By the way...I first made suggestions to Mr. Maggard approx. 2 years ago..before the Calgary, Canada thing hit the papers.    And the problem with the guy that says let volunteers take up the slack...Are you aware of the potential legal ramifications of having volunteers acting on behlf of The Animal Control Department? And as far as anyone knowing a CPA to do the math...I believe Mike Maggard is just that !

  I have emailed County Supervisor Mike Maggard twice regarding animal control reform proposals that I felt would be of help. I never received a response (other than the auto-generated email that confirms your email was received in the system). I suggested the outrageous idea of LOWERING animal license fees. If the maximum fee to license your pet annually is a mere $15.00 regardless if the pet is natural or spayed/neutered, the compliance with licensing would go up from the current 8% or 10% to a respectful 65% - 85%. when you put that into dollar amounts, you would have a remarkable surplus (I am basing this on information that I've read from newspaper articles in communities across our nation that have been smart enough to do the math and realize a reduction in licensing fees for dogs plus requiring cat licensing very cheap equals a tremendous increase in funds and a dramatic decrease of animals killed in shelters). I feel that it should not stop there though...I feel dog owners are singled out unfairly. Cat owners should be required to license their pet as well for a fee of $5.00 to $8.00 per year. Cat lovers are just as upset as dog owners regarding the number of animals that are killed in shelters annually. For less than $10.00 per year per cat...a great deal can be done to control the ferule cat population and end a great deal of unnecessary suffering that they endure. I feel that pet owners need to take good care of their pets as well. I think that even if you have a license for your pet and it escapes and is saved from the perils of the street, the owner should pay a nominal fee of $30.00 to get their pet back...FLAT FEE IF WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME FRAME. For those that do not properly safeguard their pet and repeatedly allow it to run around the neighborhood, or can't keep it contained within your yard; should be required to pay $100.00 minimum fine (imposed through courts....not just a surrender of the pet and no further action taken !  I have seen a neighbor that lives 4 houses away surrender 4 different dogs over a five year period because he gets large-breed dogs that always end up being very aggressive to anyone walking down the sidewalk in front of his house...they eventually start jumping over the 3-1/2 foot front fence, run around the neighborhood trying to attack every dog that is contained within their owners yard...then Animal Control comes out...someone tells the officer who owns the dog...the dog is returned to owner with a warning....within 2 weeks dog repeatedly gets out and animal control eventually catches dog before owner notices or is told(about 20 to 60 minutes)...then owner is told dog is a nuisance to the neighborhood and owner not keeping proper control of dog....so owner surrenders the dog...within a few weeks he's got another large-breed puppy to start the cycle all over. I do not know the exact rules regarding this issue, but I think the owner should be tossed into the animal controls truck box and driven around for hours..then taken to the shelter and forced to sleep in one of the kennels with 8 dogs for a period of 30 days.

   As far as the license or tag goes...It is as necessary as the license plate on your vehicle (if not more important).

saradog

I believe that the 3 dog limit is as poorly adhered to as the licensing law.    So really licensing would be a great tool.   We know that limits do not work.   Let's just license each animal and limits will take care of themselves.   

Furthermore, you may make any excuse you want to about licensing - the truth is that the law is not enforced so most people do not comply with the licensing law.    Many people that I talk to do not realize that there is a mandatory licensing law is Kern County.  

Again, picture money, animals and jobs being flushed down the toilet - that is what non-compliance does for the County of Kern.  Unenforced licensing laws are robbing citizens of services that would otherwise be provided by the generated revenue.

One of the big reasons here for non-compliance for licensing is the 3 dog limit...there is no such limit in Calgary.  Very few people that I know license their dogs for this reason.  Many of them take in strays and rescues which put them at least temporarily over the limit.  What is going to happen if Animal Control knocks at some one's door and they have 4 dogs?  Do they get to choose which one goes to the shelter to be euthanized?

