No Kill Long Beach
  • Home
  • 2020 Voter Information Guide
  • How you can help
  • Get Informed
    • The No Kill Equation >
      • Redemption: The No Kill Documentary
    • SALB Research & Policy Report 2014
    • SALB Research & Policy Report 2013
    • ACS and SPCA-LA: Who's who?
    • No Kill Economics
    • No-Kill Video Library
    • SALB Guide to Increasing Volunteerism
    • June 11, 2013: JUST ONE DAY
    • No Kill Long Beach in the News
    • City Audits of LBACS
  • Contact Us
    • Who we are
    • Sign our guest book
  • LBACS's Numbers
    • Kennel Statistics Reports
  • Model No Kill Ordinance
  • LB City Officials' Contact Info
  • No Kill Long Beach Blog
  • Justice for Thor
  • LBACS Complaints
  • A Shelter in Crisis
  • 2018 Candidates' Responses
  • LBACS Document Archive
  • Why "Compassion Saves" is No Good

Sample Letter to LB City Council - LB needs Transparency from SpcaLA

2/9/2020

0 Comments

 

Copy and paste the letter below to send to Long Beach City Council members.  E-mail addresses of City Council members can be found here.

{Your name}
{Your city}
 
The Honorable Council(man/woman) {Last name}
Member, Long Beach City Council
                   
Dear Council(man/woman) {Last Name},
 
I am writing to thank you for passing a motion asking the City Attorney to review of the City’s lease with SpcaLA to determine if there are any violations to the lease and whether modification or termination of the lease is warranted.  

I am writing to let you know I completely support the Council's request.

I am very concerned about the many possible violations of the lease discussed at the Jan. 21 meeting, and was dismayed to hear from Councilwoman Pearce about the existence of a hostile workplace environment that may exist because of SpcaLA. Our LBACS shelter and its employees need and deserve to have the ability to serve Long Beach city residents without interference from a private organization.

Also, spcaLA is not transparent with the public, which means the public is not informed about what happens to the roughly 25% of shelter animals that LBACS transfers to spcaLA.  This is not in keeping with spcaLA’s role as a tenant of the City. I support full transparency by spcaLA if it continues to take animals from LBACS.

I am writing to ask that:

-- An audit of spcaLA be carried out, as was discussed at the Jan. 21 meeting, and no new  agreement be entered into with spcaLA;

-- The audit include a review of how donations to LBACS are handled, and whether any of those donations go to spcaLA;

-- The lease with spcaLA be enforced so that LBACS can operate independently and at the level required to meet the needs of Long Beach residents;

-- spcaLA be required to report the outcomes of animals in its shelter to the City;

-- The City Council support LBACS in its lifesaving role by making it completely operationally-independent of spcaLA, with its own adoption program, foster program, volunteer program and other programs needed to help it continue to save lives.  

Thank you very much for your support of our shelter and for being a voice for Long Beach residents.
 
Best regards,

{Name}

0 Comments

Sample letter to Councilwoman Suzie Price

2/8/2020

0 Comments

 

Councilwoman Suzie Price called for the City Attorney to review SpcaLA's lease with the City to determine if there were any violations and whether modifications or terminations of the lease might be warranted. You can view the video of Councilwoman Price talking about the lease here.

Please thank her by sending her a letter of support. Here is a sample that you can use and modify:

{Your name}
{Your city}
 
The Honorable Councilwoman Price
Member, Long Beach City Council
                   
Dear Councilwoman Price,
 
I am writing to thank you for your comments at the January 21, 2020 City Council meeting with regard to the problems between spcaLA and our city shelter (LBACS).  I was very happy to hear you ask the City Attorney to review of the City’s lease with SpcaLA to determine if there are any violations to the lease and whether modification or termination of the lease is warranted.  

I am writing to let you know I completely support your request.

I am very concerned about the many possible violations of the lease discussed at the Jan. 21 meeting, and was dismayed to hear from Councilwoman Pearce about the existence of a hostile workplace environment that may exist because of SpcaLA. Our LBACS shelter and its employees need and deserve to have the ability to serve Long Beach city residents without interference from a private organization.

Also, spcaLA is not transparent with the public, which means the public is not informed about what happens to the roughly 25% of shelter animals that LBACS transfers to spcaLA.  This is not in keeping with spcaLA’s role as a tenant of the City. I support full transparency by spcaLA if it continues to take animals from LBACS.

I am writing to ask that:

-- An audit of spcaLA be carried out, as was discussed at the Jan. 21 meeting, and no new  agreement be entered into with spcaLA;

-- The audit include a review of how donations to LBACS are handled, and whether any of those donations go to spcaLA;

-- The lease with spcaLA be enforced so that LBACS can operate independently and at the level required to meet the needs of Long Beach residents;

-- spcaLA be required to report the outcomes of animals in its shelter to the City;

-- The City Council support LBACS in its lifesaving role by making it completely operationally-independent of spcaLA, with its own adoption program, foster program, volunteer program and other programs needed to help it continue to save lives.  

Thank you very much for your support of our shelter and for being a voice for Long Beach residents.
 
Best regards,

{Name}
 
            

0 Comments

LB Council discusses SpcaLA's possible violations at Council meeting, calls for audit of SpcaLA lease & operations

1/23/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
Last night’s council meeting about the SpcaLA/LBACS relationship was the first time we have seen City Council take the SpcaLA problem (and the resulting problems at LBACS) seriously. Clearly, Long Beach City Council members are finally realizing the chaos the City has allowed to reign at LBACS for over two decades, as Council after Council, including most of this one, entirely fell asleep at the wheel while SpcaLA drove and continues to drive LBACS over a cliff, causing great harm to our shelter animals.

