According to statements by various Los Angeles city officials, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa wants the Northeast Valley Animal Shelter in Mission Hills turned over to Best Friends Animal Society because of budget cuts. What happened to his “shared sacrifice” concept that allowed L.A. Police and Fire Departments to keep all stations open merely by slightly lowering staffing and equipment levels?
Dividing the L.A. Animal Services budget so that all six existing shelters are open a few less hours would provide the funding for the Valley’s “Mission” Animal Care Center--located in one of the most animal-dense and under-served areas of Los Angeles--so it can provide essential public services for local pets and their owners.
Under the Mayor’s current plan for the Mission shelter, the City would turn over this new $19 million state-of-the-art animal shelter to Best Friends for $1 a year. In return, Best Friends would reportedly conduct from that location adoptions of a small number of desirable pets brought from the other six City shelters.
There is even further bewildering incongruity in this proposal. Cash-strapped Los Angeles would reportedly pay for maintenance, security, and utilities for Best Friends, a non-profit corporation which received over $51 million in income in 2009, according to its IRS report. This part of the “shared sacrifice” would come directly out of Los Angeles taxpayers’ pockets.
But, wait, there’s more. The Mission animal-care facility is part of the $154-million, Prop. “F” bond funds approved by voters in 2001 for new animal shelters and renovations of existing shelters all over Los Angeles. This is still being paid by city property owners, many of whom are losing their own homes in a faltering economy.
Prop “F” promised that expanding existing animal shelters and building new facilities in pet-overpopulated, lower-income communities would reduce the danger and menace of stray and packing dog in the streets, lower euthanasia, and provide additional opportunities for adoptions of shelter animals in these areas.
On the surface, the Best Friends’ plan might sound like a warm-and-fuzzy (albeit inequitable) public-private “partnership, but would it really even benefit animal adoptions?
At a recent Best Friends “Super Adoption Event” at the La Brea Tar Pits, on May 21-22, reportedly 18 shelters and 50 rescue groups brought almost 1,300 animals needing homes. But Best Friends’ reports that only 284 animals were adopted to the public. That factors out at about four per shelter or organization. This is much lower than a usual weekend at a shelter, where 20+ dogs/cats are easily adopted from most facilities over two days. http://network.bestfriends.org/17218/news.asp
There was no shortage of media attention for this event, and the Mayor’s girlfriend, Lu Parker, gave it a nice, long plug on KTLA-5 News. (Best Friends is, coincidentally, the only animal society on the Lu Parker Project website under “Helpful Links.”)
So, this very low pet-adoption rate could be an indication that people like to adopt at their local shelter--if the right pets are available--and that moving those pets to the remote Northeast Valley might not enhance their chances.
The animals and residents of Pacoima, Arleta, Lakeview Terrace, Sylmar and Mission Hills are among those who would be served by the Mission shelter. Pacoima and Sylmar were recently designated by the Heigl Foundation for $50,000 in free spay/neuter of pit bulls and pit mixes, based on a survey of which areas should be primary targets to reduce the approximately 60% pit bull impound rate citywide.
Several senior officers estimate that at least 50 percent of the relinquished and stray pets in the overcrowded East Valley and West Valley shelters are from the area that would—and should—be served by the Mission shelter. So, not utilizing this shelter for its intended purpose has a negative impact on residents of the entire San Fernando Valley.
Since its completion in 2007, the Mission shelter has never been fully staffed and has been used to house evidence animals confiscated in cruelty and neglect cases and to isolate nursing animal-moms with litters. It also served as an animal-evacuation refuge during the fierce 2008 fires that engulfed much of the Valley and adjacent forest areas.
In a June 17, 2011, Los Angeles Daily News article entitled, “More blazes are expected this season”, L. A. City Fire Department Deputy Chief Mario Rueda said, “The Valley has had its share of wildfires but remains at risk of experiencing more…In 2008, we had several significant fires across the north face of the San Fernando Valley but we still have quite a few areas that have not burned…”
Is the Valley agreeable to a “sacrifice” that removes all City staffing from a critical location and gives up a new public facility that can house up to 900 animals in any major disaster?
