logo
Oakland shelters no longer required to accept surrendered pets

Oakland shelters no longer required to accept surrendered pets

CBS News16-07-2025
At Tuesday afternoon's meeting, the Oakland City Council approved a new ordinance that would allow its animal shelter to refuse unwanted or abandoned pets being surrendered to their care.
The head of Animal Services said it's a best practice, but some volunteers point out that it's only happening because of budget cuts.
On Tuesday, if someone had an animal to turn into the shelter, they were out of luck. Prior budget cuts have closed the facility to the public on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
But the new policy, just approved, would allow them to refuse new animals at any time when there just isn't enough room or staff to care for them. Oakland Animal Services Interim Director Joe DeVries said other cities have a similar ordinance.
"We want to be abiding by best practices," he said. "But it's also true that by doing that we will make it easier for the staff, so the staffing shortage won't have as severe an impact."
Oakland had always been what's known as an "open admissions" shelter. By law, they were required to accept any animal surrendered to them. The new ordinance will give them discretion. But some volunteers, who make up the majority of the shelter's workforce, say it's just an excuse to accept inexcusable cuts to their budget.
"What they're changing is, the shelter can say, 'Well, we can't take this dog, we can't take this cat because we no longer have the staffing, the resources, the ability to do it,'" said volunteer Johanna Widger. "And that's the problem. The problem is that they keep cutting the budget. Just recently, they cut eight permanent full-time staffing positions, so we'll have even less people working with the animals. It's just a mess and we want the people of Oakland to know about this."
Widger and Willow Liroff donate their time in taking care of the animals in the shelter. They said the new ordinance may be a practical reality, but it will have dire consequences in the future, when people begin abandoning their animals in the community.
"We have people in the parking lot letting animals loose. We have people in our streets, at parks. This problem is only going to compound," said Liroff. "We have never seen such a severe and drastic staffing shortage as we have now. To lose eight full-time positions from an already skeleton crew staff is devastating. And the shelter is truly in crisis because of it."
And the heartbreaking results were suddenly there to see. A woman arrived carrying a tiny newborn kitten she had just found in the street.
"This little baby was under a car, a parked car," she said, expecting to drop it off.
But then she was told there was no one available to accept it, and she left with the kitten still in her arms. Whether it lived or died was now her problem. The volunteers said the shelter has been an easy target for the budget ax and they have been dealing with more and more cuts every year. But now, they say they have been cut too far and the solution of turning away animals from an animal shelter is really no solution at all.
"I had to bring this up because I think that it's important for people to know that we've had death by a thousand cuts!" said Widger.
"With the staffing crisis, there's no easy immediate answer for it, but changing an ordinance is something that is disastrous to the community," said Liroff.
Director DeVries said, rather than surrendering their pets, he would prefer a system that tries to connect owners with the help they may need to keep their animals. But the volunteers said, after the budget cuts there is simply no one left in the building to do that.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Mother-in-Law Says Grandmas 'Can Do What They Want.' Mom Says She Won't Be Babysitting Anymore
Mother-in-Law Says Grandmas 'Can Do What They Want.' Mom Says She Won't Be Babysitting Anymore

Yahoo

time16 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Mother-in-Law Says Grandmas 'Can Do What They Want.' Mom Says She Won't Be Babysitting Anymore

After repeatedly ignoring basic rules with her newborn, one woman says her mother-in-law is no longer welcomed to babysitNEED TO KNOW A mom set clear rules for her newborn, but her mother-in-law had other ideas A simple request turned into a months-long power struggle Now, she's drawing a line, and not everyone in the family agreesA woman looks to the Reddit community for advice following a tense fallout with her mother-in-law over a series of ignored boundaries with her newborn daughter. In a heartfelt post titled 'AITA for not allowing my MIL to babysit anymore?' she shares the details of a situation that has left her feeling disrespected and unheard. 'From the moment my baby was born, I was very clear about the basic boundaries I had with the baby,' the new mom writes. Her requests were simple: no kissing, wash hands before touching the baby and ask before taking the baby from her arms. She describes how she and her husband were living with his mother shortly after their baby girl was born, hoping for some extra support. But instead of feeling supported, she says, her boundaries were crossed 'within the first week after the baby was born.' Despite clearly explaining her expectations, she says her mother-in-law refused to listen. 'She responded with 'I'm the grandma and grandmas can do what they want,' ' the mom reveals, adding that this attitude only continued. She notes that she and her husband both spoke to his mother multiple times, attempting to reinforce the importance of their rules. But instead of improving, the situation escalated as her MIL 'completely disregarded our rules and continued to [ignore] them.' In addition to boundary violations, she says her mother-in-law started referring to the baby in a way that made her deeply uncomfortable. 'She also began to call our child 'her child,' ' she writes, explaining that her MIL would reach for the baby, saying, 'Give me my child.' These moments were not taken lightly by the new mom, who says the behavior 'made me very uncomfortable.' She also shares that each time she and her husband addressed the issue, it 'would continue to become defensive and start big arguments.' Feeling overwhelmed and increasingly isolated, the couple decided to make a major change. 'After our baby turned 2 months old, we moved out of state due to my husband's military assignment,' she explains. But the space didn't end the tension. Soon after the move, her MIL began making plans to visit and babysit, which led to the mom putting her foot down. 'I've told her and my husband that I don't feel comfortable with her babysitting anymore,' she says. Her reasoning was clear: 'Until she can respect the rules and boundaries I've had in place and until she can respect me as a mother, I no longer want her in my home.' Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer​​, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. The Reddit post ends with a direct question to the community: 'So, AITA for saying these things?' And the comments come pouring in with strong support for her stance. One commenter writes, 'This is just a sign of much worse to come,' warning her not to let her mother-in-law take away precious memories from this time in her life. 'Don't let her rob you of what's supposed to be happy times that you'll never get back.' Another user echoes the sentiment and applauds her strength in taking a stand. 'Not overreacting,' they say. 'I think it's good you are setting these boundaries now.' Read the original article on People Solve the daily Crossword

How We Avoided World War III
How We Avoided World War III

Bloomberg

timean hour ago

  • Bloomberg

How We Avoided World War III

The dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima 80 years ago this week is something to commemorate but not celebrate. It was also the beginning of a new era: the Atomic Age. Growing up in the latter stages of the Cold War, my generation didn't live with the sense of menace and the Bert the Turtle duck-and-cover drills baby boomers endured. But both cohorts were blessed by the absence of a large-scale war, conventional or nuclear, between the US and the Soviet Union. Which brings up an 80-year-old question: Did the development of atomic weapons keep the peace during the Cold War? And if so, what accounts for this paradoxical result? The simple answer is the unsatisfying one: It's complicated.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store