A POIGNANT MEMORIAL + THE LETTER I SENT TO EBRPD
I have struggled with writing this update.
I like to be thorough, to present the good along with the bad, and to explain and provide context for policies or documents that I haven’t brought up in previous updates. I will not do that in this post. Instead I will simply share the letter that I wrote to EBRPD.
No matter how disillusioned or defeated I sound in that letter, THIS IS NOT THE END AND I AM NOT GIVING UP! In a future update, I will discuss the things that make me hopeful. I will discuss what I hope our colony will try to accomplish next. I promise that I will explain terms (“mitigation agreement,” “USDA-APHIS WS,” etc.) that pop up in my letter to EBRPD. These things are quite familiar to members of the Board, but most of us need some context and history.
First: Cecelia's beautiful and heartbreaking memorial
I did not want to post this photo with an update filled with such bitter disappointment. I asked Cecelia, and she immediately changed my mind. She wanted the photo posted now as a reminder of "what's really at stake here" and that "those angels pay the price for the policy." The new policy assures us that EBRPD employees will no longer kill cats; instead, "lethal control" will be conducted by their "external agency partners" - more accurately described by Anita Carswell of In Defense of Animals (IDA) as their "hired execution service."
And now: The letter l sent to EBRPD
I ran out of time before I could even re-read it, let alone edit it. It’s choppy and uneven; it has countless punctuation errors, inexplicable changes in font type and size, numerous confusing and muddled phrases, and at least one sentence fragment that should have been cut when I stopped mid-thought and started the sentence in a different way. I think two different links might point to the same document. I VERY MUCH wanted to edit it before sharing it with all of you. Nevertheless, I am posting it here exactly as I sent it to EBRPD, because that is the only option that feels completely transparent and honest. Here it is, “warts and all”:
I am very troubled by the proposed policy and I have very little time. I wasted two days on four different drafts of a response. I just doggedly kept trying to express appreciation for the positive parts of this policy (which do exist) and to be as respectful as I always strive to be about everything that is about to follow. It’s very rushed and terribly written, and I will no doubt end up feeling guilty for failing to be diplomatic, but I want to send this to Ms. Barial Knight before “the close of the public comment period [so it] will be available after the meeting as supplemental materials and will become part of the official meeting record.”
Section 4a, trapping:
- “The Park District will coordinate trapping efforts with local animal service agencies to conduct the outreach to colony caretakers to cease feeding and, if necessary, to help with trapping. All trapping activities must be sanctioned by the Park District and animal service agencies.” I have learned during this saga that animal service agencies have to work quite hard to gain the trust of many colony caretakers. Many have concerns that any cat that isn’t young, well-socialized and in perfect health runs a high risk of being euthanized if picked up by animal services. If I have learned this, then surely EBRPD policy-makers have as well. How will animal services be able to get anyone to trust them if they step in and tell them that they have to “cease feeding” and that they can’t even help with trapping unless given permission by EBRPD? To be far more frank than I would like to be, even caretakers who would normally trust their local animal service agencies are not going to trust EBRPD. Not after the Oakport Colony massacre.
- “The Park District will trap only on its properties.” Has this not always been the case? “Trapping on Park District properties will be accomplished by trained Park District staff or external agency partners.” Has this not always been the case? “Trapping of cat colonies on private property will be handled by animal service agencies.” Need I ask the same question again? What is changing? What progress is being made? Remember page 160 in the packet? I am referring to the following report of what shelters and volunteers have accomplished since coordinated efforts began shortly before the 25 February Natural and Cultural Resources Committee meeting:
“MLK Jr. Regional Shoreline - Oakland Animal Services (OAS) and 15 volunteers contributed approximately 100 hours trapping. To date a total of 27 cats have been trapped and removed from three colonies...Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline - one volunteer has contributed approximately 10 hours of trapping and removed four cats. Anthony Chabot Regional Park: OAS trapped a single cat that was abandoned.” In summary, in less than four months, shelters and volunteers have trapped 38 cats. (I am omitting the nine cats caught at the Hayward Regional Shoreline, because I can’t parse out how many cats were caught by the Shelter and their volunteers vs. how many were caught by “Park District contractors.”) Assuming that “Park District contractors” are USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services Personnel, based on the fact that EBRPD has a current and ongoing sole-source contract with them “to conduct predator damage management” not to mention the mitigation agreement with the Port of Oakland that put EBRPD in the position of receiving $78,500 to be spent SOLELY on USDA-APHIS-WS predator management efforts specifically within the Hayward Regional Shoreline. So, to recap: shelters and volunteers: 38 cats in less than four months, all humanely trapped and transported to local shelters and rescue groups vs. 11 cats “removed” in 34 months by your “external agency partners.” Why are the latter going to be doing Why wouldn’t you want the most efficient and successful trappers focusing their efforts on cats that are IN the parks, and thus presumably a more pressing threat than those on private property?
Section 4c, Lethal Control
- “Lethal control will continue to be used only as a last resort…” CONTINUE? Seriously? So the Oakport Cats were killed only after every other reasonable course of action failed? Even though you admitted that you didn’t contact a single shelter or rescue group? Even though you “confirm[ed] the district failed to give Cecelia a chance to trap and move the cats, before they shot and killed them”? And the 11 cats that were killed by your partners? Every cat they “removed” was killed, and 10 of the 11 were safely secured in traps when they were killed? It is the District’s professed mandate to protect endangered and threatened species, and I absolutely support that goal. However, if your goal were truly to protect animals from a potential predator, then you fulfilled your noble duty the second the trap closed. Explain how successfully trapping them and then killing them instead of sending them to a shelter is “last resort.”