Councilman Richard Alarcon, who represents most of the Northeast Valley area, has objected to not fully opening, and now “giving away,” the long-awaited animal shelter designed for the special needs of the rural area of the San Fernando Valley with a large equine population--in other words, a lot of horses!
The Councilman proposes that the budgetary problems can be resolved by applying the same “shared sacrifice” that the Mayor encouraged for other public-safety agencies; i.e., Los Angeles Police and Fire Departments, to apportion their budgets so that there are decreases in some services at each station but all are operating for the protection and convenience of surrounding communities.
Why wasn’t this immediately embraced by the Mayor’s office and City Council as the obvious and practical way for L.A. Animal Services to provide animal and public-safety in an area near the center of most of Los Angeles’ recent, and anticipated, disasters?
I don't think having a shelter open less hours is the answer. I also don't necessarily have a problem with a private entity running a shelter, as long as there is some mechanism for REAL oversight. The public shelters in existence now are often mismanaged and often do nothing more than kill a lot of animals (and fight against anyone who tries to reform them). If Best Friends can do a better job than the city or the Humane Society, I say let them try.
That being said, they should still be required to offer the public services offered at any other animal shelter. I'm confused as to whether that would be the case, or whether this facility would ONLY be used for adopting out animals from other shelters. Also, they should foot the bill, not the taxpayers. Or, in the alternative, there should be some sharing of the expenses and they should be required to offer public shelter services.
As to the math, I'm a bit confused. Rather than focusing on the fact that there were about 4 animals per shelter adopted out at one event (how many did each group bring?), it should be noted that about 22% of the total animals were adopted. How does this compare to average adoption events at shelters? Also, it's somewhat misleading to say that people prefer to adopt from their local shelters based on data from this one event, which may have had a total adoption rate close to regular shelter adoption rates. Maybe people do adopt more at their local shelters because of proximity. Maybe people at the La Brea Tar Pits weren't there to adopt animals that day. Maybe 284 animals is high considering the number of people who attended. Maybe these are animals who got adopted in addition to those adopted at shelters, by people who weren't planning on going to a shelter, and we should be thankful for this new event.
I'd like to see the plan details for the Mission facility to see what Best Friends is planning to do. If they plan to do some things IN ADDITION to regular adoption and shelter services, that could be a good thing. Are the plan details available?
In general I do tend to agree with the writer that shoveling this facility off to a private group without lessening the burden on taxpayers is not a good thing. There needs to be oversight by an impartial body, a sharing or total takeover of costs by BF, and they need to offer public shelter services in addition to whatever else they have planned. I'd also like to know if there will be euthanasia involved or how it will be done away with, since BF is a proponent of no-kill.
It is shocking that the City is going to spend all the maintenance and running expenses of the North East Shelter, but allow Best Friends to run it. There is something fishy about the whole thing.
If the Dept. of Animal Services plans well, the NE shelter could easily be managed by the budget available for the Dept. Unfortunately Ms. Brenda Barnet the General Manager has absolutely no experience in managing such a large organization. The Dept. has too many supervisors, and few Animal Care Technicians and Animal Control Officers. Each shelter has two or more Animal Care Technician supervisors. Except one supervisors the others do not do any work. One can see them chatting with the kennel workers and volunteers.
The GM also has appointed two DFOs - Divisional Field Officers where as the Shelter Managers have absolutely no work. The shelter is managed by the kennel supervisor and the Leutenant.
The GM has all these top positions just to advise her, because she does not know how to run this dept. There is no reason to have so many DFOs , captains, leutenants, and kennel supervisors. Also, some of the animal care technicians are given positions like volunteer co-ordinators and adpotion cordinators, so much so there is no kennel worker to help the public. What are the kennel supervisors and captains doing.
They are not in the shelter most of the time, as there is no one to supervise.
I strongly object the NE shelter being given to Best Friends.