See my post above yours. They act on those items they feel public is pushing for. If people don't call/write/attend Animal Control Commission meetings, the BOS doesn't feel any heat. Know when they care? When dead pets hit the front page of the paper, because then people react and call them out on the pet overpopulation issue. Once the clamor dies down, so does their support.

I blieve we can get what we want, we just have to want it badly enough to do the work.

The Board of Supervisors has had information about a licensing enforcement program since April of 2008.  Since that time, these men ( the BOS) have chosen to allow another 20,000 animals to be euthanized rather than enforce licensing   - WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE MEN?   

Licensing, as proven by the working model in Calgary, Canada,  is the answer.  WHY DO THESE MEN (the BOS) CONTINUE TO SIT ON THEIR HANDS CONCERNING ANIMAL LICENSING?

THE BOS PRETENDS TO BE I NTERESTED IN FIXING THIS PROBLEM YET, THEY CONTINUE TO TURN THEIR BACKS ON THE ANSWER.

Bigger question yet is -  why does the BOS turn down all of the available dollars that licensing will generate?    The County is desperate for funding yet, the BOS is letting licensing dollars slip through their fingers.    If only we could generate a picture of these men flushing money down the toilet  - afterall, that is what they are doing.     Maybe it should be a picture of them flushing dollars, animals and jobs down the toilet.

 Well, we are well on our way to another 20,000 animals being euthanized and still no action by the BOS.

Witters, the amount mentioned in the article is wages, benefits and the cost for the truck. $8 an hour only looks like $8 an hour --- by the time you add in the cost of benefits, the cost per employee is higher (I'd add in another 30 - 30% of the hourly wage), as well as factoring in the cost for gas and maintenance for the truck they used for the canvass. The point of the pilot program was to see if having a team dedicated to license enforcement was a worthwhile endeavor. Based on the figures Lois quoted in her story, it appears the answer is "yes". Her article pretty closely matches your sentiment...that the County should step up and spend a little money up front to get more money on the back end.

Have you written to the Board of Supervisors and let them know this issue matters to you? Or to the Animal Control Commission? If the BOS isn't hearing from the public that it matters to them, then it will continue to not matter to the BOS either. The quality of our community is dependant on community members participation.  

BAKO:  OK. So why can't they do what my other post suggested?

Why can't city/county animal control provide spay/neutering for feral cats??? Why does it fall to the SPCA or people paying out of pocket? If they can spend $25,000 for a four month "controlled study/trial" why can't that same money be applied to animal control to hire people? That is $6,250 a month for four months! It would not cost THAT much to hire someone or two or three or four!!! If unemployed people are willing to work in the fields or at McDonald's for minimum wage, why can't they hire some of these people? At least they would have a job! At $8 an hour for 8 hours a day for 7 days a week, that is $1792 a month per person. Of course no one is going to work 7 days a week so for possibly $1500 a month per person, they could hire 4 people for the $25,000 they are spending in that four month period. SO..............for $75,000 for the year they could hire four or five people full time!!

Has this been looked into???  It seems to me that money spent on study after study might be better spent on the project itself!!!

Animal Control is a government agency, and a necessary one at that. Someone has to take in the unwanted masses.

One the other hand, why we cannot have a nonprofit function at a much higher level than we currently do is simple --- lack of public support. Fewer than one percent of the population of Bakersfield belongs to the Bakersfield SPCA. That's an abysmally small number. And trying to get businesses to support their mission is even harder. As long as people don't realize that our pet overpopulation is only as bad as we choose to let it be, nothing will change. But if we encourage our friends, families and businesses where we spend our time and money to all do a little bit we can achieve anything we want.

BAKO:  Thank you for the imput. You are right, I didn't think of all that. So how come best friends can generate 38 illion and animal control cannot?  Maybe animal control should be turned into a non-profit and go for the grants and what not that are out there. If it would mean "no kill" I wouldn't have a problem with that.  

Witters, a couple of points:

"No-Kill" shelters are able to operate that way because when they are full, they do not take in any more animals. Where do the animals that cannot get into a no-kill shelter go? To Animal Control, who has to take them. Because they cannot turn animals away for lack of space, pets are euthanized to make room for the newest batch. Any "no kill" shelter can confirm that they have limits on how many they can take, including Bakersfield SPCA.