What should be the big news, the proposed operational agreement or MOU, is not. As expected, the elements of an MOU between LBACS and SpcaLA proposed by Parks, Recreation and Marine director Gerardo Mouet were weak, and included items like establishing a joint adoption desk for SpcaLA and LBACS (this is unacceptable, given SpcaLA’s inappropriate and unreasonably hard-on-the-public adoption process and criteria), better access to shared space, and clearer LBACS signage. While those items have a place in the conversation that should be taking place around LBACS, signs and space are only a small part of the problem. Notably lacking was any real discussion around animal care operations and the devastating restrictions SpcaLA places on LBACS in the area of adoptions.

HOSTILE WORKPLACE
The big news of the evening were two: One was the apparent allegations of a hostile work environment mentioned by outgoing Councilperson Jeannine Pearce, who alluded to complaints that SpcaLA is causing a hostile work environment for LBACS employees. This is not surprising, given the bullying methods SpcaLA has reportedly used to rule the roost at LBACS since the City entered into the toxic agreement with SpcaLA in 1998. Even as SpcaLA is writing on its websites about what a good partner they are to LBACS, it appears that the City of Long Beach is in the process of waking up to the reality of how poorly the City has stewarded its own shelter and the crisis 20 years of the City’s neglect has produced.

TERMINATION OF SPCALA LEASE MENTIONED
The biggest part of the evening came when Councilperson Suzie Price mentioned, for the first time we have ever heard in a City Council meeting, the possibility of terminating the lease with SpcaLA. While much of the evening’s discussion was about how to best go about writing an operating agreement that SpcaLA would sign, Suzie Price cautioned against entering into any further agreements with a party that may be violating the current lease and recommended that the City Attorney and City Auditor review the current lease for violations to decide if termination is warranted. Price further recommended that the City Auditor audit both the operations and the financials of SpcaLA, to the cheers of animal advocates in the room. This raises the possibility that the agreement with SpcaLA can be terminated – a proposition No Kill Long Beach wholly supports and has advocated for since 2013.

Notably missing from the discussion was any discussion of requiring transparency from SpcaLA. Pearce brought up the question of what happens to LBACS animals once they go to SpcaLA, and LBACS manager Staycee Dains said that the assumption was that they were adopted out. No Kill Long Beach believes it is dangerous for our animals if the City assumes anything of the kind. SpcaLA is vehemently against No Kill, according to its websites. We need full and complete transparency from SpcaLA (and LBACS) in order to protect the animals of Long Beach.

ORDINANCES MOVE FORWARD
City Council approved the request to move forward with the writing of an ordinance to limit the number of animals that people and organizations can bring to Long Beach for adoption to 300 per year, with some discussion of breaking it down to a monthly limit. This is clearly meant to catch SpcaLA up in the web of the law, while letting smaller rescues and individuals off the hook. We would normally support this; however, it appears the intent of this law is to increase cage space at SpcaLA so that LBACS can give more animals to them, and this is flawed logic and bad policy. The City should not be giving more animals to an organization it now views as hostile, that it believes may be violating its current agreements, and that at least one possible council person is wary of entering into another agreement with. Not to mention the fact that SpcaLA does not adhere to No Kill principles, and has no transparency with the City as to any of its operations, animal outcomes or financials.

It was clear from last night’s Council meeting that there is a growing awareness among Council that the behavior of SpcaLA is untenable and cannot continue in this manner for the next 33 years of the lease’s term. We also believe that as long as SpcaLA continues to operate on the same city land and in the same buildings, LBACS needs to begin inspecting SpcaLA’s premises, as currently provided by the lease, and require absolute transparency as to all outcomes of all animals that enter the SpcaLA shelter on City land.

Last night’s City Council meeting should have happened 7 years ago, when No Kill Long Beach first alerted City Council and the Mayor to the negative impact that SpcaLA is having on our shelter animals. One is tempted to say “better late than never,” but those words are tragic, given the fact that tens of thousands of animals have been killed at LBACS since we first began our advocacy. The City shelter needs to be fully independent of SpcaLA and we at No Kill Long Beach are hopeful that last night’s meeting was the first step.

0 Comments

Long Beach Animal Care Services still killing healthy and treatable animals

1/9/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
This week, Mayor Garcia released a very selective set of statistics that give the impression that Long Beach Animal Care Services is doing great, while keeping the public in the dark about the reality of what is going on with our shelter animals here in Long Beach.
Mayor Garcia’s press release this week went on and on about increased adoptions and the supposed success of the ‘compassion saves’ model. Here are four things Mayor Garcia won’t tell you about what’s happening to our shelter animals.

1. The truth is that LBACS is entering its third decade of killing healthy and treatable animals. LBACS is still killing 16% of cats and 20% of kittens in the shelter. And it still kills healthy and treatable dogs – dogs that could be safely placed in homes if LBACS had an active foster program or adequate medical and behavioral rehabilitation programs. When other shelters, like Austin’s, are saving 98% of their animals, Mayor Garcia’s self-congratulatory claims about an increase in the save rate to just 88% fall flat. LBACS could have been saving 90-95% of animals five years ago, when Mayor Garcia was first elected and promised to put an adoption program in place at LBACS. Instead, he failed to deliver on his promise, and as of now, nearly 10,000 animals have died needlessly on Mayor Garcia’s watch.