It is time a committee is appointed to study the working of the Dept. of Animal Services
It seems to me in reading between the lines that the writer is more upset that her group, LA County Animal Care Foundation, of which she is a Board member http://lacountyanimals.org/bio_daugherty.htm
was NOT chosen over Best Friend Animal Society to run the shelter.
What IF the Mayor had chosen LA County Animal Care Foundation to run the shelter, would she have still written this article?????
cult is another man's spiritual path. This charge detracts from the validity of any points being made. Makes it sound like the black helicopter crowd is anti-Best Friends. Where is the big court case with dozens of ex-best friends staff saying they were brainwashed into rescuing animals
What we need to address is any crime , any unethical conduct, any corruption or appearance of corruption, any incompetence/ineffectiveness or waste. I think there is plenty to find in this issue. The mayor needs to be blocked from playing with tax payers’ money—isn’t this something like misappropriation of funds, misuse of government property, stuff like that?
cuppajo
Dear Misinformation,
I'm afraid you don't quite understand how "The Mayors" plan works.
First, he has a habit of renting out city buildings, in prime locations,
for the sum of $1.00 per year. Walter Moore did a through investigation, results are available in archive section of his website.
Secondly, ask yourself how closing down a shelter is going to help
any animals .. truly, think before you speak.
Why are so many animals Euth'd? Why so many more in Los Angeles? Why so many more since Villaraigosa blessed us with his greedy little self?
There was a website that went into all the details about our wonderful Mayor. It explained why he raised the adoptions fees,
even when adoptions were low.
And it has to do with all those little dogs and cats and bunnies who are murdered each and every day in all the shelters in Villaraigosa's city. Where do they go?
Are they buried? Do they have little tombstones, and flowers put on their graves? Are they cremated and their ashes put in little urns or set out to sea?
No.
The cold hard truth is, they're sold to rendering plants. MEAT
rendering plants. And from there they're turned into Petfood.
BUT, who gets the money?? Well the city gets the money!
And who is the city???
That's right.
Villaraigosa!!!!!
So, the more dead dogs, kitties, bunnies .. the more money to
Villaraigosa .. Oh but wait!!!! This particular website, shooooooooot
if I could only recall it's name :o/
darn it anyway :o/
Well do a search, I'm certain it'll come up.
THEY said they had proof that Villaraigosa, he, himself, got a
cut of the cash .. all his own. yup.
I'd like to see the whole system ripped apart and investigated.
You know, just to clear Villaraigosa's name. Cause we all know how honest he is .. it's not as though he's ever lied or cheated,
or anything slightly dishonest, ever before.
And being an "X-Gang member", shouldn't be held against him.
As long as he's not running OUR city as a thug, for his cohorts
in Mexico.
But .. that's a whole other Cha-Cha .. and I've run outta time.
Thank you for some much sought after links :o)
I shall pass them on.
I will agree that most rescue organizations are really making a difference. Lets not forget what this article is clearly about, the fact that a much needed L.A. city animal Shelter is about to be lost for who knows how long. I'd like to know what tax paying L.A. city resident in their right mind wants to foot the bill for a "non-profit" organization who is clearly generating enough revenue. And in the process we lose a much needed service from our city. PLEASE tell me if I'm wrong.
Villaraigosa to Travelers Aid: Drop Dead! – after 60-Years of LAX Service
Pink slips for seniors at Los Angeles Airport
After imposing $120 million in budget cuts against the Los Angeles Police Department, Mayor Villaraigosa is firing all 100+ Travelers Aid volunteering seniors at LAX on June 30th and having city employees take over the work. Michael Molina, who recently resigned under a cloud, said cost saving would be the result. Maybe Villaraigosa’s people have other bright money-saving ideas for replacing volunteering seniors with city employees.
Your article is misinforming your readers. I've volunteered with many shelters and Best Friends. First, the Super Adoption resulted in almost 500 pets saved, not 284. Second, if people really did want to go to shelters and adopt, we wouldn't have such a high euthansia rate in this city and across the country.
Stop trying to make it sound like trying to save more animals is hurting our community.
I applaud the mayor for coming up with a solution to help relieve overcrowding of the other shelters by allowing Best Friends to run the unused shelter!