HomeMy WebLinkAboutBetit, Cecile_ SBC letter to City Councils.1
October 15, 2025
Good day, Leaders for the City of San Bernardino and its Animal Services and Contracting
Cities,
I write with encouragement and appreciation for the continued City of San Bernardino’s position
postings in Animal Services for a veterinarian and a director. With the size and scale of
operations at the City of San Bernardino Animals Services, a new director should have formal
study—ideally a degree—in animal care and management for a full time (24/7) facility in an
urban setting.
In the process of selection, I encourage the City of San Bernardino City Manager, Mayor, and
City Councils to reaffirm the shelter publics and to close the gap between caring for the animals,
the communities served and watching the bottom line. Ideally, in the selection process, there will
be encouragement for building solid professional relationships with Community Development
personnel to strengthen shelter relationships within the areas of shelter service. As a system
within many other systems, the City of San Bernardino Animal Services has many needs that can
be addressed as well as opportunities for contributions within its communities. It would be very
helpful to have community members (including those from the contracting cities), volunteers,
rescues, service providers, etc. involved in the search process and perhaps even as part of the
interview group for the selection process for the new director and veterinarian.
Going forward, with a new director and veterinarian, there is opportunity and need to have more
emphasis on the daily care and respect for the animals, voice and involvement from the
communities and its ‘customers’ service needs, including adopters, rescues, networkers, etc.
There is also the opportunity to establish an ongoing on site direct review cycle (not just paper
reports from the shelter that make everything look fine).
It is important to remind the City Councils that as recently as yesterday, the absence of a
veterinarian reduced any credibility for killing so many dogs. From October 1 to October 14—40
big dogs were killed with a total population of 288 dogs—14%; this month, October, 192 big
dogs arrived at the shelter and 40 were killed—20.83%.
I suggest the following as a Next Step---with its contracting cities, to establish a cultural
orientation in the City of San Bernardino Animal Services as a real service provider for its
animals and the many communities served:
• Care for the animals: Shelter staff has established an attitude of their own arbitrary
operations that seem at best self-serving as though the animals to be cared for are another
form of Legos to be moved and killed at will. Shelter animals seem to be an inconvenience
rather than treasured lives that staff can help to care for well and rehome.
2
Euthing is done at CSBAS, it seems to outsiders, without awareness, care or
compassion that this is permanently ending the life of the animal. The recent number
of kills reflects a lack of deliberate care and demonstrates clearly a failure of human
responsibility. Staff continue to appear to make no effort to save dogs on the euth
list—who have been at the shelter for a while and whom they know to be very good
dogs.
The long-standing epidemics, since March for distemper, then parvo and now strep
zoo seem to have given staff just another reason to kill. Little effort was seen at the
start for hygiene and sanitation. Now even a slight exposure can result in death. There
is no wide-spread information regarding hygiene and sanitation.
• The response to requests for extensions for euth listed dogs suggests them to be an
intrusion rather than the right thing to do to save a dog. Staff delay in response to
emails make it difficult for rescues and transporters to respond in time to save a dog.
Instead of being happy that an animal may have a chance at life, some staff seem
reluctant as though the animal doesn’t have that basic right to live.
• Networkers and rescues are speaking more loudly of the shelter as a death camp and
slaughter house. Little is seen as being done to promote an environment of care and
the well-being of animals or to help them rehome.
• The contracts with the additional cities mean more dogs and not enough space or
resources. More dogs are being killed for behavior and made up medical reasons.
Regarding behavior, it needs be to recognized these animals are afraid and rightfully
so. There is close confinement—many dogs to one kennel. There is no longer a play
yard—dogs have no exercise. We are told that often that there is not enough food and
it is not presented well (is it possible that what we hear about food being thrown at
the dogs, could be true?). The dogs fight over food and space. This then results in
dogs being killed. Unspayed and unneutered animals are housed closely together in
less than ideal conditions. Instead of improving the conditions, it gives staff more
rationale to kill. How can that be?
• Building caring relationships in the community:
• No effort is in place to encourage volunteers to walk animals or to be involved in any
way to promote their well-being. The lack of openness as well as social skills in
working with the community and building interest in the shelter shows in the
enlarging siloing efforts in play.
• SBC information is sent from a NO REPLY address.
