German Shepherd Rescue of Sacramento Valley 5425 Pleasant Grove Rd Pleasant Grove, CA

Transcription

1 German Shepherd Rescue of Sacramento Valley 5425 Pleasant Grove Rd Pleasant Grove, CA September 14, 2017 Mr. (Full Name) (Member, Vice Chairman or Chairman), Sutter County Board of Supervisors 1160 Civic Center Bl Yuba City, CA Dear (Supervisor, Vice Chairman or Chairman) On September 26, 2017, you and your fellow Board members will be considering a revocation of the Use Permit pertaining to the dog rescue/adoption operation that I run at my property on 5425 Pleasant Grove Rd in Pleasant Grove (Planning Project #04-026). I d like you to know more about the important work that I do here and the community service I provide before you cast your vote. I am the Director of German Shepherd Rescue of Sacramento Valley (GSRSV), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. I took over GSRSV on Feb 1, 2001, and purchased the property at 5425 Pleasant Grove Rd in July 2003 for the primary purpose of running my rescue/adoption program and housing the majority of the dogs in my program. (I also proposed to board dogs here to fund the rescue program, but I never did board more than a few dogs at a time and no longer board any dogs for the general public.) Since 2001, I have rescued over 700 dogs that were either in shelters and at risk of euthanasia, or were at risk of ending up in shelters. I ve also assisted well over 100 people in finding new homes for their dogs while they continued to care for them. Before I became involved in dog rescue, I worked for 15 years as a Waste Reduction Specialist with the California Integrated Waste Management Board (now Cal Recycle). It was a good job, but I had to choose between the security and financial stability of my State career and saving dogs. It was not a tough decision for me I knew I had found my calling. Running GSRSV is my full-time job and my livelihood. My property is integral with my ability to run the rescue/adoption program. Now, due to recent events, the Sutter County Development Services Dept (SCDSD) is proposing to revoke the Use Permit that allows me to operate my program at my property in Pleasant Grove. There are two sides to every story. I d like to present my side. I have provided as a separate attachment more information about GSRSV; a history of background events that led to my obtaining the existing Use Permit for my dog rescue operation; and a history of recent events that have led SCDSD to propose revoking the Use Permit. Before I begin defending my case, I want to come right out and say that due to failures on my part, my dogs have indeed caused problems for some neighbors particularly over the last few months--and I have been a thorn in the side of the Sutter Animal Services Authority (SASA) due to the complaints they have had to respond to. Faults in some sections of the fences on my 45-acre property have been the source of much of the trouble my dogs have caused me and others over the years. I ve put in considerable time and money improving and repairing those fences, but with all the other work that needs to be done I admittedly have not made my property as escape-proof for the dogs as it should be.

2 I understand that given the number of complaints lodged against my operation, especially over the past year, that you and the other Board members might be hard-pressed to override staff s recommendation to revoke my Use Permit. If the Board decides to revoke my Use Permit, I only ask that you give me at least six months to find a new location to move my rescue operation (clearly, outside of Sutter County and most likely outside of California). In turn, I will do my very best to abide by the rules specified in my Use Permit until I ve moved. What I m trying to achieve with this letter is to show you and the other Board members that I do a lot of good work running German Shepherd Rescue of Sacramento Valley and am not some abusive hoarder of dogs, as those documented in reality TV shows. You can learn more about GSRSV by viewing our Website at We also have a Facebook page you can view at The Facebook page displays the appreciation of many people for the important work I do. I think you ll be hearing from some of these people before the Board considers my case on Sept 26. There is a tremendous demand for the work that I do--both rescuing dogs from shelters and assisting people who can no longer keep their dogs. This demand has increased considerably since I became involved in rescuing German Shepherds in the year The number of German Shepherds (as well as other dog breeds) residing in shelters has skyrocketed over the last seventeen years, and particularly in the last five years. Back in 2001, the number of dog surrender requests that I received from people compared to the number of adoption inquiries that I received was approx 1:4. Now, the vast majority of the phone calls and s that I receive are from individuals seeking to rehome their dogs, or from people who have found stray dogs and want to keep them out of shelters. This disparity between surrender requests and adoption inquiries illustrates the community service aspect of the work that I do. I run my German Shepherd rescue operation very differently than most other rescue groups do. In addition to owning a facility to house numerous dogs (which most rescue groups do not have), what really separates GSRSV from other rescue groups is that my dogs live communally rather than in individual kennels. Four of my dogs live outside of the fenced yards, and have access to my full 45-acre property all of the time. The remaining dogs (17 at present) reside within the two fenced yards behind my house, and have access to my house via a dog door 24/7. Having so many dogs especially an energetic breed like German Shepherds living communally presents unique challenges and creates a lot more work on my part. However, I became involved in rescue to free dogs from cages, not to put them in cages. I do my best to confine my dogs to my property while allowing them the mobility that nearly all dogs yearn for. Over the years, my rescue ranch has become a sanctuary of sorts. Many of the dogs that I have here on my property are what I consider unadoptable, due to either behavioral issues or simply advanced age. I have rescued many dogs from shelters that no other rescue group would take because of perceived behavioral problems or medical issues. Additionally, I provide a lifetime safety net for every dog I adopt out meaning that if at any point in the adopted dog s life the adopter is unable or unwilling to keep the dog, I take it back. In closing, I want to repeat that the objectives of this letter are to: 1. Make the Board aware of all the good deeds that I do for not only the dogs in my care, but for the many people in our community who can no longer care for the dogs they already have; and 2. Ask the Board, should you vote to revoke my Use Permit, to allow me at least six months to find a suitable new location to move my rescue operation. I apologize for the trouble I have caused, and hope that you ll weigh my case objectively and fairly. Sincerely, Brian Foran Director