2. Adoptions may be up, but they’re still at a pitifully low level. Mayor Garcia trotted out his usual “adoptions are at an unprecedented level” rhetoric, noting that LBACS did 995 adoptions in 2019. This may sound like a large number until you take into account the fact that Sacramento, with similar population, demographics and median income, did nearly 4800 adoptions just from January to November last year. 995 is only the “highest number of adoptions in a decade” because every other year of the decade was so painfully low. If LBACS had a strong adoption and foster program, LBACS would be well on its way to saving all healthy and treatable animals. But it’s not, and healthy and treatable animals continue to be killed for no valid reason.

3. Mayor Garcia’s much-touted live release rate could actually be much lower. There is no guarantee that LBACS animals released to SpcaLA are finding homes because SpcaLA is openly against No Kill, according to its various websites. SpcaLA took nearly 1200 animals from LBACS last year, and what happened to them? We have no idea. the City has not required transparency from SpcaLA, even though it could require SpcaLA, which profits from basically free rent on taxpayer-owned land worth millions of dollars in El Dorado Park, to post its outcomes and give LBACS access to its records. Animal shelters that have embraced a lifesaving No Kill mission have nothing to hide and publish their outcomes for the public to see. Yet SpcaLA keeps their numbers hidden from the public and from the City. The public is massively subsidizing SpcaLA’s bottom line. They have a right to know what is happening to their shelter animals, and the City does not support that.

4. LBACS still doesn’t have a viable, robust adoption program because the City, and specifically Mayor Garcia, won’t stand up to SpcaLA. It’s no secret that SpcaLA doesn’t want LBACS to do adoptions – they’ve said in the Press that LBACS’ goal should be the best animal control, and it should leave animal care to SpcaLA. This has had a disastrous effect on Long Beach’s shelter animals over the past 20 years. Since 2007 alone, LBACS has killed over 40,000 animals because the City won’t let it have an adoption program to avoid upsetting SpcaLA. The City has done a formidable job of covering this up, and it’s only in recent years that it has become common knowledge, by way of the two audits done over the past two years, that there are problems at LBACS due to the “challenging” involvement LBACS has with SpcaLA. But to date, not one City Council member, nor Mayor Garcia, has spoken honestly about the mess at LBACS that exists because the City has allowed SpcaLA to call the shot at LBACS and hobble its operations.

Mayor Garcia and the City staff, as well as some members of City Council, have been pulling the wool over the eyes of the animal-friendly folks in Long Beach for years now because the City doesn't want to rock the boat with spcaLA. This announcement is, unfortunately, just another attempt to spin the fact that LBACS is still killing healthy and treatable animals when they don't have to.

We're always happy when fewer animals are being killed, but when you know how hard the City has fought and continues to fight against implementing No Kill policies, it's clear that we still have a Mayor, a City Council and a city shelter in Long Beach that are not committed to saving all healthy and treatable animals, and as a result, animals are still dying needlessly. The good news is that people can use their votes to help the animals. We hope you'll do that in the next election.
​
We encourage you to share this post to let as many people as possible know about what the actual situation is surrounding shelter animals in Long Beach. Thank you for all who continue to advocate for a No Kill shelter in Long Beach.

​

0 Comments

Why Mayor Garcia Must Free the LB City Shelter from SpcaLA's Grasp

11/22/2019

0 Comments

 
Picture


LB Council to Act - Your help is needed.

We are finally seeing some of the results coming out of the last two audits of Long Beach Animal Care Services, which revealed the LBACS shelter to be a chaotic, disorganized shelter, lacking the ability to provide humane care for Long Beach’s animals and deficient in nearly every lifesaving program that a humane, well-managed shelter needs to have.

According to a November 15 city memo, in December, City Council will consider two measures that will allegedly increase lifesaving at LBACS. The memo further states that LBACS will work to “negotiate” an agreement with SpcaLA, which was recommended in last year’s audits.

Here’s what you need to know about these possible actions:

1. 𝗔𝗻𝘆 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗦𝗽𝗰𝗮𝗟𝗔 𝗠𝗨𝗦𝗧 𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗟𝗕𝗔𝗖𝗦' 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗦𝗽𝗰𝗮𝗟𝗔 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗟𝗕𝗔𝗖𝗦 𝗮𝘀 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝘄𝗻, 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝘆-𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗹𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆. Anyone who has followed the issue of the LBACS shelter or read a news article about the issue knows that the main problem with SpcaLA is that SpcaLA leadership has put a stranglehold on LBACS adoptions. SpcaLA has said in the press that they believe that LBACS should fulfill the responsibilities ANIMAL CONTROL and SpcaLA should be the primary agency responsible for adoptions. Because the City of Long Beach has historically hired managers at LBACS who have had no experience in animal shelter management, SpcaLA has become the de facto expert in sheltering and in effect, over much of the past two decades, “what SpcaLA says, LBACS does” has been the way LBACS has operated. This means that SpcaLA has had inappropriate control over LBACS’ operations for nearly two decades. In fact, the prior manager of LBACS told multiple advocates during his tenure that SpcaLA does not want LBACS to do adoptions. This state of affairs has been devastating for Long Beach’s animals.

