving programs like off-site adoptions, behavioral training, and public relations. Staff should also work with non-profit groups like EmanciPET and Animal Trustees of Austin to find ways to become more efficient in making animals ready for adoption.

B. Large-Scale Volunteer Foster Program

Austin’s animal shelter should design and implement a large-scale volunteer foster program to immediately increase shelter capacity in order to save more lives. In a progressive community like Austin, it is an achievable goal that no healthy kitten or puppy should be euthanized as a result of being too young for adoption. The shelter management should train and trust volunteers to play a core life-saving role in fostering dogs and cats. A foster program on the scale of other communities should be our goal. Volunteers in Charlottesville, Virginia, fostered 1,700 animals in 2007 in a community of roughly 100,000 residents. Said another way, about one animal was fostered for every 60 residents in the community. If TLAC implemented a foster program to the same scale, over 11,500 animals would be fostered—more than the number of animals predicted to be euthanized at the shelter this year. Foster programs can be cost-effective and revenue-neutral because fosters pay for food and shelter and the City retains adoption fees (and avoids disposal costs) for every additional life saved.

II. RECOMMENDATIONS TO DECREASE SHELTER INTAKE

A. Reduce the Euthanasia of Owned Animals

One of the key ways to reduce shelter killing is to increase the number of already-owned animals being returned to their homes. The shelter should do this in three ways:

1. Replicate the policies of cities (like Reno, Nevada) that have significantly higher return-to-owner rates and implement policies designed to train Animal Control and Austin Police Department officers to identify additional opportunities to return animals to their homes. Efforts should include outfitting officers with microchip scanners, and engaging the community where a dog or cat is found. Microchip scanners can be placed in all fire stations so lost pets can be identified and returned to owners. All available efforts should be made to return already-owned animals (whether indicated by condition of animal or presence of collar) to their owners.

2. Prepare an owner-surrender disclaimer to ensure that an owner surrendering his animal to TLAC fully understand the chances of the animal being adopted or killed. The disclaimer should clearly indicate the number of animals killed in the prior year, and shelter staff should read the disclaimer to persons contemplating surrendering their pet.

3. Provide resources, such as a Pet Safety Net Hotline and owner counseling, to provide alternative solutions to owners contemplating pet surrender. The shelter should partner with the City’s 311 service, the Statesman Inside Line, the ASPCA, and/or the Denver Hotline to help owners solve routine problems before they lead to owner surrenders.

B. Reduce Feral-Cat Euthanasia

There is no reason to kill a healthy, feral cat in the City’s animal shelter. Other communities throughout the United States have demonstrated success in dramatically reducing feral-cat intake through aggressive trap-neuter-release programs. The shelter should partner with rescue groups, other non-profits, and volunteers to implement and fund the program. In addition, the City should help rescue groups maintain feral cat colonies by setting up food donation sites, educating the public, and coordinating the purchasing and distribution of food.

C. High-Volume, Free and Low-Cost Spay/Neuter

The City shelter should maintain its efforts to help EmanciPET and Animal Trustees of Austin provide free and low-cost spay/neuter services. It is estimated that eighty percent of Austin’s pet owners already spay and neuter their pets, and cost is the primary reason other owners do not do so. The City should continue its efforts to promote spay/neuter in order to continue reducing shelter intake. Shelter staff should also work with the veterinary community to design partner programs to reduce shelter intake.

III. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL CHANGES TO ENHANCE LIFESAVING

We recognize that saving the lives of our community’s lost and homeless pets is about more than specific programs. It is also about the overall objectives and management of animal-services tasks. Accordingly, we also recommend that the City of Austin:

A. Revise the Mission of Animal Services

The City Council should revise the goals and objectives of Austin’s Animal Services to reflect Council’s clear directive to reduce the killing of lost and homeless pets by increasing live outcomes and reducing shelter intake. The Council should formally adopt a goal of saving 90% of impounded animals, a goal that has proven reachable in communities all across the United States. In addition, additional performance measurements should be included in TLAC’s monthly and annual reports. For example, reports should include the number of animals adopted at TLAC off-site adoptions, the number of animals fostered in TLAC’s foster program, and the number of animals transferred to each partner program that rescues ten or more animals annually.

B. Ensure a Compassionate Management and Staff

The City Manager should ensure that the Animal Services Department is fully onboard with the Council’s new directive to make Austin a “No Kill” City by saving 90% of impounded animals. Shelter management and staff should clearly identify and implement the Council’s goals of increasing live outcomes and reducing shelter intake. Any employees of the shelter who reject the Council’s directives either through disagreement or lack of effort should be removed or reassigned.

C. Public Involvement and Candor

In order for Austin to become a “No Kill” City, Austin’s shelter must engage the pubic, trust the public, and repeatedly ask for its assistance. This includes galvanizing adopters and volunteers and asking for donations and fosters. Rather than seeking to blame the public for the pet “problem,” the shelter should ask the public to be the “solution.” In addition, the shelter should aim to be candid with the public at all times, including being honest about the shelter’s kill rate. Finally, the shelter should completely revamp its website, providing (1) much more information about each animal in its care (including where a stray animal was picked up, personality traits if known, etc.), (2) candor about the number of animals killed at the shelter, and (3) opportunities to help reduce the unnecessary killing of sheltered animals.

D. Explore Outsourcing Possibilities

The City Manager should explore the possibility of outsourcing. Private partners, rescue groups, and non-profits should be permitted to bid on services (such as adoption, veterinary care, etc.) that they may be able to perform at substantially reduced costs.

IV. CONCLUSION

We sincerely thank you, the Austin City Council, for giving us the opportunity to provide our recommendations for the implementation of policies and programs that will increase live outcomes and reduce shelter intake at Town Lake Animal Center. We firmly believe that with the right policies and programs in place, Austin can and should quickly become a national leader in animal sheltering—saving the lives of 90% or more of our community’s impounded dogs and cats.

Come to City Hall on November 10, 6:30 pm

A LOT has been going on this month - 2 Council Resolutions (including the one today about implementing the AAC recommendations), an exciting Community Action meeting on October 27, groundbreaking Statesman editorials about No Kill, unfortunate break-ins at ATA's clinic, a lawsuit about sick and healthy animals housed in the same building at TLAC, use of voucher program instead of AHS Clinic in December for feral cats, discussions about use of the current shelter for an Adoption Center and, of course, the ambitious and exciting Austin Pets Alive proposal for partnership with the City to save more animals who are currently caught in the "bottleneck" at TLAC.

