Dear Editor,
Last week, you published a letter titled ‘County Plans:
Deconstruct Animal Shelter and Euthanize, Euthanize,
Euthanize.’
Dear Editor,
Last week, you published a letter titled ‘County Plans: Deconstruct Animal Shelter and Euthanize, Euthanize, Euthanize.’ The letter does not accurately reflect County plans toward animal sheltering and the way it operates the south county animal shelter.
First of all, the County is mandated by the State to conduct animal sheltering for its unincorporated residents. It is not obligated under this mandate to provide services to city residents and, given the size of the current shelter and cost to shelter animals, it does not accept animals from city residents. However, the shelter does take in animals from emergency personnel from the cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy if the shelter has room. At the same time, unincorporated residents can be assured that the County is not going to stop providing animal sheltering services to them.
Several years ago, the County commissioned a study to evaluate the best options for providing animal sheltering services in the south county area. One of the options was to build a new shelter at an estimated cost of $7.2 million. The County has put this plan into a project list along with hundreds of other capital projects it intends to build in the future. Completion of these projects is dependent on funds available to the County. For the next few years, the County will be facing annual budget deficits of $150 – $200 million. So at this point in time, there is not an opportunity to build a new animal shelter. Given the magnitude of the budget problem, it is going to be difficult just to maintain public safety and health services at the current level for unincorporated residents.
At one point, the County considered reducing services at the shelter by closing an additional day of the week. However, thanks to a State reimbursement of sheltering costs, the County was able to restore the positions, and even increase staffing slightly. It must be noted this revenue is decided upon annually, and it can be eliminated at any time in the State budget.
Last week’s letter also contained incorrect statements regarding the current operations of the shelter. One, the County replaced the ‘dead box’ at the shelter because it was old and malfunctioning, causing extreme odor concerns for its workers. The new cooler was erected on the same footprint as the old one, and was not constructed to allow for more ‘killed animals’ as the letter claims. Two, more animals have been leaving the shelter alive each year since 2003. These facts are being reported quarterly to the Board of Supervisors by the Animal Care and Control staff. So last week’s letter would have been more accurate if it had said, ‘Adopt, Adopt, Adopt.’ Yes, there are more animals brought to the shelter during the summer months each year, causing the shelter to look full temporarily, but that’s because summer is peak season for dropoffs – fortunately, summer is also peak season for adoptions.
The current shelter is old, make no mistake about that. But it’s clean, it’s friendly and it has a great revitalized volunteer group in FOSMAS (Friends of the San Martin Animal Shelter) that supports it. Best of all, it features high quality animals available for immediate adoption. I invite you to visit the shelter if you are looking to adopt a loving pet.
Don Gage, Supervisor, District One