- “Lethal control will be conducted humanely in accordance with American Veterinary Medical Association standards (AVMA 2020).” Like the Oakport cats were killed humanely and in accordance with AVMA standards? As I previously wrote in an email to the members of the Natural and Cultural Resources committee after the first draft of this policy was discussed:
I believe one of the representatives from I.D.A. pointed out that AGM Kelchner stated in her report that gunshot "is considered a humane form of euthanasia" and that she gave the following quote from the AVMA; "Given the need to minimize stress induced by handling and human contact, gunshot may be the most practical and logical method of euthanasia for wild or free-roaming species." I downloaded the entire 121-page-long and extraordinarily disturbing AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2020 edition. The first sentence in the section on gunshot is "A properly placed gunshot can cause immediate insensibility and a humane death." The sentence quoted by AGM Kelchner does not include the fact that gunshot only meets AVMA standards of a humane death in cases when "the projectile enters the brain, causing instant loss of consciousness. This must take into account differences in brain position and skull conformation between species, as well as the energy requirement for penetration of the skull and sinus. Accurate targeting for a gunshot to the head in various species has been described." It goes on to discuss firearms, muzzle energy requirements and bullet selection, concluding with "Probably the most important point to be made relative to the use of gunshot for euthanasia is that scientific evidence on firearm and bullet selection is lacking. This is an area of urgent need in euthanasia research." In order for gunshot to be considered a humane form of death by AVMA standards, very specific conditions must be met. They note that, "For wildlife and other freely roaming animals, the preferred target area should be the head. It may, however, not be possible or appropriate to target the head when killing is attempted from large distances (missed shots may result in jaw fractures or other nonfatal injuries)...A gunshot to the heart or neck does not immediately render animals unconscious, but may be required when it is not possible to meet the POE's definition of euthanasia." ("POE" in this context refers to "Panel on Euthanasia.") The gunshot section includes 2 advantages, and 5 disadvantages regarding the use of firearms. Of these, AGM Kelchner quoted only the 2nd advantage. The first is "Loss of consciousness is instantaneous if the projectile destroys most of the brain." I understand that AGM Kelchner didn't want to include that because it is so graphic and disturbing, not only to the public, but no doubt to the members of the Committee as well. Even if I had managed to speak cogently, I wouldn't have quoted that part aloud either. Nevertheless, it is extraordinarily important to recognize that EBRPD's use of firearms as a form of "lethal removal" does NOT meet AVMA standards for a humane death.
- My earlier drafts all acknowledged that first AGM/Legal Counsel Carol Victor and ADM Dr. Ana Alvarez, and later Director Rosario all made time in their busy schedules to meet with me and a volunteer who is deeply committed to and involved in the sanctioned trapping efforts (no time to ask her if it’s ok to use her name, so I won’t). They did make time. And they were all lovely. Conscientious, kind, respectful; I came out of each of those meetings feeling that my concerns were truly heard and that it was possible I had actually contributed something to making the next draft of the proposal better. I still feel like the people I met with were genuine, and that my unfounded optimism was due to my fundamental lack of understanding of how bureaucracies work. I think that’s the primary reason that I just couldn’t accept that this new proposal was as scary as I thought it was right off the bat. I talked about several things that I very much hoped would be added to the policy. I hoped for a definition of the term “last resort” in the context of the new policy, and a definitive statement of who could declare that a state of “last resort” was approaching or had been reached. Another was a protocol or short checklist of conditions that had to be met or actions that had to occur before anyone got to the point of saying “last resort.” At least one representative from the District AND one from the shelter coalition would have to acknowledge that those steps had been taken. I hoped that when a new trapping project was called for by EBRPD, that the trapping team would be given a reasonable deadline, a promise of sufficient access to the trapping area, information and cooperation from District employees, etc. as examples of things that could be included in the checklist. I admit that my examples might very well have been completely unfeasible, but I was just trying to describe a template. There is a checklist, and that might completely coincidental and have nothing to do with my suggestion, or it could be a genuine effort to create a checklist that would help the public feel like the District was truly committed to working toward a partnership that would immediately reduce the use of “lethal control” and eventually make it completely unnecessary. It has four conditions that must be met before lethal control is called for:
- “Educational efforts have been initiated.” Initiated? What does that mean? Somebody handed out a pamphlet?
- “Trapping efforts by the Park District and animal service agencies have been attempted but are deemed unsuccessful.” “Deemed unsuccessful” is just as vague as “last resort”! Who deems it unsuccessful? What criteria are used to define “unsuccessful”?
- “Jurisdictional animal service agency has been notified and receipt is confirmed.” Wow. Your new and respected “partners” won’t be consulted or have a say in this? They have no voice or agency at all? They just receive an email that says that the District is going to start shooting cats and then say “message received”?
- “The need for lethal control has been assessed and recommended by the Wildlife Program Manager and the Chief of Stewardship and proposed to the Assistant General Manager (AGM) of Acquisition, Stewardship, and Design. The final determination to authorize lethal control shall be made by the AGM or her designee.” Nobody from the shelter coalition. Not even a single person from a department other than the one the infamous “wildlife biologist” is a part of. Who is eligible to be declared a designee by the AGM? Is the gunman on that list?
I am sorry that I have to send this as it is. I am just very tired and very disappointed. I have to give my attention to the meeting.
Sincerely,
Cassidy