3 Attachment to Letter Dated from Brian Foran, Director, German Shepherd Rescue of Sacramento Valley Additional Information about GSRSV Though you will be hearing allegations from SCDSD (via SASA) that I do not take adequate care of my dogs physical and nutritional needs, I completely deny those allegations. It is true that several of my dogs are thin by traditional standards. However, NONE of those dogs have ever exhibited medical problems due to their thin stature, and in fact for some of those dogs their thin condition has actually led to considerably improved mobility and stamina. Further, I have found over the years that thin dogs not only live longer, but hardly ever succumb to any of the multitude of diseases that affect normal weight or heavier dogs particularly cancer. My veterinary bills will attest to my commitment to looking after my dogs physical well-being. So far this year alone, my veterinary expenses exceed $20,000. This includes one surgery that cost nearly $8,000 for an 11-yo dog (she didn t make it), and a $5,000 surgery for an 8-yo dog (he recovered fine). These are surgeries that most rescue groups would not be willing to undertake due to budget concerns or, in the case of the older dog, due to the odds of survival. For me, money is secondary to the possibility of saving a life (though of course, I have my limits). If there is any question about whether or not I provide adequate food for my dogs, I have receipts to show that my food & supplement expenses exceed $5,000 so far this year. Many dog lovers tell me that they would love to do what I do. What they don t realize is the tremendous amount of work in caring for as many dogs as I do. My job is not only full time, it is so demanding that it precludes doing many of the fun things in life that I used to do, and that most people do routinely. It is exhausting work. This is my choice, and I accept it. It is also not an excuse for creating problems for others. I m not making excuses, but I do want you to know that I m not just sitting idly when my rescue operation creates problems. I am the only person living here at my Rescue Ranch, so I always have a tremendous amount of work to do. In addition to caring for more than 20 dogs, I have 45 acres of property and fencelines to maintain. I have done a considerable amount of work to improve the fences over the years. When I purchased this property, the entire back section of the property (1447 ft) and approx 1000 ft of the south boundary of the property was hemmed in by old 3 livestock fence with two strands of barbed wire above it clearly inadequate to contain dogs the size of German Shepherds. I improved those sections of fence with 5 wire fence. Additionally, I have reinforced countless sections of fence that appeared to be weak, and installed many wire fence skirts under sections of fence where it appeared a dog or dogs were trying to dig out. You will undoubtedly hear from SCDSD or SASA about Nar, one of the dogs from my Rescue Ranch. Nar has found his way off my property on five occasions, each time winding up at a neighbor s house where they were able to get hold of him as Nar is a very friendly dog and will come up to just about anyone who calls him. Four of Nar s wanderings off my property took place this year, and each time he went to a property west of me at 3201 Howsley Rd. The couple (Les & Kathryn Hintz) who live at that property have many chickens, and are the catalyst behind my Use Permit revocation hearing. The first time Nar ended up at the Hintz s property, Les called me and I picked Nar up. The subsequent three times Nar ended up there (the most recent being Sept 9), the Hintz s called SASA and they picked him up to impound him at their shelter. Though I have heard from SASA that the Hintz s claim that Nar has killed some of their chickens, I question that allegation as each time Nar has ended up on their property it has been during broad daylight when the 1

