The Orange County Animal Shelter, Are Improvements Needed? 06/01/04, 124k

Commingling newly acquired (unassessed) animals with the population of healthy, adoptable animals encourages the spread of illness/disease and raises the likelihood of injury caused by aggressive behavior.

The current Animal Care Services (ACS) practice of excluding kennel staff from making euthanasia decisions does not comply with ACS policy.

In following the “no kill” provisions of the Hayden Bill (California Civil Code §1833-1840, SB 1785), ACS frequently ignores other provisions of the bill that allow animals that are too old, too ill or too aggressive for adoption to be euthanized.

ACS was out of compliance with California Health and Safety Code §121575-121710 with respect to the quarantining of an animal that had repeatedly bitten humans, and did not forward tissue samples of a euthanized animal for examination.

ACS management frequently overrides the objections of kennel staff and allows overly aggressive animals to be adopted. Overly aggressive animals placed in adoptive homes could pose not only a public-safety hazard but also a threat of liability to the County.

ACS treats chronically ill animals with medication to mask the symptoms and then allows the sick animals to be adopted. Many of the adopted animals are returned when the symptoms of chronic illness recur.

ACS has donated adoptable animals to a veterinary hospital operated by associates of one of the managers. This practice not only denies to ACS the funds that it would normally receive when the animals are adopted, but also creates a conflict of interest for managers, whose primary responsibility should be to ACS.

ACS donates popular breeds of dogs to animal-rescue groups after the dogs have been spayed or neutered at County expense. This practice effectively uses County funds to underwrite the expenses of private organizations.

A person hired by the Health Care Agency (HCA), and approved by the Board of Supervisors, as a senior manager of ACS, with the responsibility to administer a $10-million annual budget, lacked experience in managing a large-budget animal shelter. 1

ACS makes little or no use of volunteers for animal care, depending instead on a variable supply of Work-Release Program inmates from the Theo Lacy Jail.

The Animal Control Advisory Board, whose seven members are appointed by the Board of Supervisors, is currently lacking two members.

The purchasing and contracting practices of ACS are not in compliance with County policy.

Unless ACS is able to provide for expansion of the Animal Shelter, ACS may have to limit the services it provides or the number of animals it accommodates.

A fundraising foundation, Friends of Orange County Animal Services (FOCAS), was proposed in 2000 but never legally established, although it raised $25,000 for ACS. Those funds are in a trust account controlled by HCA. Responses to all findings are requested from the Health Care Agency and Animal Care Services. A response to Finding 4 is requested from the Orange County Department of Public Health, Epidemiology and Assessment. Responses to Findings 9 and 11 are required from the Board of Supervisors.