• Correspondence rules are in play so that city residents, rescues and networkers are not
encouraged to write for information or to offer feedback. Even those following the
rules have mail returned unread; rescue requests can wait for hours. There are times
when animals on death row have unread emails when they are killed. The response is
that there was no interest at the time established and so the animal was humanely
euthanized.
3
• It is good that chips are looked for when dogs are being killed. At times that saves
dogs.
• Staff is generating a great deal of paper daily. Many speak to the point that it seems
an effort by staff to cover themselves for the larger euthanasia rate of healthy young
dogs and lack of care. Others say it is to keep those interested in the animals buried in
information that is never in one place:
o There is no central place for the SBC publics to know of the euth lists,
dogs killed, etc.
o Pet Connect does not contain critical information for the public such as
that which comes only in email: Rescue Only, Kennel Cards and the
Review Date (this latter is a pretty term used at SBC for a kill date for the
animal if it is still in residence; like euthanasia it sounds better than the animal
dying). The list of dogs killed is only online in the Outcome Report.
• People are growing more frustrated not only at the number of dogs killed but the
rapidity of the death sentence—some are on the euth list even before they are
available with minor reasons listed: bump on the leg, age, ear infections, fear etc.
• The number and speed of dogs and cats assigned for euthanasia greatly outstrip the
numbers of dedicated networkers. Staff makes it difficult to get good info, photos, etc.
to save the animals and yet they will kill on their arbitrary timeline with no
consideration of the animal or those working so hard to save it). Not wanting to
extend the lives of euth listed dogs seems to reflect a cavalier approach devaluing
animals’ lives.
• Management and staff seem to make no effort to learn how their actions are affecting
their publics. The lack of knowledge of what is entailed for a rescue to procure foster
care and pledges denotes a combined lack of respect for rescues and lack of care for
animals. This has cost the shelter many rescues. There seems to be no understanding
of efforts required for a rescue to procure a foster and pledges for the animal’s care.
• Need more veterinary services available:
• Months have gone by with no clear efforts to minimize the contagion of distemper
and parvo—now there is a strep zoo virus. There is no public plan, for improving
sanitation to help the shelter overcome strep zoo, distemper, parvo, giardia and
bacterial pneumonia. For years people have noted grime in water bowls, dirty floors,
poor feeding habits. These reflect poor basic sanitation protocols. Are these being
changed?
• The influx of puppies has been quite shocking for those who follow Pet Connect
daily. Animals pending adoption, are still leaving without being neutered or spayed.
The public is not informed as to follow up regarding spaying and neutering for the
adoption pending dogs. It may well be that the only follow up involves the deposit
when it is reclaimed. If it is not reclaimed, it seems that there may be more puppies.
• Staff has little direct involvement in rehoming dogs:
• Many dogs are on the euth list on their available day. How can owners find them in
four days. There is email address or text or phone number to reclaim. In regards to
the three animals who were found that had owners on the day they were supposed to
be euthanized. “Unfortunately, one of them was still euthanized because the shelter
4
didn't check their emails (for rescues). If they tried a little harder half these animals
would probably be out of the shelter.”
• The public is not made aware of efforts made by the shelter staff to care for and help
rehome the dogs. Past-Director Watson said that it was the owners’, rescues’ and
adopters’ responsibility to save dogs. Currently, with so many dogs constantly on the
euth lists, networker attention must be on the euth listed dogs.
• There has been an in foster program that seems erratic. It does save dogs. It offers a
way for local people to become more interested in the dogs at SBC and to contribute
to the city.
• Requests for photos of dogs for rescues and adopters are rarely met in timely fashion.
At times there is a note saying photos are a courtesy. Without photos, encouraging
dog rescue is much more difficult.
• Customer service—an attitude of shared care—in this together:
• Adoptions seem to be quite unstructured. Many dogs are returned for lack of info,
errors such as wrong gender, etc.
• Staff needs to learn customer service for its various publics. It is a public service paid
for by the public.
• Staff needs to be willing to hear from its constituencies, to collaborate with them to
strengthen programs as a community service.
• The times for killing may be clear to the staff. They are often not clear to the rescues
or adopters. There is no reason for a dog’s life to be so disrespected that staff would
not look at emails before killing. The decision to kill was made by staff and can be
reversed by staff. It was someone’s judgment in the moment.
These ideas are respectfully presented as feedback for improvement at the shelter.
Best,
Cecile Betit
Cecile G. Betit PhD
Independent Researcher
Member, SBC Networker Team since 2016