Measure displeasure
I’m going to ask an obvious question: Why hasn’t [former 8th District Long Beach Councilmember] Rae Gabelich responded to the Signal about her endorsement of Measure M? It was her fine reputation and her endorsement of the measure (printed in the editorial pages of the Signal) that prompted me to vote in favor of it! Now, “we” are facing a lawsuit about how the City used inappropriate resources to promote it, plus on news-talk radio, Long Beach has been typified as a bunch of dummies for passing this measure (“which is really a tax”)!
I would really appreciate it if Rae would respond to all this. Does her endorsement still stand? And please explain why we should be happy with its passing if all the after-the-fact analysis is correct. Was it, indeed, a big mistake?
Mary K. James
Long Beach
Going to the dogs?
[Long Beach Animal Care Services] LBACS manager Ted Stevens’s response to the increase in the euthanasia rate at the Long Beach animal shelter is disappointing but typical of the selective statistical reporting that LBACS and the City have engaged in since No Kill Long Beach started advocating for a no-kill animal shelter in Long Beach five years ago. [“Animal-welfare group criticizes LBACS for increased euthanasia, lower adoptions in first half of 2018,” Aug. 3, 2018]
Mr. Stevens contends that the mid-year euthanasia numbers are irrelevant and that only the end-of-year statistics tell the story. However, given the recent city audit’s recommendation to resort more often to euthanasia, it is entirely appropriate to track monthly shelter numbers and compare them to the previous year to see what specific effect the recommendation is having on animals. And, as it turns out, we are correct to do so; more animals are dying needlessly in the wake of the auditor’s report.
When we look at the euthanasia numbers from January to July, we see that only nine fewer dogs and cats have been killed in 2018 than during the same period last year. Yet, LBACS has decreased its intake by almost 20 percent. That means less cleaning, less paperwork, less vet care and less programming to do. The burden on operations is less, so more animals should be saved. In terms of the euthanasia rate itself, for January to July, LBACS’s euthanasia rate is now 3 percentage points higher than it was at the same point last year. This is not progress.
LBACS is taking in fewer animals but is killing a higher percentage of those they take in. That clearly demonstrates that resources aren’t the problem; it’s a lack of action on the part of the City to put in place effective, lifesaving programs and practices at LBACS– practices that have been used in other parts of the country to transform their shelters. The City needs to take action to ensure that LBACS reflects the compassionate and humane values of people in Long Beach. We urge people to contact their councilperson to express their concerns and ask for a no-kill shelter in Long Beach.
Patricia Turner
No Kill Long Beach
