The three (3 ) articles below are direct from the official websites of both SF SPCA and SF ACC. I apologize for the lack of formatting, they would only go in as HTML and Blogger wouldn't hold the indexing. The information is straight fromt he horses mouth.
If an old man could get a wish fulfilled, this would be it. Not a perfect situation from some folks point of view, but sure looks good to me, and I hope Washoe County will consider this plan for us. I don't think NHS will go for it, their past record has not led one to have a great deal of faith in them, but it's something to throw on the table.
Animals are guaranteed shelter from the street, and humane care, no hoops, no appointments on the SF ACC side. Animal Control is allowed to do their own adoptions, and will allow it's partner to pull after SF ACC has made their selection for the adoption floor.
On the SF SPCA side of the partnership, they are a very limited admission shelter which pulls primarily from SF ACC. The good Lord would love their honesty. They take all of their placements back, no questions no hoops, so owned animals do not get turned in as strays. Their website states that an appointment is preferred, but in an emergency they will accept walk in returns. After what the citzens of Washoe County have been through; this is heaven.
The adoption director told me they placed 4,809 animals last year in a population of about 800,000. those were homes, not rescue and fosters. Excellent, as Oreo would say. She did indicate that adoptions are slower this year, but that is not surprising given the economy. They make no claim of being a No Kill open admission shelter. Just in case you were still hearing that SF was No Kill.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
While I'm certain NHS leadership wouldn't want this since it would ruin her status in the NK world, but one would think that the board of directors for NHS would want to try something new.
The organization can't run deficits indefinitely, and if it continues, that reflects on the board members. Deficits for a year or two may not effect donor support, but clearly having deficits year after year will eventually erode an organizations donor base, especially larger donors that want to ensure their money is going to a financially viable organization.
I couldn't agree more. The board has most surely realized the financial plight that Brown has put them in already. When one looks at the well thought out plan between the San Francisco partners and realizes how close the NHS WCRAS agreement is to that, it's very saddening. I hpe you didn't find the other articles to long a read
In Christ's love
Your synopsis made the other articles much easier to understand. I've discussed the SF setup with Oreo, so I did have some understanding already about how the partnership worked, but it was nice to see that so many of SF's policies are outlined. Hopefully what your readers take away from this is that partnerships can work, but it can't just include picking up strays, it must include accepting all animal surrenders to work. We all know too well that it isn't the case with most NK communities.
The advantage to the SF plan is that animal services is the driver making the decisions on strays and owner surrenders, so they don't have to be reliant on the partner complying with promises to accept owner surrenders and then having buyers remorse when they find out the partner is discouraging surrenders and only allowing surrenders by appointment.
Post a Comment