Greetings to all, and my very best wishes for a 2021 filled with hope and positive change. If someone, anyone, had tried to tell me in 2019 what 2020 would hold, I doubt I could have imagined it, let alone believed it. With so many monumental challenges and changes still facing us on every imaginable scale, from the global all the way down to the personal, I would not fault anyone for deciding that the intentional and inhumane deaths of a number of cats in Oakland, California were not significant enough to warrant their attention or their time. And yet, thousands of people from all over the world - each of you - you have taken the time, you have given your attention, and you have voiced your opposition to this barbaric policy. I find it nothing short of miraculous.  

The first EBRPD General Board Meeting of 2021 has been scheduled for Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 1pm Pacific Time.  Tomorrow, (Wednesday 6 January) there is going to be a closed session regarding the appointment of a new General Manager.  After that closed session has taken place, I will post another update to remind people of the date and time of the General Board meeting. I will include the link explaining how to submit comments, the deadline for doing so via email or voicemail, and how to listen to the meeting via YouTube, or participate via Zoom.  You can always check this information for yourself here. The agenda for the 12 January General Board meeting has not yet been announced, but it would be surprising if the District's policy of shooting cats were to appear on that agenda.  (As far as I know - and for the umpteenth time, I don't know anything more than any other member of the general public - the Board has requested an internal review, the results of which will probably go before the Natural and Cultural Resources Committee at their first meeting in February, and then possibly before the full Board in March.)

In the meantime, and in preparation for the next General Board meeting, I would like for us to examine what was said at the previous Board meeting, on 15 December 2020. You can watch a recording of the entire meeting on YouTube, but I have also created a time-stamped transcript for the part of the meeting that pertains to the policy of shooting cats.  At least a few people have had trouble either accessing the YouTube video or hearing it clearly, and I imagine there are others who are interested in the comments of a particular speaker, but find the prospect of searching through 43 minutes of footage daunting. I hope that the time stamps and transcript will prove helpful for all of those folks.

My hope for the next several updates is that each post can include the transcription of the statement made by one (or a few) of the speakers from the 15 December meeting, and that each statement can then be followed by a discussion of what was said.  This site isn't really designed for discussion; however, at the end of each update, there is a section where everyone has the ability to "add a comment or a question."  So, for instance, for today, I would like to post the transcript of the first speaker's comments. (There were ten speakers in all, so let's just start with one and see how it goes.)  After the transcript, I thought I would get the ball rolling by jotting down a few thoughts I've had after listening to that speaker.  To be clear: I will not be speaking for anyone but myself, and I will certainly not be claiming any sort of authority or special knowledge. I am aware of and open to the likelihood that others will have very different reactions and interpretations from my own; in fact, I am counting on it. Amongst the thousands of us who have signed, there must be such a wealth of different ideas and perspectives, different areas of expertise and perhaps even experience dealing with conflicts that were similar to this one. Hopefully, people will find the time and the motivation to add their input via the "discussion section." As long as everyone stays on topic, and everyone remains respectful of the speakers and of one another, I think those comments, thoughts, suggestions, and questions could be extremely informative and helpful.  

I also know that this could fail utterly.  Any number of things could go wrong: people might (understandably) be too busy to respond; people might use the comments to put forward a completely unrelated issue or agenda, or, worst of all as far as I'm concerned, people might fall prey to a tactic I've seen employed by both the media and by spokespeople for EBRPD itself: the creation of a false dichotomy between "wildlife people" and "cat people."  Nobody here wants to see endangered wildlife harmed by cats. Nobody here wants to see cats shot and killed by humans. The question is not whether wildlife matters or cats matter. Both matter. The question is why EBRPD claims that their only option to protect endangered wildlife is to shoot cats. It is why their staff lied about the fate of the shot cats. It is why they failed to ask a single municipal shelter, rescue organization, or animal welfare group to help them move the cats that were living near the MLK shoreline. It is why they have had this horrific policy in place for more than 20 years, and have never made a single shelter, rescue, or animal welfare organizations aware of it, let alone asked for their input or their help.

So, bearing all that in mind, and with fingers crossed, here is the statement made by the first speaker.

NOTE: numbers that appear in bold do not refer to Pacific Time (the meeting started at 1pm) but rather the minute:seconds point in the YouTube recording.  

~7:30 1st Speaker Ms. Carla Din:  Thank you, members of the Board.  My name is Carla Din; I’m an Oakland resident and avid park user, a birder and I care deeply about wildlife.  I’m also a member of the Golden Gate Audubon Society.  I’d like to thank you very much for suspending the policy of killing feral cats and to encourage you, as I have heard you are doing, is to partner with local animal welfare organizations, to come up with a win/win solution that respects both - or all - wildlife, and cats included.  I think it is very possible to intervene early, to apply a humane solution, and to come up with a very forward-thinking strategy that takes all interests in mind.  As you know, the stated values of the district were violated with the killing of the cats.  That covers transparency and honesty, and what the message was to the public, certainly empathy, and also teamwork, because the resources in the local area were not brought in and utilized to your benefit.  I think this is an opportunity to rebuild the trust, make that policy a permanent policy not to kill feral cats, work with local organizations, conduct an independent 3rd party investigation, that has a community oversight component, and take a deep dive into a 20-year-old wildlife management plan, so that it does not rely on killing.  Clearly wildlife needs to be protected, but I have seen countless times when off-leash dogs are chasing wildlife, when reckless mountain bikers are biking into sensitive habitats, including stream beds, and also when boats are causing disturbance.  We can create a wildlife protection campaign, that looks at all of the contributions to impacts on wildlife, that has a hotline, so the public can make reports, and also that has - that applies - a high penalty and reward for observing cases where animals are released into the wild.  I do believe we can come up with a win/win forward-thinking proposal that does not rely on killing, but instead looks at best management practices and other models in the community.  Thank you.

What I personally appreciate about Ms. Carla Din's comments:

I agree that a solution that protects wildlife and does not kill cats is possible; that's one of the primary reasons I started this petition!  Cats living near endangered species pose a threat to them, and protecting the safety and habitat of those species is of vital importance.  Many humane alternatives to shooting cats are possible.  In fact, given the astonishing outpouring of support from local municipal shelters and rescue groups, as well as national and even international animal welfare organizations, these alternatives are not only possible but seem to be readily available.

Ms. Din mentions "an independent 3rd party investigation."  Until she did so, I had not given the matter of the Board's proposed "internal investigation" much thought.  However, in the interests of both objectivity and transparency, I fully support Ms. Din's suggestion of some sort of neutral 3rd party arbitrator.  Does anyone know how we might go about requesting this course of action, or even who or what might be an appropriate neutral third party?  I have no knowledge of such things, but this seems like an extraordinarily important avenue to explore.

In addition,  I appreciate that Ms. Din points out that we humans also have a responsibility to respect sensitive habitat when we are out enjoying our regional parks, and mentions specific ways in which we are failing to do so.  I do not know how feasible her hotline proposal is in terms of cost or enforcement or otherwise, but I think it's very laudable that rather than simply airing a list of grievances, Ms. Din has brainstormed and come up with a concrete suggestion that could prove helpful.  Imagine if everyone addressing the Board did the same!

I hope very much that at least a few people will find the time to contribute their thoughts and suggestions below.  Please make every effort to stay focused on the topic at hand, to be respectful of Ms. Din and of one another, and to make your comments as thoughtful and constructive as possible.

Quick note:  As I hate to post an update without including a photo, the attached image is of manzanita.  Although I think this photo was taken at Point Reyes, manzanita is a native chaparral that is present throughout most of our regional parks.  It is especially beautiful when it flowers during our winter rainy season.