Let’s look at how this plays out. Because of its inappropriate control of LBACS, SpcaLA has first choice of the animals at LBACS, and even when an adopter is standing on site, ready to take an LBACS animal home, adopters have been rejected, told by LBACS staff that the animal first has to be rejected by SpcaLA. Citizens report that SpcaLA has referred people out of the city for adoption when they decline an adopter, rather than referring them next door to LBACS. City records reveal that this has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of animals at LBACS since the partnership with SpcaLA began in 1998.

And this is only ONE of the problems with the toxic, unregulated relationship with SpcaLA. Struggles have existed over signage (LBACS is not “allowed” to advertise its own animals for adoptions by putting up a sign or directing people to anything but animals already rejected by SpcaLA for adoption – even if SpcaLA shows no interest at the time in taking the animal in and later rejects him – another life lost because of administrative chaos and mismanagement.) At a large clear-the-shelters type event this year, multiple residents and volunteers reported that LBACS had to take cats over to another area of El Dorado Park in order to do LBACS adoptions, rather than affect the SpcaLA’s adoption bottom line. This is beyond inappropriate. LBACS should not be a second class citizen in its own city on city land, bending to the dictates of a private organization with no accountability to the public.

In addition, SpcaLA has been using LBACS as a de facto puppy mill, taking only the most adoptable animals (including nearly 100% of the puppies) and regularly leaving the ones with even mild medical or behavior issues at LBACS, according to city records. The rest of the animals are therefore left to languish on the LBACS side, with no serious adoption program to speak of (LBACS’ Nov. 15 memo touted the fact that they did 677 adoptions in 2018, calling it an unprecedented increase. Sacramento’s city shelter did over 5,000 during the same period – so 677 is unprecedented how, we wonder.) To make matters worse, and more troubling than anything else we have ever heard from the City is this: We have been told by city staff that SpcaLA has let LBACS know that SpcaLA will not spay/neuter any LBACS animals if LBACS embarks on a strong adoption program. In a City Council meeting this past spring, LBACS said that they could not do all of their own spay/neuters and therefore could not have a full-service adoption program. The City has ALL the power in the world to remedy this, and if what the City has said is true, this is beyond unacceptable.

If and when an MOU is established with SpcaLA, it must declare LBACS and SpcaLA completely separate entities and fully separate their operations so that LBACS can operate at the scale necessary to meet the needs of the people of Long Beach. It must also be written such that the City of Long Beach requires SpcaLA to be completely transparent in ALL of its outcomes for animals, and submit to regular inspections by LBACS of its records and facilities, given that SpcaLA is located on city-owned, taxpayer funded land. Anything less would be a dereliction of duty on the part of the City to be a responsible steward of the city’s homeless animals.

2. 𝗟𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗯𝗲 𝗯𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗟𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗕𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗽𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗲𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗰𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗽𝗰𝗮𝗟𝗔 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺. In December, the City will consider an ordinance to limit the animals that can be brought into Long Beach for adoption. According to the Nov. 15 memo, this will apply to both individuals and organizations. This is overkill and a bad idea for animals for many reasons. First of all, this law will apply to rescues as well as individuals, without specifically requiring SpcaLA to adhere to this rule. The problem is not that SpcaLA brings animals in from other cities (which we understand it does) – it’s that LBACS does not have full programs in place (especially an adoption, foster and medical/behavioral programs) to save animals. If this proposed law is designed to place constraints on SpcaLA, it should say that explicitly in the language. Further, a law is not required because this could be covered by an MOU between LBACS and SpcaLA. This does not address the problem of logic embedded in this proposal, however.

The logic behind this soon-to-be-considered law is ostensibly that if, by chance, SpcaLA is included in this ordinance, SpcaLA would then be able to take more animals from LBACS. This should, we can say with clarity, NEVER happen. The enormous and unrelenting problem with this is that SpcaLA does NOT publicize its outcomes and has no accountability to the public. People in Long Beach have NO IDEA what happens to the animals that go into SpcaLA. SpcaLA has come out vehemently against No Kill, and reserves the right to kill animals at their and only their discretion.

𝗟𝗲𝘁 𝘂𝘀 𝗯𝗲 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿: 𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗻𝗼 𝗰𝗶𝗿𝗰𝘂𝗺𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝟮𝟬 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗕𝗔𝗖𝗦 𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗯𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗟𝗕𝗔𝗖𝗦. 𝗟𝗕𝗔𝗖𝗦 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗮𝗱𝗼𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗳𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗲𝘀𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗺𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆, 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗦𝗽𝗰𝗮𝗟𝗔.

It should be clear by now that this proposed law suffers from fatal over-reach. For one thing, it will restrict the right of animal rescues to help an animal if they encounter it in a neighboring community. For individuals, that means if you find an animal in Lakewood, you can’t adopt that animal out in Long Beach. If you find an animal in Torrance, but you’re a rescue in Long Beach, you would not be able to adopt that animal out at your Long Beach adoption event. This is completely unnecessary and does nothing to help animals: LBACS needs to get out from under the thumb of SpcaLA so that it can put in place a strong adoption program, foster program and other programs. THAT is what is necessary. Not additional restrictions on already-overburdened rescuers and good Samaritans who already struggle while they do the work of LBACS for LBACS.

