Correspondence - #52 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Do we have a bite problem? Of course we do. Every bite is one too many. We had a problem in 2019 and we have a problem now. This is not the end of the story. After debunking other false or misleading claims made by OCAC, we can return to this important issue. OCAC should make an effort to fill out its databases with more complete information, and make all data available for analysis. We can then examine other factors that affect bites. OCAC/OCCR didn't even count the bites. They didn't even get that for dog -related policies you should look at dog bites, not the total. They didn't think to account for the change in the total number of dogs - let alone the age distribution. They haven't even created a reasonably complete record of the data for each bite. They can hardly be taken as serious participants in the more complex task of finding patterns, causes, and remedies. The policies that OCAC/OCCR based on false data and incompetent analysis should be immediately reversed. That does not mean being complacent about bites. Common sense policies can include: A bite -prevention behavior protocol of dogs older than -4 years (30% of the dogs but 75% of the bites). No children under 6. A limit of one child (age 6-12) per adult. A smarter queuing system that may involve appointments for peak visiting days/times. Reserving two weekdays (e.g., Monday and Thursday) as quiet, appointment -only days, to accommodate adopters who prefer it. Are any numbers or facts produced by OCAC/OCCR reliable? Does it look like there was much concern about analyzing and rectifying the bite issue? Or does it look more like bites were a convenient pretext to keep kennel buildings off-limits? Can we even be sure that OCAC didn't suppress bite reports altogether? Given their other efforts to present a false rosy picture, are we sure they didn't drop hints that they'd like fewer official bite reports entered? OCAC/OCCR are not interested in data and facts that identify problems and suggest improvements. Rather, OCAC/OCCR use numbers, accurate or not, as public relations tools to justify already -made decisions, not as analytical tools to identify and resolve problems. That's why they didn't even want to look at the previous studies that showed an increase in kill rates, return rates, and lengths of stay. At the very least, OCCR exercised no oversight and provided no guidance to OCAC to avoid and correct its mistakes. Instead, it acted as an advertising agency, devoting all its energy to promulgating its client's claims with no regard for facts. And the Appendix below shows that OCCR went to great lengths to prevent the truth from coming to light, delaying and obstructing PRAs. We cannot trust any "data", "facts", or analysis coming from OCAC/OCCR. An outside audit is needed, reporting directly to the Board of Supervisors. Since it is impossible to know in advance what level of county management bears responsibility, an entirely independent review is indispensible. Bites - Page 6 of 8