COM 0376.002 2000-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

FROM NATIONAL ANIMAL CONTROL ASSN FAX N0. 19137681378 Oct. 25 2001 04:22PM P2 N,t~,CA's l[tespor~se to Followwup Commemts The National A,nixnal Control Associar.ion (NACA) appreciates the efforts of all those involved wits this process. The responses received confirm the need for the County, 'E~dII-1S ar~d t'.1e com;xxlunity to work together to resolve those issues which affect the quality of lif~° for animals in l---lawaii Count}~ While the ec?ncept of change is sornetixxles intimidating, NACA. views the situation in HEawaii Cou~ity as an excellent opportunity to increase the level of interaction between government and citizens regarding animal-related issues_ Some of the recommendations offered by 1\ ACA require a financial coxtlmitmexlt on the part of taxpayers. Others do not. The County and citizens should now work together to establish a plan for the future. Any delay in irnprovement.s will only postpone the inevitable: increased costs to taxpayers and a deteriorating relationship between humans and animals. NACA stands by its obsexvat.ion that the County should establish a new field program within the Police 1~epartmextt. The establishment of such a program is not unique to NACA. 1n 1 X98, the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee, built their first field program from "scratch." After out.soureing their field program t.o a local humane society since 1910, the City of Chattanooga embraced NACA's proposed transition with open arms. Upon retaining a xcew manager, the agency built an effective field program (within the Police l~epartznent) around the manager, hiring qualified personnel, purchasing equipment, and partneringvrith local animal welfare groups to address local animal problems. In fact, the City considered the future of its Animal Control program t.o be so important as to design (and build) its own Animal Control vehicle in-house, which is somet.hixxg unheard of in this busines.>. A short 3 years later, the Animal Control operation in Chattanooga is now one of the p~•emiEre programs within the State of Tennessee. The success in Chattanooga can be direc•:ly attributed to the estahlishment of a unwavering partnership between the local government and citizens. The City of Nashville, 'Texuxessee, recently experienced a similar upgrade to their entire program. )[n 1998, NACA rated the Nashville operation as one of the worst in the United States. NACA recommended that the City of Nashville completely overhaul every aspect of the operation, basically buildin}; a new program from the ground up. A 1999 follov~-up evaluation by NACA conFrmed the p~r-ogx~ss of that agency. On ~ecembcr I , 2001, the City of Nashville will officially opexl it.s ne~vv $3 xxtillion facility. In addition to a new animal shelter, the City of Nashville increased it.s staff size, puxchased ecluipznent and vehicles, est.a.blished an anunal cruelty ixxvestigations unit, and has received donations of equipment and labor for its new spay/neuter clinic. 1n return, citizens have received an improved Ievel of service, increased anizx~al adoptions, and a decrease in <<nimai euthanasia.