We need to talk about all of these issues and how to take advantage of the great energy going on right now to make the best thing possible happen for our city's homeless pets.

Thanks to sponsorship from Council Member Cole and help from her staff member, Tara, we have a great meeting room - the staff bullpen - which should allow us to discuss the above issues for two hours - 6:30 - 8:30 pm.

KXAN: Austin moves toward no-kill animal city

KXAN video:
http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/austin_moves_toward_no_kill_animal_city

Austin moves toward no-kill animal city
City could reach 90 percent save rate in 18 months
Updated: Thursday, 05 Nov 2009, 2:32 PM CST
Matt Flener

AUSTIN (KXAN) - Austin's City Council took a major step Thursday to make Austin a "no-kill" city for animals.
The council told City Manager Marc Ott to save more dogs and cats from death at the Town Lake Animal Shelter, and the action puts more pressure on city staff, after not reaching its "no-kill" goal in 2002.
The city's Animal Advisory Commission sent a report to the council earlier this year saying the council should adopt a policy of saving 90 percent of impounded animals at the shelter.
Shelter employees put to death nearly 10,000 animals in 2008.
The Animal Advisory Commission said the City of Austin should consider public and private partnerships with various pet organizations and rescue groups around the city.
The recommendations also include directives to staff adoption centers around the city seven days a week and providing more low-cost spay and neuter services.
Another recommendation includes giving police officers microchip scanners and placing those in fire stations as well.
Animal shelter staff would also be required to tell owners dropping off their pets about the high possibility of adoption or death.

Fox News: City Council votes 7-0 in favor of No Kill resolution

Fox News video:
http://www.myfoxaustin.com/dpp/news/local/110509-city-looks-to-pass-no-kill-resolution

City Council Passes "No Kill" Resolution

Updated: Thursday, 05 Nov 2009, 5:42 PM CST
Published : Thursday, 05 Nov 2009, 10:15 AM CST

Austin, TX (myFOXaustin.com) - The City Council passed a resolution Thursday that will mandate Town Lake Animal Center to implement the policies and programs recommended by the Animal Advisory Commission to make Austin a "No Kill" city. The recommendations brought forth to the counci will give a clear plan to achieve a 90% save rate at Town Lake Animal Shelter within 18 months by changing some existing policies and implementing new programs.
The Animal Advisory Commission reported to the Mayor and City Council back in January their final recommendations in the hopes of reducing the killing of homeless animals and reducing the intake of animals at shelters.
Some of the recommedations include:
1.Off-site adoption throughout the City and County staffed 7 days a week in high traffic areas.
2.Partnerships with EmanciPet to help increase the capicity of the shelter to make more impounded animals ready for adoption.
3.Employing training techniques to help resolve treatable behaviorial issues in adoptable cats and dogs.
4.End the killing of any healthy or non-aggressive dog while kennels or cages are unused.
5.Developing a plan to maximize the utility and usage of the Davenport Building and existing shelter structures in compliance with the Council’s October 2007 directive
6.Implementing a public-awareness campaign to educate the public about the adoptable and lovable nature of shelter animals.

In addition to these recommendations, the Commission also used case examples from various cities throughout the U.S. to show how they worked within their policies and progrmas to become “No Kill” communities. Organizations such as EmanciPet, Austin Humane Society, Fixaustin.org, AustinPetsAlive and ASPCA all are pushing for Austin to quickly join the ranks of America's "No Kill" communities.

Austin's four-legged friends await moral progress

EDITORIAL: AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
Thursday, November 05, 2009
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/2009/11/05/1105pets_edit.html

A favorite expression of animal welfare groups in Austin is one attributed to spiritual leader Mahatma Gandhi: "One can measure the greatness and the moral progress of a nation by looking at how it treats its animals."

Today, the Austin City Council will be tested on its moral progress regarding dogs and cats as it decides whether to pass a resolution adopting recommendations that would provide for better treatment of animals.

The Austin Animal Advisory Commission is recommending a comprehensive adoption and foster care program for animals that end up at the Town Lake Animal Center. Approving the recommendations would move Austin closer to its goal of becoming a no-kill city.
For more than a decade, different councils have talked about, but not followed through on, making the shelter a no-kill facility. The deadline for that goal — 2002 — has come and gone.
The choice before the council is to do nothing and therefore allow the shelter to continue to rely on euthanizing animals to control Travis County's animal population or adopt the reasonable and affordable recommendations of the animal commission, whose members are appointed by the City Council.
Ten thousand animals were euthanized last year at the Town Lake Animal Center. We're ready for some moral progress.

Council resolution could make Town Lake Animal Shelter a 'no kill' facility

View KVUE news story video at:
http://www.kvue.com/news/local/Council-resolution-could-make-town-lake-animal-shelter-a-no-kill-facility-68969892.html

by QUITA CULPEPPER / KVUE News

Posted on November 3, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Updated yesterday at 5:22 PM
The Town Lake Animal Shelter was supposed to become a "no kill" facility by 2002 -- that didn't happen.
Now, a new resolution being heard by the Austin City Council on Thursday would have City Manager Marc Ott work with the Austin Animal Advisory Commission.
The goal is to find new policies and procedures to drastically reduce the number of healthy dogs and cats killed at the shelter.
According to the commission, many strays picked up by the city are put down after three days -- animals given up by their owners may be euthanized immediately.
Scores of puppies and kittens with minor health concerns are also put to sleep.
Close to 10,000 animals were put to sleep at the shelter in 2008.
One recommendation would be to establish a comprehensive adoption program -- for example, having locations throughout the city and county staffed seven days a week.
The commission also recommends ending the option of killing healthy and non-aggressive animals while cages and kennels go unused.
Commission members also want the city to create a large scale volunteer foster program -- the goal being as more dogs are put in foster care, shelter capacity would increase.
The council resolution directs the City Manager's Office to present a plan to save more animals at the shelter by March 2010.

