From: pnina gersten <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:54 AM
It appears Ms. Daugherty has “urged" City Council to remove the municipal code section 53.11 (p), which is what permits fee waivers for non-profit humane and rescue organizations. In essence, Ms. Daugherty’s action would do away with rescue discounts for New Hope partners. In her proposal Ms. Daugherty goes so far as to name specific and the adoption fees they charge for the animals they rescue. Apparently using the unfounded equation that adoption fee minus shelter bail fee equals profit. As a result City Council took action.
According to the Daily News article of May 8th, 2009, City Council declared “in an effort to keep private groups from getting the dogs from shelters just to sell them for hundreds or thousands of dollars, the on Friday voted to restrict the ability of such organizations from profiting on the animals.” Furthermore, “ The council authorized an audit procedure of the private non-profits to see how they were handling the animals."
Congratulation Ms Daugherty and City Council, as a shelter scout who works closely with New Hope partners and LA City shelters, it is my opinion that actions like these should raise the euthanasia rate and whip out the progress we have made over the years.
It appears that Ms Daugherty and city council are not accounting for the expenses New Hope partners incur in rescuing shelter animals. For example, basic needs such as, collars, tags, leashes, blankets, food, basic medical testing, deworming, flea and tick control, chew toys, basic blood panels, cat trees, beds, puppy and kitten milk replacement and bottles for the unweaned, feeding and water bowls, cleaning supplies, treats, litter and litter boxes, grooming, cages for adoption events, gas for transportation, insurance coverage, website fees, fund raisers expenses, change of microchip, and boarding fees.
In my opinion they also fail to accounting for the current economic climate which has reduced the number of adoption, thus increasing the period of time that animals New Hope partner rescue are boarded in facilities or paid foster homes.
Of course real rescuers know that many of the bigger expenses arise because rescuers typically DO NOT take the perfect, healthy adoptable animal, rather, rescuers take the injured, the sick, those needing training and the senior who have been disposed. That is, those animal NEEDING rescue thus saving LAAS extended cost to house them and then kill them.
If Ms Daugherty and City Council are so confident in their economic analysis of NH partners and their supposed profit then I invite them to offer reimbursement to New Hope partners who lost out of pocket money on the aforementioned expenses.
Attach please find Ms Daugherty’s proposal and list of New Hope partners she names and fees they charge when adopting out an animal. Yes, Ms Daugherty, it is an “adoption”. BTW, LAAS and call it an adoption also.
City Council has already heard from Ms. Daugherty and what she has to say. Now they need to hear the facts from New Hope partners and what it really cost to rescue a shelter animal.