3. 𝗜𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗸𝗲𝗲𝗽 𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗮 𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗱-𝗮𝗶𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗰𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗟𝗕 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗷𝗼𝗯 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗹𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗹𝘀. The City will seek to increase the number of animals people can keep to 6, up from the 4-animal limit that currently exists. This is the one proposal we agree with, and only provisionally. We propose the number be increased to 8. LBACS has noted in the memo that Sacramento allows people to keep 10 animals. The fact is – limits on the number of animals in a household have no demonstrated impact on animal welfare. For some people, one animal is too many. For experienced foster families, more animals is not a problem and we know many who maintain their animals in exemplary conditions and health. The fact is this: Hoarders will find a way to hoard animals regardless of the law. People who are responsible and who are the best prepared to care for more animals will adhere to a limit, and this limits the number of animals that responsible people will take into their homes because the responsible folks don’t want to break a law. An 8 animal limit, combined with the current laws in existence at the state and local level that require humane care and treatment of animals kept in the home, may help to save more animals at LBACS, but we have to remember: This is nothing more than a band-aid – a way for the City to avoid directly addressing the SpcaLA problem. Once again, the City is foisting its duty to shelter Long Beach’s animals on the general public, the same public it blames when they kill animals in the Long Beach animal shelter and the same public that pays their salaries.

People who want a No Kill shelter need to get out and educate City Council on what they want to happen at the shelter. This especially includes independent No Kill advocates, but it also includes anyone and everyone who wants the killing to stop at the LBACS animals shelter.

Get informed. Inform your neighbors, friends and family and then get out there and advocate. The animals are counting on YOU to be their voice.

Read the memo here: https://tinyurl.com/NOV15MEMO

0 Comments

Councilmember Jeannine Pearce Betrays No Kill, Guts Legislation that Would Have Saved Long Beach's Shelter Animals

5/1/2019

0 Comments

 

on M​Councilmember Jeannine Pearce has shown her true colors by joining anti-No Kill voices in the City that are pushing through the “Compassion saves” approach to animal sheltering – an approach with massive loopholes that will allow animals to continue to be killed at the Long Beach animal shelter.
 
Ms. Pearce has been writing the item for the past several months, supposedly working with animal advocates that support No Kill who went to her asking for a resolution that would establish No Kill programs at LBACS. In a classic bait-and-switch, Ms. Pearce ignored advocates’ requests for specific lifesaving programs, and has now come out with an agenda item that supports the City’s weak and ineffectual “Compassion saves” approach, massively gutting the group’s original proposal, slashing specific programs of the No Kill Equation, like a comprehensive adoption and foster program that are specifically and intentionally independent of SpcaLA. 
 
Ms. Pearce also specifically removed the provision for LBACS to have full autonomy from SpcaLA generally-speaking, which is absolutely necessary for our shelter to serve the community.
 
Councilmember Pearce also ignored the provision that SpcaLA be required to be fully transparent and post the outcomes of all of the animals that go into its shelter. (Animals go into a “black hole” at SpcaLA – no records of what happens to animals once they enter SpcaLA are available to the public. At the same time, SpcaLA does not support No Kill, so we have no assurance that animals are not killed when they go to SpcaLA.)

Instead Ms. Pearce’s agenda item, which will be voted on this Tuesday leaves open loopholes for SpcaLA to continue running the adoption program at LBACS, to continue to call the shots operationally at LBACS, and to continue to use LBACS as its main animal supplier in Long Beach. In fact, Ms. Pearce’s item calls for “maximizing collaboration” with SpcaLA with no mention of reforming the toxic partnership between LBACS and the privately-run, multi-million dollar SpcaLA, which has proven to be so harmful to our shelter animals over the past two decades.
 
Finally, Councilmember Pearce made a call in an op-ed piece yesterday for all advocates in Long Beach to “work together.” It’s no surprise – the election will heat up in approximately 6 months, and Councilmember Pearce will certainly want to silence the large and growing ever larger community of Long Beach residents who are calling for LBACS to be a No Kill shelter that is independent of SpcaLA. And she needs that to happen well before the next election.
 
[Note: In spite of a majority of public input requesting a No Kill shelter, Long Beach City Council passed the “Compassion Saves,” approach – a set of policies that establish business as usual at the Long Beach shelter - in May 2019.]

0 Comments

LBACS is not No Kill; City attempts to deceive with "Compassion saves"

4/19/2019

0 Comments

 
Over the next day or two, we’ll be breaking down our analysis of the City’s presentation so you can see what the “new” approach to sheltering in Long Beach now is.

Part 1. No Independent Adoption Program at LBACS

The first thing to know is that LBACS will not be doing an independent adoption program. This is the first indication that the approach the City has come up with, which they’ve named “Compassion saves” is not No Kill. A complete and comprehensive adoption program is crucial to No Kill; therefore, it is virtually impossible for a municipal city animal shelter to be No Kill without an adoption program.

Second of all, the City’s discussion of No Kill was clearly designed to discredit No Kill once and for all as an approach to sheltering in Long Beach. The entire presentation was an exercise in creating fear among residents, claiming that if the City went No Kill, LBACS would have to become a closed admission shelter that would turn animals away.

This is, of course, a complete falsehood. Sacramento, though not yet No Kill, follows No Kill programs, strives for No Kill and yet is completely open admission. Austin’s No Kill shelter, the most successful in the nation, is absolutely an open admission shelter. In telling this falsehood, the City of Long Beach aligned itself with PETA, a nationally-recognized anti-No Kill organization that kills 72% of animals in their shelter.

Although the City acknowledged that closed admission is not part of No Kill, the theme of “No Kill makes shelters close their doors” was pervasive throughout the entire presentation, and it revealed the true intent of “Compassion saves” – Compassion saves is designed to be a smokescreen to make it appear that LBACS has an orientation similar to No Kill. But it’s clear that LBACS will continue, at this point, to be nothing more than an animal control agency, which is exactly what SpcaLA wants it to be.