Council resolution could make Town Lake Animal Shelter a 'no kill' facility

by QUITA CULPEPPER / KVUE News

Posted on November 3, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Updated yesterday at 5:22 PM
The Town Lake Animal Shelter was supposed to become a "no kill" facility by 2002 -- that didn't happen.
Now, a new resolution being heard by the Austin City Council on Thursday would have City Manager Marc Ott work with the Austin Animal Advisory Commission.
The goal is to find new policies and procedures to drastically reduce the number of healthy dogs and cats killed at the shelter.
According to the commission, many strays picked up by the city are put down after three days -- animals given up by their owners may be euthanized immediately.
Scores of puppies and kittens with minor health concerns are also put to sleep.
Close to 10,000 animals were put to sleep at the shelter in 2008.
One recommendation would be to establish a comprehensive adoption program -- for example, having locations throughout the city and county staffed seven days a week.
The commission also recommends ending the option of killing healthy and non-aggressive animals while cages and kennels go unused.
Commission members also want the city to create a large scale volunteer foster program -- the goal being as more dogs are put in foster care, shelter capacity would increase.
The council resolution directs the City Manager's Office to present a plan to save more animals at the shelter by March 2010.

Community Action Meeting on October 27

Coverage of the meeting on Fox.
http://www.myfoxaustin.com/dpp/news/local/102709_Groups_Urge_Changes_to_Animal_Shelter

Unfortunately, Fox did not mention the unanimous vote by 125+ participants in favor of:
1. asking City Council to adopt the Animal Advisory Commission recommendations on ways to increase live outcomes.
2. asking the City to approve the Austin Pets Alive proposal for a partnership with the City to increase live outcomes.

Pat Valls-Trelles

Creature Consciousness

Animal studies tests the boundary between human and animal—and between academic and advocate