Regarding the shows you watch --- you are seeing one tightly edited hour out of many, many hours of service, showcasing three or four cases where they know the outcome (arrest, adoption, etc.) before they ever hit the airwaves. Dogtown is a slightly different story, as it is part of Best Friends Animal Sanctuary, nonprofit organization that has operated for 25 years. A quick glance at their 2007 990 statement shows an operating budget of nearly 38 million dollars --- over eight times higher than our Animal Control budget.

Currently only about 10% of all dog owners license their pets. With a percentage that small, people won't see much of a difference when they license. One can either throw in the towel, stop paying and continue to be unhappy with the way things are, or one can choose to support this vital department, license their pet, and encourage others to do the same so that we can get the money necessary to make a positive impact.

I will always, always, always fight on the side of a positive impact. Lives depend on it.

SHWAINE:  I believe Dr. Utt at Auburn Animal Hospital does spay/neuters on feral kitties. I do think you have to have a SPCA voucher but Dr. Utt does provide this service.

Why can't city/county animal control provide spay/neutering for feral cats??? Why does it fall to the SPCA or people paying out of pocket? If they can spend $25,000 for a four month "controlled study/trial" why can't that same money be applied to animal control to hire people? That is $6,250 a month for four months! It would not cost THAT much to hire someone or two or three or four!!! If unemployed people are willing to work in the fields or at McDonald's for minimum wage, why can't they hire some of these people? At least they would have a job! At $8 an hour for 8 hours a day for 7 days a week, that is $1792 a month per person. Of course no one is going to work 7 days a week so for possibly $1500 a month per person, they could hire 4 people for the $25,000 they are spending in that four month period. SO..............for $75,000 for the year they could hire four or five people full time!!

Any CPA's out there? let me know if I figured that out right!! Math is certainly not my forte!!!

I did want to point one thing out about microchips. There's multiple different microchip makers and they can't all be scanned with the same scanner. Microchips also occasionally migrate and not all places bother to scan the whole dog to check for such things. So having a microchip alone is no guarantee the animal will come back to you.

As for the money from licenses, as Lois points out, there's a profit, but a rather paultry profit right now. You're not going to see much improvement with $15k (city) and $4k (county) profit. Right now, it's just a drop in the bucket. The point being made is if more people licensed, that drop in the bucket could multiply until the proverbial bucket overflowed and we would have enough profit to do something meaningful. We're nowhere near that point right now.

As for feral cats, you can rent cat traps from Gardener Supply on Landco. Before you set the trap out, make sure to line up a veterinarian who can handle ferals and who can fit you in when you do manage to catch them. I hear SPCA is out of their feral vouchers, which is too bad because that was a good program. The vet I always used with their vouchers was Bakersfield Veterinary Hospital, but they might be a bit costly out of pocket. As for catching the cats, bait the trap with a little tuna on a piece of cardboard or small paper plate (don't put the can in there, they could injure themselves when the door closes and they freak out). That's worked more than a dozen times for me.

And Catherine, I still have 4 kittens from last year's feral litter.... so get used to your little bundles of joy. Even the shelters are having trouble placing cats. I noticed the one at Petsmart last weekend had adult cats marked down to $5 adoption fees and still were having issues placing them.

I agree with so many of your comments and I disagree with some.  I think it's good that we can have a civilized discussion about this terrible issue.  I wonder, like some of you, why it is so difficult to get animal control on the phone or to get them to do anything.  I have donated quite a bit of money to them, but I've not seen many things improve at the Shelter.  Oh, I am always thanked profusely, but I want to know exactly what they do with my money.  If they are buying "death injections," then it is not okay to use my money for that.  In a town of this size, we should have been able to get a handle on this situation long ago.  I don't care about the nay sayers who seem to believe Bakersfield will never be able to do anything about our kill rates because "That's the way it's always been."  These people who truely believe that nothing can be done, be it supervisor, police, Animal Control, or anyone else, just need to get out of our way.  The horrific slaughter of our companion animals is going to continue until we rise up and say, NO, this will not continue.  Every other horrible thing, slavery, child labor, was changed because the people rose up and demanded that it be changed.  That's what needs to happen in Bakersfield.

witters~ perhaps the administration ?

