King County Animal Care & Control (KCACC) is a county-run and taxpayer-funded agency with a budget of more than $5 million. KCACC provides sheltering services to all the municipalities in King County except Seattle, Renton, and Medina. KCACC provides animal control services to most of King County, except Seattle and a few municipalities that have their own services. KCACC is also the primary agency tasked with investigating complaints of animal neglect and cruelty in King County, although these investigations are also performed by the King County Sheriff’s Office as well as other law enforcement agencies. Excluding licensing officers, KCACC employs roughly 40 people. The main KCACC shelter is in Kent at 21615 64th Ave., while a very small satellite facility is operated in the Bellevue/Crossroads area, at 821 164th Ave. About 10-12,000 animals a year enter the KCACC shelters, although the agency’s records are so poor that it is difficult to pinpoint an exact number.

KCACC comes under the authority of King County’s Records and Licensing division. Although the King County Council must approve all budget proposals, King County Executive Dow Constantine is ultimately responsible for KCACC’s operations, staffing, and policies.

KCACC’s shelters should not be confused with a variety of other shelters in the King County region, many of which run very fine programs. The City of Seattle provides its own animal services in a program that is completely separate from King County, through the Seattle Animal Shelter. The Humane Society of Seattle/King County, frequently called either the Seattle Humane Society or the Bellevue Humane Society, runs a private, non-profit shelter in Bellevue at 13212 SE Eastgate Way.

We have faith in the citizens of King County. We think that if we keep you informed about the ongoing, deplorable conditions at KCACC, and the shameful waste of taxpayer dollars, you will refuse to stand for it any longer. King County is a compassionate, progressive community, and should not tolerate a sheltering system that fails to provide even basic humane care, and animal field services that fail to protect either the animals or the people in our community. Year after year, volunteers, staff members, and members of the public have complained about conditions at KCACC, but despite damning reports from the advisory committee and two paid consultants, the administration of former long-time County Executive Ron Sims, still failed to acknowledge the severity of the problems at the county's animal shelters. But now there is hope. With the election of County Executive Dow Constantine, we have an advocate who has recognized the need for drastic reform during his service on the King County Council, and we are optimistic that he will take action to resolve these issues once and for all. But we must remain vigilant. By continuing to stand together and speak out for the animals, we can ensure that our elected officials enact immediate and lasting reforms.

KCACC Exposed seeks either comprehensive and meaningful reform of KCACC, or a transfer of its animal care, animal control, and animal cruelty investigation responsibilities to the people and organizations that are best equipped to fulfill these functions in a humane and responsible way. Perpetuating this broken system is not only an enormous waste of taxpayer money, it is immoral. Animals have been suffering at the hands of KCACC for decades. Enough is enough. The time for change is now, and we will not wait any longer.

Obviously, King County sheltering, animal control, and animal cruelty investigations must continue until they are replaced by humane and responsible alternatives. No one is advocating that KCACC simply shut its doors and leave the animals to roam the streets. Apologists for KCACC contend that no other local shelter or humane organization has the capacity to care for all the animals who enter KCACC shelters every year. This is a red herring. The question is not whether any current organization has sufficient extra capacity to care for all these animals – of course, no responsible organization would maintain hundreds of empty cages and kennels, and a corresponding number of idle staff members. The correct question is whether any organization, or a combination of organizations, would be willing and able to take responsibility for these animals – probably through management of the Kent shelter facility or a temporary shelter until a new community shelter can be built.

The No Kill philosophy asserts that animal shelters have a moral responsibility to save every animal who can be saved – that animal shelters should be a safety net for lost, abused, and homeless pets, not a dead end. In a No Kill community, animal shelters save all healthy and treatable animals, and operate trap-neuter-return programs for feral cats rather than killing them. This usually equates to a "save rate" of at least about 90% of the animals who enter a community’s shelters: the only animals who are not saved are those who are suffering and have a poor prognosis for recovery, and vicious dogs who pose a threat to community safety. No Kill programs have been successful in communities both big and small in all parts of the country. Contrary to misleading claims, a No Kill community does no "leave the killing to someone else," but takes responsibility for all animals entering the community’s shelters. A No Kill community implements proven programs and policies designed to reduce intake and increase live exits – such as aggressive adoption programs, low-cost spay/neuter, effective foster programs, comprehensive shelter medical care, behavioral rehabilitation, trap-neuter-return for feral cats, programs designed to help people keep their pets, and effective to help reunite lost pets with their owners.