http://chronicle.com/article/Creature-Consciousness/48804/

By Jennifer Howard
Critics of zoos usually compare them to prisons. Ralph R. Acampora, an associate professor of philosophy at Hofstra University, thinks zoo confinement is closer to pornography. "Both participants in pornography and inhabitants of zoos are slaves to other people's desire for viewing, for sight," he explains. All "have their real nature concealed through their exposure," with zoo animals "reduced to their shapes or colors or stereotypical behaviors."
Acampora's line of thought blends theoretical inquiry with strongly held ethical concerns about how we humans interact with nonhuman animals. He and other philosophers devoted to applied ethics—traditionally a marginalized enterprise, at least in American philosophy departments—are part of a growing number of humanities and social-science scholars involved in the field of animal studies. Bringing together many different species of academic research, animal studies has become a force to be reckoned with in philosophy, literary and cultural studies, history, and other fields with a traditionally humanistic bent.
"All too human": For these scholars, the phrase sums up the limitations of their disciplines. Why, they ask, should it be all about us, when we are only one link in the great chain of being? "Humans are animals, too, and a lot of our existence is shaped by our evolutionary history, our biology, our circadian rhythms, the very narrow climate bandwidth in which we flourish," says Cary Wolfe, a professor of English at Rice University and one of the leading theorists in animal studies.
Spurred on by a shift in consciousness that has been going on for several decades, beginning with the environmental and social-justice movements of the 1960s and 70s, scholars like Wolfe and Acampora are finding new ways to tackle "the question of the animal"—or, more accurately, the flock of questions that circle around the term "animal." These scholars want to break down the categories and distinctions that have defined how we think about our relationship to everything that is not us. Some of them see it as nothing less than a revolution in how to think and how to live.
Related Content
Moral in Tooth and Claw
A Theory of Critters
Animals Reconsidered
Presses, Journals, and Meetings Buzz With Animal Studies
"What you have is a whole new set of theoretical paradigms that cut across what were previously separate and discrete ontological domains," Wolfe says. "The question is, How does the nature of thought itself have to change? How does the nature of reading have to change in the face of this new object of study?"
Taken far enough, animal studies demolishes what Wolfe calls "the fundamental mechanism of humanism": the insistence on putting the human subject at the center of things. Humans' pride of place is reinforced by the separation of "human" and "animal" into separate, even opposed, categories. That model has prevailed, at least in the West, since the Enlightenment.
Dismantling that model takes animal-studies scholars in different directions depending on their home disciplines and the mix of theory and advocacy that they bring to their work. For historians and sociologists, it might mean investigating the roles assigned to animals in 19th-century Britain, for instance, or the use of canines as forced labor in today's dogfighting rings. For scholars with literary, cultural-studies, or philosophy pedigrees, animal-studies work clusters around questions of category and subjectivity—how to move beyond the anthropocentric outlook and anthropomorphizing tendencies of humanism in theory and in practice. Environmentalists and legal scholars have their own ecological or ethical or jurisprudential agendas focused on animals. (For scientists, of course, the phrase "animal studies" usually invokes laboratory experiments involving animals.) If there's one thread that ties together practitioners of animal studies, it's that the old ways of thinking about humans and (other) animals must be discarded or transcended.
Some animal-focused scholars in the humanities and social sciences describe what they do as "human-animal studies," but that term preserves the idea of a divide between "us" (humans) and "them" (all other beings). One school of thought considers animal studies a subset of posthumanism, a movement associated with Donna Haraway's 1985 essay, "A Cyborg Manifesto," which used the metaphor of the human-machine hybrid to push feminism away from its reliance on essentialist arguments.
From a posthumanist perspective, there's no reason that the questions raised by animal studies "have to be limited to carbon-based life forms," says Wolfe, whose forthcoming book, What Is Posthumanism? (University of Minnesota Press, December), explores what might be achieved by rejecting such "classic humanist divisions of self and other, mind and body, society and nature, human and animal, organic and technological," according to the publisher's description.
The book is part of the Posthumanities series Wolfe edits for the University of Minnesota Press, which in 2007 published Haraway's book When Species Meet. (Read an interview with Haraway, Page B12.)
Such boundary crossing is characteristic of animal studies. Many of its scholars, especially in philosophy and literary and cultural studies, feel a debt to Jacques Derrida. The French philosopher's essay "The Animal That Therefore I Am (More to Follow)" is "arguably the single most important event in the brief history of animal studies," Wolfe wrote in a 2009 article for the journal PMLA. In the essay, Derrida writes: "There is no animal in the general singular, separated from man by a single indivisible limit. We have to envisage the existence of 'living creatures' whose plurality cannot be assembled within the single figure of an animality that is simply opposed to humanity." (Based on lectures given by Derrida in France in 1997, the article appeared in Critical Inquiry in 2002, translated by David Wills, who has also contributed a book, Dorsality, to Wolfe's Posthumanities series.)
Derrida's work "has almost single-handedly made the question interesting for people in lots of disciplines," says Matthew Calarco, an assistant professor of philosophy at California State University at Fullerton and the author of Zoologies: The Question of the Animal From Heidegger to Derrida (Columbia University Press, 2008).
Animal studies holds a special appeal for philosophers, like Calarco, who want to pursue ethics. Even with Derrida in his corner, a philosopher with an ethical bent begins at a professional disadvantage. "In the United States, the most powerful departments with the most prestige focus on M&E—metaphysics and epistemology," says Calarco. Subfields of applied ethics such as animal ethics or environmental ethics are considered minor subspecialties, he says. "If you want to write about anything hands-on, it's just considered weak."
So a philosopher like Calarco often looks to scholars in other fields as interlocutors. "If you're going in the animal direction, there's been a rich set of conversations going on throughout the humanities," he says. "Sociology, anthropology, comparative literature, religious studies—those are the ones where I see the most overlap."
Even in philosophy, though, the climate for such investigations is warming. Calarco has noted a new tendency within both the analytic and the Continental traditions, the two big strands of the field, "to start questioning a certain anthropocentric bias." In the past five or six years, for instance, people including Graham Harman, a professor of philosophy at the American University in Cairo, and Ray Brassier, a professor of philosophy at the American University of Beirut, have gotten interested in object-oriented philosophy and what Calarco calls object-object relationships. Harman, for instance, is engaged in what is sometimes referred to as speculative realism. In his book Prince of Networks: Bruno Latour and Metaphysics (re.press, 2009), he writes that he "would even propose a new philosophical discipline called 'speculative psychology' devoted to ferreting out the specific psychic reality of earthworms, dust, armies, chalk, and stone." Such thinking (or rethinking) is congenial to animal-studies scholars who want to break apart the idea of the human subject as the center of things.
Thinkers on both the analytic and Continental sides "are beginning to say that this primacy we give to the human-mind relationship to the world needs to be displaced," Calarco says. "There's a kind of implicit anthropomorphism that dominates philosophy, and that is being attacked from different angles."
For Hofstra's Ralph Acampora, the goal is "trying to build a bigger sense of 'we.'" Instead of anthropomorphizing animals, he wants "to zoomorphize humans." He's interested in "a philosophy of body, what it means to be the sort of creature that's vulnerable to sickness and disease and death." Thinking about how we share such fundamental circumstances with other animals, Acampora says, is "where people's moral intuitions kick in."
Acampora is the author of Corporal Compassion: Animal Ethics and Philosophy of Body (University of Pittsburgh Press, 2006), and he has edited a collection of essays, Zootopian Visions of Animal Encounter: Farewell to Noah (Lexington Books, forthcoming in 2010), which focuses on the issues that zoos raise.
Like many scholars who feel the pull of animal studies, Acampora sees it as a way to combine an interest in theoretical questions with personal principles about how to live. As a child, he recalls, he grew up with many animals in the house. In college, he became involved in animal-rights advocacy. That intensified during his time as a graduate student at Emory University, where he protested research on primates. He helped organize a national animal-rights march on Washington in 1990.
"A good portion of animal studies does have an advocacy background," Acampora says. That can create tensions between scholars who embrace advocacy and those who believe in more dispassionate intellectual inquiry.
Acampora feels comfortable among the advocates. "I no longer feel embarrassed or apologetic about having commitments," he says. "Scholarship is not just concept chess." He says he remains open to opposing arguments but points out that "nobody puts a child psychologist in the doghouse for being a child advocate."
Leaving aside the problem of advocacy, there's no agreement on how to approach "the animal question" intellectually, either. For a scholar like Harriet Ritvo, a professor of history at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, animal studies means different things to different disciplines.
"There really is a difference between the way historians tend to approach this kind of topic and the way people in literary and cultural studies and philosophy do," she says. "Animal studies is more in the province of literary-cultural studies. Historians, myself included, participate in it, but we don't own the label in quite the same way."
A philosopher or a cultural-studies scholar might be more inclined to tackle categories: what "the animal" means. "Grouping all animals as one kind of 'other' in a sense reifies the stark division between people and everything else," Ritvo says. "Historians are addicted to particulars." Her book The Animal Estate: The English and Other Creatures in the Victorian Age (Harvard University Press, 1987), was an early example of a historian delving into "the animal question" as it played out in a multitude of ways in a specific time and place.
In the book, Ritvo connects Victorian Britons' concerns about social roles and status to their thinking about animals, including rhetoric about stock-breeding, hunting, the humane treatment of animals, and menageries and zoos. "In each case she demonstrates the ways in which animals produced and reinforced the boundaries between social classes and racial groups," according to a review in the journal Environmental History. Hence the breeding of prize cattle "reinforced the traditional hierarchies of rural society," while anti-cruelty legislation "was used to define and control working- and lower-class behavior," the review said.
That kind of work has really taken off among historians in the last 10 to 15 years, Ritvo says. "When I started writing this kind of thing, people thought it was funny. Now they don't. It has become, in many disciplines, one of a range of subjects that you can take up."
At the curricular level, courses with some kind of animal-studies emphasis are popping up almost everywhere, in law schools and in literature departments. But students cannot yet get a Ph.D. in animal studies.
Michigan State University is edging closer. It has had an animal-studies graduate specialization for about a year now. Linda Kalof, a professor of sociology, founded and directs the program. "We are the first doctoral specialization in animal studies anywhere in the world," she says. "We focus primarily on the question of how animals figure in human lives and how humans figure in animal lives, from a social-science and humanities perspective." The program attracts faculty members and students from beyond those areas, too. Professors from the school of veterinary medicine and from the law school take part, as do students from zoology and animal science as well as sociology, anthropology, and American studies.
From the outset, Kalof wanted the program to include a range of disciplines and politics. The toughest part, she says, was convincing people from the agricultural school that the program wasn't all about animal-rights advocacy.
"We have all ideologies represented," Kalof observes: scholars who support experimentation on animals and those who lobby against it, for instance. "We advocate all views because we think that conversation needs to be held in an intellectual environment and not on the blogs of particular individuals railing against PETA or against factory farming."
That leads to some complex conversations in the classroom. One of Kalof's research topics is the exploitation of dogs as labor—in dogfighting rings, for instance. But she remembers one student who grew up around cockfighting in Mexico and who was able to give his classmates a sense of a cultural tradition that supports such uses of animals.
Kalof may have succeeded in achieving a balance among advocacy and other perspectives in her program, but she thinks that any attempt to define animal studies more formally—through a scholarly society, for instance—runs the risk of excluding those who are not animal advocates. "I would very much like to see a professional society that is truly interdisciplinary and would not exclude folks on ideological preferences or eating preferences," she says. "The advocacy component may be the very thing that ghettoizes animal studies in the end."
Special sections or program committees within scholarly societies have been one means by which animal studies has been developing as a discipline. The American Sociological Association, for instance, has an Animals and Society section, whose mission is "to encourage and support the development of theory, research, and teaching about the complex relationships that exist between humans and other animals." Here, too, one hears a note of advocacy: "In the process, it is anticipated that the light we shed on these issues will increase the well-being of both humans and other animals."
As animals studies draws more scholars, the question of where to house it—what kind of institutional presence it ought to have—becomes more pressing. Measured by research activity, including book series and journals that explore human-nonhuman interactions from different angles, animal studies "is doing quite well," says Kenneth Shapiro, editor of the journal Society and Animals, which has been published since the early 1990s. "Where we're not doing so well," he says, is in developing "an institutional structure or an institutional presence for the field." Shapiro is executive director of the Animals and Society Institute, an independent organization whose mission is "advancing the status of animals in public policy and promoting the study of human-animal relationships."
The group has been talking with a handful of universities about setting up a more academic-focused institute where scholars interested in animal studies could find resources and support. Once established, the center "could spawn some kind of professional organization that's a resource for these scholars," says Shapiro.
One of the field's strengths—its truly interdisciplinary nature—is a double-edged sword, institutionally and intellectually. Its appeal relies in part on transcending disciplines, but universities are traditionally organized by discipline.
"Certainly the game would be easier if we were in, say, sociology," Shapiro says. "This is more creative, more challenging. That's what the field is. You could search for one field that would be the best home for it, but you'd lose a great deal." He hopes that animal studies will follow the path to acceptance taken by women's studies and black studies.
Other scholars, though, see risks along that road. "There's a danger of a kind of genericization and a kind of ghettoization," says Cary Wolfe. He would not like to see animal studies become "just another flavor of the month."
Matthew Calarco also believes that the risk of being sidelined is real. In a sense, the field still "doesn't know if it exists," he says. "There certainly are no jobs in it, and there are no full-blown departments." Calarco worries that "there's a general trend for it to become another one of these minority studies. I hate that phrase, but I don't know what else to call it."
The idea of finding a comfortable home within academe does not really fit with the most revolutionary goals of animal studies anyway. Take the "question of the animal" seriously, and "it starts to destabilize traditional boundaries of consideration—who counts and why we think they count," Calarco explains. "When you start thinking along these lines and you push and you push and you push, ethics is going to explode."
Taken far enough, animal studies ultimately points to "a revision of our most basic social institutions and our most fundamental intellectual assumptions," Calarco says. "There are no guideposts. You're on very experimental terrain."n
Jennifer Howard is a staff reporter for The Chronicle.

