Although I did not attend the February AWTF meeting (and the notes taken by those who did attend are not ready to post), I wanted to share some thoughts regarding comments that have been made about the TF meeting and the list of draft recommendations on the anti-CAPA blog by “Jake.”
I was told that the executive director of the KCSPCA objected when Senator Blevins distributed a list of recommendations for review, stating that he hadn’t seen the list before and didn’t know where it came from. Senator Blevins explained that the list reflected all the discussions of the TF over the past several months. To those of us paying attention, we expected that sooner or later there would be a written list to look at. A list of recommendations shouldn’t have been a surprise to anyone. “Jake” also states that the list was not a collaborative effort – yet every one of the recommendations has been discussed at one or another of the meetings (and I have attended five of the seven meetings). I also contacted one of the TF members – and that member feels the recommendations are representative of the discussions that have been held.
“Jake” seems to believe that it is a “slap in the face” to the TF for the recommendations to propose an office and staff to continue the TF work. The Task Force was scheduled for 8 meetings of 2 hours each; recommending that the work they have begun should continue would seem to be a realistic and responsible acknowledgement that Delaware deserves better than 16 collective hours on such a complex issue.
What was a surprise Thursday was that the agenda topic was supposed to be animal control, and where it should go, with the March meeting for review of the proposed recommendations. But the list seems to leave animal control where it is – in the hands of the non-profit shelters and the counties, although with oversight by the proposed office to be housed in the Dept. of Health and Social Services.
“Jake” doesn’t say anything about the letter from the KCSPCA that was distributed at the meeting. I have not seen the letter myself, but I have been told that it is a call for statewide animal control – to be given to the KCSPCA. “Jake” doesn’t mention the recent KCSPCA board meeting, where the board said they wanted animal control to go to the Dept. of Agriculture, who would then give them the contract. The board also said they would prefer to deal with a government agency than elected officials, who must answer to constituents. Accountability, anyone?
“Jake’s” anti-CAPA blog objected to the proposed $500,000 budget for a staff to oversee, inspect and monitor shelters, investigate complaints, develop programs for training and certification of animal control officers, find revenue for programs including TNR, and a number of other things. “Jake’s” objection is that the money would not be spent directly on animals. Everyone should remember that the AWTF was charged with developing recommendations to better coordinate and/or consolidate animal welfare services in Delaware. They were not charged with actually finding money for the shelters or for animal welfare programs. The responsibilities for this new office – especially those noted above, which include identifying revenue - would seem to be reflective of not only the TF discussions, but responsive to what the public has asked for in both the meetings and at the public hearing. It may not be what the KCSPCA or “Jake” want – but it’s what others have brought to the TF table.
“Jake” also objected because this office would be part of the Dept. of Health and Social Services, not the Dept. of Agriculture. Specifically, it was noted that DHSS does not have a veterinarian on staff. Well, Ag does, but it hasn’t seemed to make any difference when complaints are made to Secretary Kee concerning problems at the shelters.
And why complain that DHSS hasn’t had a seat at the AWTF table? Secretary Kee does have a seat, and has only sent a representative to one of the several meetings he has missed. He has made his disinterest clear – not only by his recent behavior, but past behavior as well. We met with him in January 2012. He told us he was familiar with chickens and livestock, but not cats and dogs. He was unfamiliar with his responsibilities under Title 3, and said he didn’t have the staff to handle inspections. He said he would have to ask the General Assembly for funding for another position for his department (note – that money would not be used directly for the animals either). He told us he would meet with us again after he researched the code. He never did follow up on the meeting, and refused to respond to subsequent e-mails.
Secretary Kee did refer the TF to North Carolina law regarding animal welfare and control. That law calls for certification of the shelters themselves, renewable yearly. I think that’s a pretty good idea, but Secretary Kee never returned to the TF table to discuss this.
Which brings us to moving the responsibility for animal welfare and control to DHSS….does anyone believe that if the Secretary of DHSS objects to this proposal, she won’t come out and say so? She doesn’t need to be at the table to object……and does anyone think that a legislator as experienced as Senator Blevins wouldn’t discuss this idea with DHSS before putting it in writing?
As for the TF discussions - back in September 2012, John Rago of the City of Wilmington compared animal welfare to child welfare. He made this comparison because child welfare services in Delaware were also once spread out over state and private agencies with no coordination. He said that when everything was brought under the coordination of one state agency, service improved. Jane Pierantozzi, who once worked in social services, agreed. Rabies (animal-to-human bites) comes under DHSS already. Hoarding, although treated as animal cruelty here, is considered a mental illness. And as I’ve said before, animal control (i.e., dogs and cats, companion animals) is about people. It’s not about livestock or wildlife or hunting.
Of course, the executive director of the KCSPCA is again saying “unfunded mandate” and asking how much money the recommendations are going to cost the shelters. Those of us watching these proceedings knew there would be a cost (and I mentioned it in my January statement) but no one has indicated that it will be paid by the shelters themselves – after all, there are only five stand-alone shelters in the State (the others are all home-based small rescues). Any cost for this new office will most likely be funded by our taxes. And since I believe that shelters should be inspected, and agencies with arrest powers require oversight, I personally feel it would be money well-spent.
I still haven’t figured out how “Jake” and the KCSPCA make the jump from shelter standards for humane treatment to “CAPA is a no kill conspiracy,” let alone how the AWTF is a conspiracy for Senator Blevins and the writer of the shelter standards law, Jennifer Ranji (then of the Governor’s office) to create a job for Ms. Ranji. Ms. Ranji is an attorney. I’m pretty sure she’ll find a job when she wants one. Oh, but remember – “Jake” also said that CAPA was written to make lawyers rich. Although in my (admittedly limited) experience, many won’t touch an animal law case (unless it’s a dog bite and you were bitten). Of the 3 we know that have taken on a case, one worked pro-bono, one does not have a paying client and the third charges less than most for an initial consultation.
Don’t know who “Jake” is, other than a friend of the KCSPCA leadership, but the only thing consistent about the blogs (other than being vehemently anti-CAPA) is the belief that everyone that disagrees with him (or her, we don’t really know) is involved in a conspiracy of some sort: No-kill, make the lawyers rich, create a job for a colleague…….While I believe there is corruption in Delaware, I don’t believe that just because someone disagrees with you means there is a conspiracy (as in Webster’s first definition, to work together in secret to commit a wrongdoing).
“Jake’s” blog also comments on HSUS, the anti-tether law (written, by the way, with input from Major Brian Whipple of the KCSPCA), factory farms, veterinarians and their fees, and euthanasia. Everything that may happen in the future is, of course, the fault of the people involved in all those conspiracies. I also find it interesting that “Jake” refers to no kill as a “hate” movement, yet his blogs are full of personal slanders and nasty comments about those who support CAPA.
I was going to make a really snarky remark here, but instead I’ll just add that Webster’s has a second definition of conspire – to act or work together. So – which conspiracy are you involved in? And under which definition?
No comments:
Post a Comment