These are my initial reactions to Mr. Stuckey's plan. Please forgive me if I am misinterpreting elements of it; I only just received it. 

I like the fact that the stated goal is "no kill" and not "low kill." But what is Mr. Stuckey's definition of "no kill"? If it is saving all treatable animals with a better than poor prognosis with respect to behavior and health (as per Nathan Winograd's recommendations), then Mr. Stuckey should explain how testing will be done and by whom.

I agree that 2008 provides a sufficient amount of time to realize the goal.

There should be some detailed information on spay/neuter efforts (incentives) since this is the key to reducing the number of animals that end up at the shelters.

I think the overall plan is too vague. It should include dates and target numbers.

What percentage will come into the shelters this year, next year, etc?

How many animal adopted this year, next year by the community?

How many businesses to participate in the plan? This year, next year?

How many rescue groups? This year, next year?   Etc. Etc.

There is not enough accountability in the plan.  Perhaps Mr. Stuckey could add more detail. The plan puts the entire burden of no-kill on the District Managers and rescue groups, rather than the General Manager. I think Mr. Stuckey should tell the District Managers what the goals are up-front (rather than letting them arrive at their own plans within 30 days). What happens if the GM doesn't like a District Manager's plan?

A. Getting a commitment from rescue groups as to how many animals they can rescue creates a competitive or goal-oriented environment. Focusing on one shelter instead of six has benefits and drawbacks. (pp. 1-6)

This section as it relates to rescue groups:

Positives:

a) The competitive environment may inspire some groups to do more.

b) It may make the task seem more manageable (focusing on one shelter instead of six)

Negatives:

a) It restricts choices; therefore could reduce the overall numbers rescued. Is an allowance made for a rescuer, for example, who wants a dog from West Valley, but who has been assigned to East Valley?

b) Some groups may have a distaste for the "competitive" or goal-oriented atmosphere. They may also under-estimate their numbers as a result.

c) Rescue groups are probably doing as much as they can do now. They are unlikely to increase their rescue numbers. Why is focusing on one shelter going to make a difference? Plus, they may feel burdened, as if it is all up to them. They may feel they are single-handedly supposed to solve the city's problem.

Partial Solution? Is there a way through a 24 or 48 hour alert for all "death row" animals to allow all groups to rescue a specific animal and get 'credit" for this rescue? They may want to be acknowledged for meeting their target goal. Without getting "credit," they may be less inclined to rescue from a different shelter.

This section as it relates to fosters, adoptions, businesses, etc.

Positives:

a) People may take a greater interest in seeing their local shelter succeed if they are assigned to help one particular shelter

b) Some people will respond to the competitive atmosphere and do more.

c) It makes the task of ending the killing seem more manageable.

Negatives:

a) It may mean fewer animals are adopted or fostered. If someone is looking for a particular dog, for example, and it is not at their local shelter, then he may wait to adopt. He will not be freeing up the space for another animal.

b) It could create dishonesty. Some people may pretend to live in a certain area simply to adopt or foster a certain animal. (I just adopted an animal from South L.A., but my area is East Valley. I had to have a certain size dog—due to circumstances not within my control—therefore could not have taken an animal from the shelter at this time without the ability to go to the South L.A. shelter).

c) People like choice. Assigning people to one shelter limits choice. It arguably feels restrictive even now when searching for an animal in the six shelters.

This section as it relates to District Managers: 

Positives:

a) It could make them work harder to succeed. They will be in competition with the other shelters, thus want to have good staff and do a good job.

Negatives:

a) Could create a lack of cooperation between shelters. What about transferring animals to a different shelter when there is space? What about helping each other with resources? A PR person for one shelter could easily advertise all six. A vet could be transferred to another shelter if there is a need. There may be less incentive for these kinds of things to happen in a competitive environment.

b) Shelter managers and workers may have the incentive to manipulate the computer and statistics. Must be sure there are ways to check and re-check to verify statistics and information are accurate.

B. Mr. Stuckey lists Business Objectives for Shelters (pp. 6-8)

I think these are good, but what are the fundraising strategies? What about establishing a non-profit? What about using one of the soon-to-be-defunct city shelters for the non-profit? More detail in this section is needed.

Business sector – include partnerships with pet shops and perhaps look to an ordinance or incentives to induce landlords to rent to people with animals. What about changing the three animal per property rule? Work with the City Council on these.

Add Director of Animal Welfare (DAW) program and participation by the Neighborhood Councils. Add regular Animal Care Fairs in each area. Neighborhood Councils could be asked to help with this.

C. Business Objectives for Support Units (pp. 9-10)

I like the idea of designating a PR person at every shelter and establishing corporate partnerships. I like the aggressive enforcement of the Breeder's ordinance and the re-evaluation of the Chameleon Program. .

The rescue groups need the pre-euthanasia list, as you stated, but when will this be presented and how? Can all groups rescue these animals, even if the animals are not at their "'designated" shelter?

Veterinary:

What about establishing a board for the nonprofit and putting veterinarians on the board in return for some volunteer services? What about recruiting vets to put in some free hours at the shelters?

You say to "aggressively seek to open spay and neuter clinics." How are you specifically going to get the public to fix their animals? Any creative ideas on this?

 More detail needed in this section.

 Thank you, Mr. Stuckey, for sharing your business plan with the community.

 Sincerely,

 Charlotte Laws
14320 Ventura Blvd., Suite 408
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
(818) 781-5280 
drlaws@adelphia.net 
www.Charlottelaws.org