Draft resolution re AAC scope, 10/22/09

Resolution NO.

WHEREAS, the City of Austin’s boards and commissions serve as conduits to stakeholder groups, citizens and the City Council to discuss and strategize about City of Austin policies; and

WHEREAS, Texas State Health and Safety Code §823.005 requires the establishment of an animal advisory committee in municipalities that operate an animal shelter; and

WHEREAS, the Animal Advisory Commission was established to serve the City Council as an advisory resource on animal welfare policies; and

WHEREAS, respectful partnerships between the City of Austin, private citizens, and private agencies can result in significant beneficial animal welfare outcomes; NOW THEREFORE,

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Austin:

The City Manager is hereby directed to prepare an ordinance amending Chapter 2-1-102 of the City Code that changes subsection (E) to:

The Commission shall:
advise the City Council on animal welfare policies, except on issues that remain within the City Manager’s sole purview, such as staffing;
advise the City Council on budget priorities identified by the Commission and the community;
promote collaboration between the City and private citizens, institutions, and agencies interested in or conducting activities relating to animal welfare in the city;
identify and implement proactive, creative approaches to engage and facilitate communication within the animal welfare community; and
foster and assist the development of animal welfare programs in the city.

The City Manager is further directed to amend Chapter 2-1-102 of the City Code that adds subsection (F):

The Commission may study, advise, and report on policy recommendations it deems effective to promote animal welfare outcomes consistent with City goals and objectives as outlined by City Council and the City Manager.

Spay/neuter and live outcomes resolution, 9/24/09

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/edims/document.cfm?id=131028

RESOLUTION NO. 20090924-070
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted the goal of becoming a no-kill city, and
WHEREAS, increasing the capacity for spay neuter services at Town Lake
Animal Center for animals leaving the shelter would help to achieve that goal; and
WHEREAS, spaying and neutering pets reduces the number of stray animals in
future, reducing costs at the Town Lake Animal Center and reducing the need for
future use of euthanasia in roughly a one-to-one ratio,
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN:
The City Manager is hereby directed to develop a plan to increase the frequency
and number of spay/neuter surgery services to:
1. provide service seven days a week without decreasing the number of
surgeries done during the existing service days, and
2. thereby increase the number of spay and neuter surgeries by 2000 surgeries
per year, as well as live outcomes consistent with the plan suggested in
budget question response #79, Fiscal Year 2010.
To present the plan to City Council by November 5, 2009, including any necessary
budget amendments.
ADOPTED: September 24 . 2009 ATTEST:
Shirley AJ Gentry
City Clerk

Budget Question # 79 (CM Spelman)