The good news is that advocating for No Kill has been enormously successful in decreasing the kill rate at LBACS. When No Kill Long Beach (then Stayin’ Alive) broke the news on the front page of the Press Telegram in 2013 that LBACS was not a No Kill shelter, LBACS had a 53% kill rate. In the six years since then, we’ve seen a 34 percentage point drop in the kill rate -- an unprecedented decrease in killing due uniquely to the fact that we advocated consistently and firmly, and made sure that LBACS’ true status as a shelter that kills was known to the public.

Advocating remains an extraordinarily powerful means of saving lives at the LBACS shelter. We hope you’ll continue to support and advocate for our shelter animals. By continuing to be their voice, we are able to support them and make it difficult for the City to force LBACS to continue killing.

One day, people will look back in history and find it unbelievable that we killed animals relentlessly throughout the 20th and early 21st century in our country’s shelters. We sleep easy knowing that we who support No Kill be on the right side of history when people look back. No Kill is compassionate and effective, and we’ll continue to advocate for No Kill in Long Beach.
​
0 Comments

Why Blaming the Public Helps No One

12/15/2018

0 Comments

 
Picture
Someone on our page recently and once again pointed out that it's the public's fault that shelters have to kill animals.  That's incorrect and here's why.

The No Kill approach to sheltering has given up the unproductive practice of blaming the public and instead embraces the idea of looking to the vast majority of people who care about animals and want to do the right thing for them to help with a solution.


Blaming the public alienates the public, the majority of whom want to do the right thing.   Blaming the public alienates all of the bad people and also the good people, the people who will volunteer, who will foster, who will donate and who will contribute large amounts of resources to make the shelter a positive lifesaving place. And often shelters blame the public while at the same time refusing to make changes to out of date practices and policies that are actively causing the shelter to kill animals.

So, some examples of regressive policies Long Beach Animal Care Services (LBACS) has and needs to change:

**No staff or shelter volunteers are allowed to touch animals for 6 days (14 if they're microchipped), which means animals get no socialization during the difficult period of adjustment to the shelter and beyond. [This is a horribly regressive practice that is a very significant reason why LBACS kills nearly 1100 animals every year.]

**LBACS labels animals as temperamentally unsuited to adoption (which they are not - the problem, if there is one, most likely has been caused by the shelter itself) and actively discourages people from adopting by giving only negative information about animals over the phone.

**LBACS has a confusing adoption policy that they don't communicate adequately to the public and that their partner, SpcaLA actively undermines (as we have been told repeatedly by people who have tried to adopt.)

**LBACS doesn't adequately exercise animals, and if those animals have a lot of energy, LBACS also won't take them to adoption events, which means those animals are then killed.

So...blaming the public really isn't a productive strategy, though it is a very old one that the non-progressive shelter community works very hard to promote.

By blaming the public, shelters are alienating the very people we need to bring into the shelters to adopt because most people want to do the right thing. Shelters need to be safe havens for animals, not places where they go to be killed while the shelter underperforms and points fingers at the public.

As the NJ Animal Observer notes:

"Unfortunately, many in the animal welfare world blame the public for shelter killing instead of the shelter leaders who are responsible for it. You will see things like “if only everyone spayed/neutered their pets” or “we just need a breeding ban” then we wouldn’t have any shelters killing savable animals. While these specific arguments can be addressed individually, the simple answer is communities with a far more irresponsible public have ended the killing. We can do it by simply following proven policies to get there. To get those policies in place, we need to inspire, persuade, and pressure those in charge to do so."

No one says - abusive parents are irresponsible, so we can't have a strong safety net/Child Protective Services to protect children.  Instead, as a society we put in place the programs and policies that will help children who are in danger.  There is no question of blaming the public. You dig in and get the job done. That's all.


Yes, there are irresponsible people in every community.  The irresponsible public will always be with us. We will not see the end of irresponsible pet ownership in our lifetimes or in our children's lifetimes.  Blaming the public does nothing. Putting in place responsible shelter programs and shifting to better methods and approaches for animal sheltering works - it's been proven to work over and over again across the country.

That's how we transform our shelters from killing facilities to true safe havens for our shelter animals.  

0 Comments

City of Long Beach puts money ahead of animals...again.

11/10/2018

1 Comment

 

The next Task Force meeting about Long Beach Animal Care Services' future is scheduled for November 13 at 11 am. Let's be clear: We're not talking just about the future of a city agency. We're talking about the future of our city's shelter animals.

In the month since the last meeting, we've learned a few things.

We've learned that LBACS is now offering an "amnesty" for people who have not been licensing their pets. The goal, according to the City, is to get more people to license their pets so that there is "ongoing revenue...in the current and future years."

No Kill Long Beach has had extensive e-mails with the Auditor's office asking about where people's money goes when they license their animals. And here's the deal:

Licensing funds go to the City's General Fund. They don't go to a special account designated for the shelter or for shelter animals.

Licensing funds are not earmarked for the shelter, and if licensing revenue increases, that does not mean that LBACS' budget increases. There is virtually no connection between the fees LBACS brings in and the LBACS budget. That money goes into the General Fund and gets doled out with all of the rest of the GF money to the City's various programs and units.