Now who is "prejudicing" the case? :-)

So SAGE, if they are MAKING money why is animal control still a mess?????

Ever watch Animal Planet where they highlight some of the "animal police" AKA animal control in different states/cities? How come THEY can do such a bang up job and we cannot???  How come they take in injured/sick animals, have a vet look at them, save them and get them adopted and we cannot? Ever watched Dog Town? Same thing. HOW COME WE CANNOT DO THIS????

Bakoblue~ Well said! Clear concise outline of what we could have,instead of the death machine we currently have.

"County Animal Control officers fit their outreach duties in as best they could, maybe canvassing neighborhoods one or two days a week. A county report lists only 106 hours spent in field work between January and April.

And STILL the program made money.

After all the costs were subtracted (including volunteer time, which struck me as odd) the county made more than $4,000."

This is one small step for animals.....

BAKO: I understand all that, but it seems every time we get people to spend more money on this the money goes somewhere else. I'm sure there are many people who purchase the tags, and I have in the past, but I have not seen much, if any, improvement within animal control. The times I have called, once when 2 pit bulls on the loose (again) killed my cat, I had to threaten a bullet to the head of the animal if animal control did not get here now! The dude that showed up was so "chubby" he asked ME to chase down the offending animal!!!!! Most times it takes all day just to get someone to show up. NO help at all over the weekend or holidays or after 5pm!

I finally resorted to calling the BPD when the dog behind me was suffering heat stroke because it could not get to the water (chain wrapped around a pole) - it took BPD 5-10 min. to get here and by then the animal was dead. I didn't try to help as the owner was a crack head and the animal was a male pit bull (one of the ones that killed my cat) that the owner used for fighting. They impounded the female but after a week the guy had her back...................she was pregnant. He took to locking the dog and puppies up in the garage so I could not see them - a couple of the puppies died as the garage was too hot (middle of summer). Animal control still did NOTHING.

Sooooooooooo how come private shelters can manage to keep going and have "no kill" policies but the city/county of Bakersfield with taxpayer monies cannot???

Witters, the fees brought in from licensing help the Animal Control department be the operation we all want it to be: one that offers low cost spay/neuter; that can effectively get lost animals home through matching license tags with owners; that can work towards more acceptable staffing levels that are desperately needed. Low-cost spay/neuter means less animals coming into the Animal Control system, so more time can be spent trying to find homes for the ones who do end up there. Getting lost pets home more quickly means less searching for pet owners and fewer cages being used to house "homed" animals, leaving more space for those who need it. More acceptable staffing levels means better response time to animal-related complaints, including those related to feral cats.

It's only $15 per year for an altered animal, or $30 for a three-year tag. Imagine what Bakersfield could look like if we could get more people on board with something as simple as licensing.

CAT:  you and kitties.................me and doggies!!!!!

Looks like I'm not alone in my role as caretaker of wandering kitties.  We "inherited" a mother cat and her three babies.  We got the Mama spayed, and one of the babies is going to a good home soon, which leaves us with two kittens.  They are so sweet.  They run around and jump and play.  I told my husband last night that if we can't find homes for them, we're keeping them, because there's already a pet overpopulation problem and their chances of getting out of the pound (we're in the county, and the SPCA only takes city animals) is slim.  He said I'd better find good homes for them, then. 

Soooooo, anybody want a kitten?  Free?  I'll even throw in the first vet bill, for shots and spay/neuter.  Please?  Pretty please?