2009-2010 PROPOSED BUDGET
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
DEPARTMENT: Health & Human Services
REQUEST NO.: 79
REQUESTED BY: Spelman
DATE REQUESTED: 7/30/09
REQUEST:
• What is the maximum number of spays or neuters that the TLAC vets (not the MASH unit) can do in a day?
• What is the average number of spays/neuters that the TLAC vet does in a day?
• Is it possible to increase the number of in-house spaying/neutering that the City does, potentially to the level of doing all RTOs/adoptees/rescue transfers? If so, what would that cost?
RESPONSE:
1) The maximum number of surgeries that can be scheduled per day is 20 animals. Limitations include cage space for recovery, only one surgery table, and one prep area. The prep area is used for treatments, emergencies, and medical work-ups after the surgery schedule has been completed.
2) The average number of surgeries per day for FY 2008 was 17.
3) In-house sterilizations could be increased by providing staffing for surgeries to be performed on Saturdays and Sundays, fully utilizing the surgery suite capacity. This would provide approximately 2,000 additional surgery slots and would increase total capacity from 3,600 to about 5,600 surgeries. The costs for this enhancement would be:
2 part-time vet tech leads @ 20 hours each - $33,700
16 hours of vet time - $26,890
Total Cost - $60,590
To sterilize all live outcome types, we would need capacity for approximately 11,000 surgeries. We could achieve this by implementing the above option and contracting for the remainder of the surgeries. The estimated cost for these additional surgeries would be $270,000 (5,400 surgeries@ average of $50 per surgery.) Total cost of these two options would be $330,590.

Statesman comes out strong for No Kill

COMMENTARY: ALBERTA PHILLIPS
To make Austin a no-kill city, Town Lake Animal Center must increase adoptions
Alberta Phillips,
AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN
Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Every day the Town Lake Animal Center kills cats and dogs largely to make space for new arrivals. It does not pause its euthanasia machine on weekends or holidays, though it limits the killing when the center is closed to animals that are sick or suffering. Nearly half — about 48 percent — of animals that are put down are classified as "unnecessary euthanasia."
Those are mostly healthy pups and kitties whose only offense was that no one came to claim or adopt them. No group rescued them. During the past year, the center euthanized 6,362 animals of which 3,036 were unnecessary.

That is too many. Given Austin's goal of becoming a no-kill city, I thought there would be a vigorous effort on adoption. But I was disappointed to learn that the city will continue to rely heavily on the status quo — spaying, neutering and putting down animals — to manage Austin and Travis County's pet population rather than ramping up adoption efforts.
As I reported previously, the city-run animal center has made tremendous progress in reducing its kill rate to about 32 percent. About two-thirds leave alive either through adoption or rescue groups. Just two years ago, the kill rate was 52 percent, meaning that animals had less than a 50-50 chance of leaving the place alive. Last week, the Austin City Council, led by Council Members Bill Spelman and Mike Martinez passed a resolution to expand spay and neuter services to weekends in a move that would treat 2,000 more dogs and cats.
A good move, but it won't in the short run reduce the center's kill rate. Clearly, the city needs a more vigorous adoption initiative. But those in charge of running the animal center have no plans to do that.

I asked Dorinda Pulliam why the center does not invest more in adoption efforts or why it does not divert money used to kill dogs and cats to the rescue groups that put them up for adoption? She is assistant director of the Austin-Travis County Health and Human Services Department that oversees the animal center.

"I'm not sure how to answer that," she said. "I think we have a good program. To give them money to take animals ... it's part of their mission to help us."

She talked about Austin's model animal programs, about not relying on government to fix the whole problem, and about striking a balance in which nonprofit rescue groups and Austin residents step up to fill more of the gap. But that avoids the question of why the center will not divert more of its $5.5 million budget (from our tax dollars and fees) to adoption efforts. Doing so would immediately affect the kill rate. And isn't that the goal?

It's a point not lost on Spelman, who said the center falls short when it comes to adoption. The center, Spelman said, should take pets to the people, showing them on weekends at public places around town to increase their chances of being adopted. That is a good idea. It is especially important, he said, because the animal center will lose visibility when it moves from its downtown location to a site in East Austin.

On the day that I recently visited the animal center, 15 dogs were on the kill list. There was a female pit bull mix and her male offspring. He jumped, yelped and played while she looked from the kennel with a cocked head in a stare my boxer gives when he is confused about my commands.

Twenty-four hours later, all but three of the 15 dogs had been put down. The three lucky ones were rescued by Austin Pets Alive.
I still remember them — some were still playful despite their ordeal. Others were listless or curled in fetal positions and obviously depressed. Twelve were injected with a lethal dose of phenobarbitol.

Local attorney and former Travis County Judge Bill Aleshire said the county and city have been too slow in reaching the no-kill goal, which has been talked about since 1997, when he was a member of the Travis County Commissioners Court.
"This heartless situation does not have to exist," he told me. "The city and county have plenty of money to implement a no-kill policy. They just chose to spend that money on bureaucracy instead."

To be fair, the animal center, which gets funding from the city and county, has dramatically improved its adoption rate since 1997. But its own figures prove how vital adoption is in decreasing the kill rate, along with spay and neuter services. In 1997, the center completed adoption for 8 percent of its animals. It put down 69 percent of center animals that year. This year, the center's adoption rate is 22 percent and its kill rate has dropped to 32 percent.
If Austin is going to be serious about reaching its no-kill goal, then it must get serious about adoption.

aphillips@statesman.com; 445-3655

Agenda for Tues. Sept. 29 Animal Issues Forum

1. What's happening and what's coming up at Austin City Council?
a. Animal Welfare Summit
b. Adoption Center
c. S/N resolution and City Manager's plan (due November 5)

2. What's happening and what's coming up at the Animal Advisory Commission?
a. Donations Fund (October, November and December meetings)
b. Health and Safety Code (staff response to AAC question about using other city buildings to house sick animals)

3. What's happening with non-profit animal organizations?
Still working on this. Email me at patvt5 at gmail dot com if you have "happenings" you'd like to talk about or hear about.

City Council Adopts Resolution to Increase Spay/Neuter Services

At today's City Council meeting (9/24/09), Council Member Spelman (sponsor) and Council Member Morrison (co-sponsor) proposed a resolution directing the City Manager to develop a plan to increase the number of spay/neuter surgeries by 2000 surgeries per year. Mayor Pro Tem Martinez added an amendment related to increasing live outcomes. The amended resolution passed.