What this means is that in the time since audits were published, the City has chosen to make one of the highest priority action items the procurement of MORE money from the people of Long Beach with no guarantee, as far as we know, that this money will go back to the shelter.

We would be okay with this if more licensing meant more lost animals going home to their owners.

But that's not the case: According to City records, in 2017 only one animals -- one dog -- was returned to his/her owner because of an animal license tag. ONE.

Microchips were much more effective (106 animals) and the number one way people got their pets back was that they walked into the shelter.

A licensing "amnesty" is not what Long Beach needs.

What we need are a creative, knowledgeable, public-friendly director who knows about 21st century sheltering methods.

What we need is a shelter that gets its money through grants and donations, not through the punitive use of licenses to increase revenue.

What we need is a shelter that knows that the way to get more animals home is not to punish people for losing their pets with high redemption fees (of which licensing fees and late fees are a part), but instead is to make the shelter a welcoming, positive place that people want to go to and want to support.

We encourage people to go to the Task Force meeting on November 13 (details below).

It's time to speak up for No Kill -- REAL No Kill. The saving all healthy and TREATABLE animals in our shelter.

The animals need YOU to be their voice. Support No Kill in Long Beach.

1 Comment

City Manager Pat West has overseen the killing of more than 47,000 dogs and cats at Long Beach Animal Care Services: An open letter to Mayor Garcia and City Council

10/2/2018

0 Comments

 

Following is an open letter from No Kill Long Beach to Mayor Garcia and Long Beach City Council on the occasion of City Manager Patrick West's 2018 performance review.

​ 
October 2, 2018
 
Dear Mayor Garcia and Members of City Council:

This letter is submitted as commentary on the performance of City Manager Patrick West. It is in regard to Mr. West’s management of Long Beach Animal Care Services during his tenure as the city’s top administrator.

The recent audits of Long Beach Animal Care Services (Phase One and Phase Two) have revealed how poorly managed this city bureau has been during the decade that Patrick West has been the Long Beach City Manager.  The current chaotic condition of LBACS is directly attributable to Patrick West’s negligence of the shelter and his failing to take into account the key role it plays in the lives of the people of Long Beach.  In the wake of the troubling reports that have come out of the City Auditor’s performance review of the shelter, there now can be no doubt that LBACS is a shelter in crisis – a situation that could have been prevented had Mr. West hired competent managers and carried out proper oversight.  A review of the shelter’s condition over the past 10 years shows that under Mr. West’s management, LBACS has failed to hire managers with backgrounds in animal sheltering. In addition, it has lacked proper staffing and resources to maintain humane care of animals.  Furthermore, LBACS has seriously mismanaged taxpayer funds in ways that show a gross disregard for or misunderstanding of fiscally-responsible management of taxpayer resources. 

Based on the Auditor’s findings, it is clear that LBACS has been chronically mismanaged under City Manager Patrick West’s tenure, not only currently, but also at least since 2009, and likely earlier.  Given the depth and breadth of the problems documented by the Auditor’s review, and the nearly ten-year span of financial hemorrhaging of taxpayer dollars discussed in the report that has occurred through LBACS’ mismanagement, it is clear that oversight of the shelter by the Mr. West has been inadequate, costing the taxpayers of Long Beach millions of dollars over the past decade.  We submit the following for consideration in the performance evaluation of City Manager Patrick West.

Fiscal mismanagement at LBACS is a longstanding problem at LBACS.  It has been the subject of two prior audits and the recent audit shows that LBACS continues to be fiscally mismanaged.  Phase Two of the Auditor’s recent review notes that LBACS has failed to collect nearly $1 million in citations since 2009, collecting only 13% of the fees due to LBACS. Nearly 2/3 of the outstanding amount can no longer be collected due to statutes of limitation in effect.  This has occurred during the tenure of Mr. West as City Manager, starting two years after he was hired. Even more troubling: fiscal mismanagement is a pattern that has been in place at LBACS for nearly a decade.  The Auditor’s report alluded to, but did not explain, that the City Auditor’s Office (CAO) carried out an audit in 2011 that revealed that an LBACS employee had embezzled over $250,000 from LBACS. The audit found that the theft was made possible by lax accounting procedures in place at LBACS, an area that Mr. West should have been monitoring via the Director of Parks, Recreation and Marine and the various managers LBACS has had over the past decade.  Subsequent news articles reported that the employee had embezzled $600,000 over the course of a career at LBACS. A 2014 audit found that problems with LBACS’ accounting procedures that led to the embezzlement had not been fully resolved.

Mr. West has hired a series of inexperienced managers at LBACS who were neither educated nor qualified via experience to run the operations of a shelter
. Historically, City Manager Mr. West has hired managers from within the City’s own departments, hiring people who don’t have the specific training, education or experience in animal sheltering that is necessary to humanely run a shelter. These managers left after mismanagement or outright animal cruelty were revealed by the public or by the Auditor’s office.  As told by media stories and city audits, the story of LBACS managers has been one of bumbling, stumbling and weaving, as animals were killed by the tens of thousands over the past 10 years. The past three managers that have been hired at LBACS under Mr. West’s tenure have all resigned in the midst of crisis:
 
LBACS Manager Wesley Moore resigned from LBACS in 2008 after a dog was inhumanely killed in what was described in the press as a “grisly” scene. The LA Daily News/Press-Telegram at the time described the horrific incident in detail. Rather than acknowledge the role of the manager in this situation, the City blamed the incident on a lack of resources. Mr. Moore resigned.  City Manager Patrick West at the time said in the media that Moore’s resignation had nothing to do with the dog’s inhumane treatment.