LING: ain't it the truth!!!!! I think we have a flashing sign on our front yard that only animals can see!! it flashes with a big arrow "GO HERE"!!  !!!! The first one that just "showed up" was November 2007, he is a Queensland/Shepherd mix and loves to herd sheep - and anything else that is smaller then he is! This one we just "adopted" showed up April of this year! We have had others who have lived their lives with us and passed on but will always be in our hearts. I have never, in my 64 years, not had a pet of some kind be it birds, cats, dogs, fish, etc. Sometimes all of the above all at the same time!!!

We have a front patio/gazebo and it has now been taken over by two grown kitties and two kittens. We feed them, how could we not. As soon as we can gain their trust and "capture"  them we will get them fixed. At this point do not know if they are boys or girls. Our neighbors across the street feed several also and catch them when they can to get them fixed.

Got two kitties that the previous manager abandonded when she left...there was three total-but found one a home--the other two adopted us---all are 'fixed' and healthy---amazing how some animals KNOWS which ones to adopt....

LOIS: We have 3 rescue dogs - 2 just showed up in our front yard, one we adopted from the shelter as her number was coming up for "death row".

The one we just took in had been hit by a car and was hurting so we scooped him up and got him to the vet. He has a broken pelvis. $200 later we have a new "baby" in our household. We got his shots, and a microchip (he will be neutered as soon as the pelvis heals). I have not sent off for his "license" as I feel as long as I have proof he has had all current shots and is neutered, an extra tag around his neck is not necessary. I do understand the premise behind "tags", however if households who have pets can show current papers as to the shots and spay/neutering I think that is sufficient. Households also need to prove the pet cannot get out of the yard.  IMO. Also, when this little guy (looks like part dachshund/part terrier!) showed up, he had two "buddies with him roaming the neighborhood. One of our neighbors took in the little girl and the 3rd one was taken by a member of the neighbors' church and she found a loving home for him. There are still several running around our neighborhood and I can only presume - with all the foreclosures around here - that they were turned loose in the hopes someone would take them in as opposed to taking them to the shelter to probably die.

JEFF: Great idea. Do you really think you can/will get that many unemployed/underemployed/unemployable to step up and volunteer when they are in financial straits and need paying employment? If some one is unemployable I would wonder why. Can they not read? Write? Speak English/Spanish? Maybe look to retired folks who still have an income be it social security or retirement or both and who can still get around on their own or even in a walker/wheelchair/scooter, etc. Why not enlist many of the under-appreciated? Those with disabilities but who can still get around and would love to be part of this society in a productive manner. Again, I feel if households with pets (mostly dogs I would presume) can show the pet is well cared for and has shots etc., a tag should not be an absolute necessity.

Soooooooooooooo now what do we do about the feral cats running neighborhoods?

I agree that asking for six figures isn't going to get anywhere, but it's time for the BOS to step up and do something besides continually trying to dodge the issue. A pilot program is as good a place to start as any.

Thanks, Lois, for getting the numbers from the city's pilot program. I've asked for that info a couple of times and no one seemed to know. It's great info for another push forward towards helping reduce the number of homeless pets.

Your city/county/state is broke.  Your BofS seems to only pay lip service to any program surrounding this issue, but maybe they saw the handwriting on the wall (funding-wise) and took the cowards way out by talking much and doing nothing.

On the flip side, you have thousands of people who are unemployed/underemployed/unemployable, and out of that pool, you probably have couple hundred folks who feel like this is an issue worth supporting, and who certainly have plenty of free time right now.

So instead of waiting for the do-nothings to address the issue, you put together a volunteer force to do the tasks that the city/county A,C. officers can no longer perform.  Send out 100 two person teams on 4 consecutive Saturdays, and you would cover enough of the region you might actually see some Calgary-like results, both in licensing/spaying, and in license income.

Plus, the volunteers get a little self-esteem boost at the same time, and that can do wonders for people who are struggling right now.

It's a win-win-win.

I volunteer Lois to set it all up.

I agree.. county needs to buck up and spend a bit more on animal control services in general.  As it is, I've complained twice now about a neighbor who allows their dogs to roam the neighborhood at will, and I have yet to receive a call back and/or email, nor have I seen any kind of follow up.