The draft of the original resolution (without the amendment) and the fiscal memo are posted on the City website and read as follows:

WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted the goal of becoming a no-kill city, and
WHEREAS, increasing the capacity for spay neuter services at Town Lake Animal Center for animals leaving the shelter would help to achieve that goal,
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN:
The City Manager is hereby directed to develop a plan to increase the frequency and number of spay/neuter surgery services to:
1. provide service seven days a week without decreasing the number of surgeries done during the existing service days, and

2. thereby increase the number of spay and neuter surgeries by 2000 surgeries per year, consistent with the plan suggested in budget question response #79, Fiscal Year 2010.
To present the plan to City Council by November 5, 2009, including any necessary budget amendments.


TO: Marc Ott, City Manager
FROM: Ed Van Eenoo, Budget Officer
DATE: September 24, 2009
SUBJECT: Fiscal Memo for Item #70

Item #70 on the September 24, 2009 Council Agenda is to approve a resolution directing the City Manager to develop a plan to increase the frequency and number of spay/neuter surgery services and present the plan to Council by November 5, 2009, including any necessary budget amendments.
At this time, this item has no fiscal or staffing impact. Staff from the Health and Human Services Department (HHSD) will be available to work on this item. Upon completion of plan, the details, including any fiscal or staffing impact, will be reported to Council.

Class at Southwestern U. "Going to the Dogs"

Dogs teach students about real world
Southwestern University offers unique class
Updated: Thursday, 17 Sep 2009, 9:04 AM CDTPublished : Thursday, 17 Sep 2009, 5:35 AM CDT
Kate Weidaw
GEORGETOWN, Texas (KXAN) - A class at Southwestern University in Georgetown has gone to the dogs.
That's because the dogs are teaching freshman about life outside of the classroom.
"The idea of these classes is to segway between high school and college," said Dr. Laura Hobgood-Oster, professor of religion and environmental studies at Southwestern University.
The freshman seminar Hobgood-Oster is talking about is called "Going to the Dogs," and for this class, students are literally going to the dogs at the Georgetown Animal Shelter.
"You get to interact with the dogs," said Southwestern University freshman Hannah Brock. "It's not just sitting in a classroom."
Students are required to spend at least one hour a week volunteering, in addition to learning about dogs in the classroom. It might make some wonder, "What's the connection between dogs and freshman adjusting to life in college?"
"On the surface, it may seem like a trivial topic, but if you think about what dogs are, they have been associated with humans for the last 10- or 15,000 years," said Dr. Jimmy Smith, a professor of kinesiology at Southwestern University.
Smith and Laura Hobgood-Oster have been teaching the class for eight years and believe dogs can teach students a lot about the real world - like a dog that had to be surrendered due to a domestic violence case.
"They begin to see how we are interconnected and see what happens to humans, happens to dogs," said Smith.
Students are able to see the hardship of giving something up because you cannot afford it.
"Every family this guy ever knew is gone," said Smith.
And this class is about finding solutions for homeless dogs, like a great pyrenees that was surrendered by its owner.
"Hopefully a livestock dog group will be able to take that dog out of the shelter to open a run for another dog," said Hobgood-Oster.
And lets face it . Who can complain about a class that gives lots of love by just showing up?
The class also uses dogs to incorporate lessons on culture, environment and religion.

Agenda for Tuesday, September 29 Animal Issues Forum

The agenda for the for the Tuesday, September 29 Animal Issues Forum has not been finalized, but here are some of the possible agenda items we have to choose from:

1. Do we need another Animal Welfare Summit?
City staff is planning another all-day Animal Welfare Summit to get community input on animal welfare programs in Austin. Do you think we need an all-day Animal Welfare Summit? If so, why? If not, why not? The Animal Advisory Commission (AAC) has not been included in planning the agenda for the Animal Welfare Summit. Does this make sense?

2. Adoption Center
What's happening with plans for an Adoption Center on Lady Bird Lake when the city-run shelter moves to Levander Loop? Mayor Lee Leffingwell (when he was Council Member Leffingwell) sponsored a resolution to keep the current shelter location site open as an Adoption Center. What has been done so far and what is being done to move forward on the Adoption Center?

3. Staff's proposed budget for next year's Donations Fund:
City staff have proposed a budget for expenditures out of the Donations Fund for next year. (Fiscal year 2010 begins October 1.) Thanks to Council Member Shade and the entire City Council's vote in favor of a resolution directing the AAC to review and make recommendations to Council, the AAC will review the City staff's proposal at its next meeting October 21. If you'd like to give your input to the AAC before or at the October 21 meeting, come to the Animal Issues Forum on September 29 to learn more about and discuss the staff's proposed budget. (You can also give input without coming to the forum, but you'll have less information.)

4. Health and Safety Code issues and lawsuit
At the September AAC meeting, there was a long discussion about the cleaning and other protocols relating that have an impact on the health (or lack thereof) of animals at TLAC. The AAC recommended looking into other City buildings that could be used to house sick animals. The AAC also discussed a lawsuit filed by Austin attorney Seth Smith, who made a presentation at the meeting describing the violations of the Health and Safety Code that he included in his lawsuit.

5. Coalition for a No Kill Austin
Austin Pets Alive has proposed the creation of a Coalition for a No Kill Austin. What's happening with that? Do you think it's a good idea? If so, how can you get involved?

Please send me your comments, if you have any. Thanks.
Pat Valls-Trelles
patvt5@gmail.com

Agenda for Monday, August 24 Animal Issues Forum

Terrazas Public Library
1105 East César Chávez St.

6:30 - 6:45 Announcements
6:45 - 7:15 APD and Animal Cruelty Investigations
7:15 - 7:45 Pet Trader Ordinance (relates to Petland, but not exclusively)
7:45 - 8:15 Donations Fund
8:15 - 8:30 Announcements and Wrap Up

Please forward to anyone you think might be interested.
Pat Valls-Trelles
Animal Issues Forum
http://bit.ly/animalissuesforum

Dogs blamed for bacteria count at Bull Creek Park

Debra Bailey, a task force member who formed a volunteer group last year to regularly clean up dog waste at the park, said sewage spills and other trash left in the creek could also be to blame for high bacteria levels. The city should look at other options before closing the dog park or requiring leashes, such as better enforcement and signs related to picking up dog waste, she said.
"They are blaming the dogs and not addressing other issues," she said.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/2009/08/05/0805bullcreek.html