LBACS Manager John Keisler was hired in the wake of Wesley Moore’s resignation. Mr. Keisler left LBACS soon after a national scandal which implicated LBACS in the inhumane transport of more than 125 animals by a Long Beach rescue.  According to the Press-Telegram, LBACS supervised the loading of animals into a truck by a Long Beach rescue group in preparation to move the animals to Virginia. The truck was stopped en route and the rescue was charged with 128 counts of aggravated animal cruelty. The news outlet notes that “the animals were being transported in deplorable conditions” and “[o]fficers [in Tennessee] noted urine and feces all over the cargo compartment and located no food or water provided to the animals.” According to press reports, then-LBACS manager, Mr. Keisler, admitted that the Long Beach animal control officers who went to the loading of the animals in Long Beach did not do a final inspection, and likely had no idea that the rescue was transporting nearly 130 animals in spite of being present at the time of loading. In the wake of press reports that LBACS was involved in the loading of the animals, Mr. Keisler promised to do an investigation into LBACS’ procedures.  To our knowledge, the results of that investigation were never made public.  Not surprisingly, Mr. Keisler left the position of LBACS manager not soon afterward. When he left, LBACS was killing 55% of the animals in its care. And Mr. Keisler, like the managers before and after him, still made excuses for the killing.

Current LBACS manager Ted Stevens is also leaving at a time of crisis – the recent audit reports have shown the shelter to be currently suffering from poor management – clearly an indictment of Mr. Stevens’ lack of leadership.  Mr. Stevens has been the manager of LBACS during the specific period during which the last two audit reports were prepared, and although the audits praised the staff of LBACS for their work, they also found that employee morale at LBACS is very low, that employees were given conflicting instructions and that operations were poorly managed. Furthermore, the audits found that LBACS lacks adequate housing, veterinary care or operational know-how to run a humane, well-run animal shelter. For example, the Phase One of the audit found LBACS engaging in numerous practices that do not meet minimum industry standards, including housing sick animals next to unvaccinated animals, a lack of proper monitoring of animals after veterinary care, contaminating dogs’ drinking water with detergent while cleaning and other similar issues that affect the care of animals.  
 
Phase Two of the audit continued to document LBACS’ poor performance, revealing that LBACS provides grossly inadequate care to animals, including an inability to properly feed animals or clean animals’ housing. According to the report, animals receive only 6 minutes of care per day -- less than half the industry-recommended standard of 15 minutes. Even more troubling, the report finds that veterinary care is insufficient, with a very high ratio of animals to veterinary staff, and with veterinary staff at times unable to complete daily rounds to check on animals’ welfare. Daily rounds are a very basic requirement of animal sheltering, without which animals often fall ill. No Kill Long Beach’s research has shown that animals euthanized for illness at LBACS often come into the shelter healthy but suffer declines in health over time, and they are subsequently euthanized for illnesses caused by the shelter itself.
 
Further, during Mr. Stevens’ tenure, No Kill Long Beach found that at least one dog has been killed in violation of California’s Hayden Act, which establishes specific conditions under which an animal may not be euthanized.  In addition, during Mr. Stevens’ time as manager, LBACS burned a dog so severely by leaving him on a heating mat during surgery, that he nearly died.

The Auditor’s review blames a lack of staffing for these deficits – an issue directly impacted by Mr. West.  In addition, as mentioned above, Mr. West has repeatedly hired managers from within the City’s ranks with no experience in animal shelter management. It is difficult to believe that Mr. West’s practice of hiring managers with no animal shelter management experience has not affected staff’s ability to work at optimal levels.
 
Losses in the millions of dollars, the consistent hiring of shelter managers without appropriate education or experience, the resulting inhumane treatment of animals, and the ongoing problems stemming from the fact that the residents of Long Beach are unhappy with the direction LBACS has taken for the past decade or more are not hallmarks of a good manager. 
 
We hope that in reviewing Mr. West’s performance as City Manager, the Mayor and City Council take into account the facts presented in this letter. Long Beach residents deserve an animal shelter that is among the best in the nation, one that is befitting of the sixth largest city in California. Thank you for reading.
0 Comments
<<Previous

    Archives

    February 2020
    January 2020
    November 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    August 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    February 2016
    October 2015
    May 2015
    October 2014
    September 2014
    May 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    November 2013
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012

    SALB

    An initiative to make Long Beach a No Kill community.

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • Home
  • 2020 Voter Information Guide
  • How you can help
  • Get Informed
    • The No Kill Equation >
      • Redemption: The No Kill Documentary
    • SALB Research & Policy Report 2014
    • SALB Research & Policy Report 2013
    • ACS and SPCA-LA: Who's who?
    • No Kill Economics
    • No-Kill Video Library
    • SALB Guide to Increasing Volunteerism
    • June 11, 2013: JUST ONE DAY
    • No Kill Long Beach in the News
    • City Audits of LBACS
  • Contact Us
    • Who we are
    • Sign our guest book
  • LBACS's Numbers
    • Kennel Statistics Reports
  • Model No Kill Ordinance
  • LB City Officials' Contact Info
  • No Kill Long Beach Blog
  • Justice for Thor
  • LBACS Complaints
  • A Shelter in Crisis
  • 2018 Candidates' Responses
  • LBACS Document Archive
  • Why "Compassion Saves" is No Good