4 Hintz s are generally out and about on their property. It is unlikely that the Hintz s would stand by idly while Nar killed their chickens, only to call him over to them after the fact. Background of Use Permit On June 2, 1999, the Sutter County Planning Commission approved a Use Permit applied for by Ron & Sue Burns--the former owners of this property-- to operate a dog breeding kennel with up to 30 adult dogs. On December 15, 2000, the Sutter County Community Services Dept (SCCSD) approved a request by Ron & Sue Burns to amend the Use Permit for their property to include a dog boarding operation in addition to the breeding operation. The total number of dogs allowed by the permit remained 30. On July 8, 2003, I sent a letter to Larry Bagley, then Asst Director of the SCCSD, explaining my intent of running my rescue/boarding program at 5425 Pleasant Grove Rd, which I had recently purchased. Mr. Bagley replied that the rescue/boarding operation I proposed was materially different than the breeding/boarding operation specified in the Use Permit, and that I would have to apply for an amendment to the Use Permit to run my rescue program here. On June 26, 2004, I submitted an Application for Amendment to Use Permit #99-07 to the SCCSD to include my rescue operation and to exclude the breeding operation specified in the Use Permit. On Sept 9, 2004, the SCCSD notified me that my proposed amendment to Use Permit #99-07 represented a major change to the activities approved in the existing Use Permit and that I either submit a new Use Permit application or no longer proceed with the rescue/boarding operation. On Sept 27, 2004, I appealed the SCCSD s decision to require me to submit an application for a new Use Permit to operate my rescue/boarding operation. On Dec 15, 2004, the Sutter County Planning Commission upheld my appeal of the SCCSD s decision, and approved my rescue/boarding operation (Project #04-027) as an amendment to Use Permit # Recent Events On Sept 22, 2016, I received a First Notice of Violation letter from Sutter County Development Services Dept (SCDSD, formerly Sutter County Community Services Dept) notifying me of some complaints that Sutter County Animals Services (SASA) had recently received regarding the dogs on my property. There were two complaints of a dog or two running off the property, a complaint of 6-8 dogs roaming freely on the property during various times of the day & night, and a complaint of several dogs being underweight. This letter did NOT request that I reply to SCDSD; it only stated that We anticipate your voluntary cooperation. On Oct 25, 2016, I received a Second Notice of Violation letter from SCDSD asking that I provide a written response confirming that I had adequately addressed the alleged violations. I replied via on and via letter on , stating that I had addressed the issues. (Note that there was actually no new violation specified in this Second Notice; it was simply asking for a written response to the First Notice of Violation.) On Jan 27, 2017, SCDSD and SASA staff visited my property to investigate the complaint and possible violations of my Use Permit. Staff did not observe any violations of my Use Permit during the site visit, and so closed the complaint file as of March 8,

5 On July 1, 2017, I received a Third and Final Notice of Violation from SCDSD informing me that SCDSD had received a new complaint that a dog or dogs from my property were roaming at large and had killed a neighbor s chickens. One of the dogs ( Nar ) was captured by the neighbor on May 25 and was picked up by SASA. I was issued a citation for the dog running loose off my property. I redeemed Nar on June 14. Nar again found his way off my property on June 27, and again was captured by the same neighbor with the chickens. SASA again picked up Nar and kept him impounded until August 3, when I redeemed him. On Aug 18, 2017, two officers from SASA and a veterinary technician came to my property to conduct a wellness check of all the dogs on my property. The vet tech determined that seven of the twenty-one dogs I had on my property at that time were underweight enough to warrant a citation, which they issued me. They also issued me a citation for having Nar tethered on a 25 cable, which was a violation of law that I was unaware of. On Sept 7, 2017, Nar again found his way off my property and again was captured by the same neighbor on Howsley Rd west of me. The neighbor alleges that Nar killed a chicken. SASA came to pick up Nar, where he is presently impounded. 3