Bacteria counts force temporary closure of Bull Creek dog park
Area of Bull Creek District Park will soon require leashes, then will be off-limits over the winter while new vegetation is planted.
By Sarah CoppolaAMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Beth Hoeferkamp regularly brings her dogs Henry and Frieda to the off-leash dog area at Bull Creek District Park.
Come October, she might have to find another spot for her dogs to roam free.
The City of Austin Parks Department plans to close the dog park area for six to eight months to restore vegetation near the creek and because of high E. coli bacteria levels in the creek, a potential health problem for people and pets. Officials blame the bacteria — found during regular water sampling since 2007 — on dog waste at the heavily used park, one of 12 off-leash parks in Austin.
"It would be a shame to see the park close, but if it's necessary for the water quality, I guess it has to be done," Hoeferkamp said.
In March 2008, the city put up signs at the park about the environmental dangers of dog waste, but problems persisted, parks Director Sara Hensley said.
So the department also plans to require leashes at the park beginning Sept. 8. Starting in October, the city would close the off-leash dog area to plant more grasses, shrubs and trees — vegetation that helps keep pollutants from draining into the creek. City officials haven't determined yet whether leashes would be required when the park reopens in the spring.
Heavy use of the park has worn down existing vegetation there, city officials say, and the drought has led to low, slow-moving waters in the creek where bacteria can thrive.
The vegetation work would cost up to $200,000 and would be done at the same time as improvements to a low-water crossing at the park, said Mike Kelly, a civil engineer in the Watershed Protection Department. Officials haven't decided yet if they will close areas of the 48-acre park outside the off-leash dog area, he said.
Parks and watershed protection officials will brief the Environmental and Parks and Recreation boards on Aug. 19 and Aug. 25. The public is invited to attend those meetings, and the city will hold another yet-to-be-scheduled public hearing later this month.
Austin's leash ordinance requires dogs to be on a leash no longer than six feet on public land. The maximum fine for violating that rule is $500.
The parks department and a task force formed earlier this year are trying to find other spaces that could be turned into off-leash parks, Hensley said.
Debra Bailey, a task force member who formed a volunteer group last year to regularly clean up dog waste at the park, said sewage spills and other trash left in the creek could also be to blame for high bacteria levels. The city should look at other options before closing the dog park or requiring leashes, such as better enforcement and signs related to picking up dog waste, she said.
"They are blaming the dogs and not addressing other issues," she said.
There were two sewage spills into a tributary of the creek in recent years: 50,000 gallons in August 2007 and 30,000 gallons last month.
Both were caused by blockages in a sewer line in the area and were fully cleaned up, Austin Water Utility spokesman Kevin Buchman said.
Chris Herrington, an environmental engineer in the Watershed Protection Department, said sewage didn't cause the high bacteria levels in the creek, because the water samples did not show high levels of caffeine, nitrogen or phosphorous, which he said are usually present in wastewater.
scoppola@statesman.com; 912-2939

Austin Pets Alive's Plan for City of Austin Partnership

Tonight is the evening session of the Animal Issues Forum. It will be at Terrazas library at 6:30 pm.

I'm looking forward to hearing what people have to say about Austin Pets Alive's Plan for a Partnership with the City of Austin for 2009-2010.

You can read the proposal at this link:
http://www.animalissuesforum.org/APA/APA!Proposal.doc

I think it's an exciting endeavor that APA has initiated and I hope people will come out to hear more about it and lend their support.

Pat Valls-Trelles

July 28 and July 30 Animal Issues Forums

Here's an upate and a question about the agenda for the two sessions of the Animal Issues Forum coming up on:
1) Tuesday, July 28 at 6:30 pm at Terrazas library
2) Thursday, July 30 at 11:30 am at City Hall.

At the Tuesday evening forum, Dr. Ellen Jefferson will be presenting the proposal Austin Pets Alive has made to the City for a partnership for increasing live outcomes for dogs and cats. I hope that people are interested in hearing about this and will attend.

We will also have a discussion about the Donations Fund and follow up on the discussion we started last time with Chandra and Gretchen about the Companion Animal Protection Act which they heard about at the No Kill Conference they attended in May.

At the Thursday session we will have a discussion about those same topics, except Dr. Jefferson will not be presenting herself, but will have someone fill in for her. We'll still discuss Austin Pets Alive's proposal though.

I have a question prompted by the Taylor shelter situation and their end to use of the carbon monoxide gas chamber: I'd like to see if anyone else is interested in discussing possible legislation for next session to ban use of carbon monoxide gas chambers in Texas. If there is interest and time, we could discuss this month, or possibly next month. Please let me know if you have any thoughts on this.

It's not necessary to RSVP for either of the sessions, but if you're planning to attend and have not already let me know (thanks to those of you who have), I'd appreciate getting an idea in advance of who's coming.

Thanks.

Pat Valls-TrellesAnimal Issues Forum
http://bit.ly/animalissuesforum

July Animal Issues Forums

Dr. Ellen Jefferson will be speaking about Austin Pets Alive's proposal to City Council for a public-private partnership to increase live outcomes.

We'll continue to talk about the City Manager's proposed budget cuts with a focus on saving the Emancipet Free Days and the Feral Cat Sterilization Program.

Pat Valls-Trelles

Save City Funding for Spay/Neuter Programs

City's Final Town Hall Meeting on Budget Cuts
Date: June 30, 2009
Time: 6:30 pm
Location: Givens Recreation Center

The City of Austin will hold its final Town Hall meeting regarding proposed budget cuts on Tuesday, June 30 at 6:30 p.m. at Givens Recreation Center.

Ask the City Manager to restore the $30,000 for the Feral Cat Sterilization Program and the $195,000 for spay/neuter services provided by Emancipet in low income areas.
If these two important program are cut from the City budget, it will result in an increase of unwanted puppies and kittens and increased killing of dogs and cats at the Town Lake Animal Center.

The City staff is saying that the money in the Donations Fund can be used to pay for these programs. The problem with saying that is that this year's Donations Fund already goes to pay for additional spay/neuter services so cutting the City funds and using Donations Funds is a cut to spay/neuter programs any way you look at it.

If you cannot attend the forum (or even if you can and do attend) also write to City Manager Marc Ott at Marc.Ott@ci.austin.tx.us and ask him NOT to cut spay/neuter programs for the pets of low income residents or for feral cats.

Austin American-Statesman:City budget cuts put free sterilization programs in jeopardy. Animal advocates say cutting back on spaying and neutering would increase euthanasia rate. Read article