In May 2007, the King County Council passed legislation proposed by Councilmember Julia Patterson, declaring that "No Kill" was the new policy of the county, and requiring KCACC to save all healthy and treatable animals by the end of 2009 (or at least 85% of all animals entering the shelters). The legislation tasked the newly reconstituted KCACC Citizens’ Advisory Committee with advising King County on how to develop a model, No Kill animal services program. Without this legislation, the Advisory Committee would not have investigated KCACC and submitted the report that called attention to the deplorable conditions there. The co-chairs of the KCACC Exposed campaign firmly believe that the goals set by the council in May 2007 are both correct and achievable, and that the citizens of King County should demand a No Kill program – one that saves all healthy or treatable shelter animals who do not pose a risk to public safety. No matter who operates the county animal shelter, that entity should be required to institute programs to meet these mandates. However, this issue transcends No Kill. Although the Citizens’ Advisory Committee was constituted of both proponents and opponents of No Kill, it was unanimous in its findings that conditions at KCACC were "deplorable" and must be immediately corrected. Similarly, although the consultant hired by the council (Nathan Winograd of No Kill Solutions) is a staunch No Kill advocate, and the consultants hired by the executive branch (veterinarians from the U.C. Davis Shelter Medicine Program) are often at odds with both No Kill and Mr. Winograd, the findings in both consultant reports were remarkably consistent. Although former King County Executive Ron Sims tried to make this issue a referendum on No Kill (while twisting the true meaning of No Kill), it is really much simpler than that. KCACC fails to provide the animals in its custody with basic humane care. Measured against any "philosophy," that is simply unacceptable.

In its effort to save the jobs of its officers, the KCACC Officers’ Guild is working hard to portray the advocates of shelter reform in King County as dishonest, scheming, and somehow after personal gain. Of course, none of these characterizations ever has been – or ever can be – substantiated. Far from seeking personal gain, those who have challenged KCACC have volunteered enormous amounts of time and energy at great personal cost – to our jobs, our health, and our families. We have done so because we believe that in a democracy, citizens have a responsibility to speak out when they see an injustice, and because we feel a moral obligation to speak for the voiceless. And fortunately, we now have a county executive and a unanimous county council that has heard our message, and is working toward change for the animals.

It can be extremely confusing to be buffeted by competing assertions, especially in reference to an issue that is as emotionally and politically charged as this one. But in this case, there is a mountain of evidence about the shortcomings of KCACC. We invite everyone to read the Advisory Committee report, the two consultant reports, the two reports from the county auditor, the letter from the KCACC whistleblower, and the other factual information posted on this website, and to reach their own conclusions. We don’t want anyone to take our word for what we say. The facts speak for themselves.

Sadly, no. In the past two years, KCACC has made a few small improvements that were more than a decade overdue, such as finally separating the cats from the dogs, and installing a grate over the open sewer trench in the dog kennels. And at the direction of the King County Council, KCACC has also purchased new cat cages for both shelters, and installed a new cat adoption trailer at the Kent shelter. KCACC has also finally extended the hours for the Kent shelter to include evenings and weekends – after years of promising that this would be done.

However, despite an infusion of nearly $1 million in additional funds in 2008, and budget increases in 2009, KCACC has made few other improvements. There has been no significant expansion of the kennels available for dogs, even though the council specifically allocated $200,000 for this purpose. No monitoring cameras have been installed, although council specifically directed $15,000 for this project. KCACC still fails to protect healthy animals from being sick; still provides inconsistent and inadequate medical care; still co-houses incompatible dogs in tiny kennels leading to frequent fights, injuries, and behavior problems; still houses animals without proper shelter and in inadequate cages; still kills dogs for behavior problems created by poor shelter conditions; still fails to provide socialization and behavioral rehabilitation; and still has not even bothered to provide the dogs in stray hold with beds to sleep on. The list goes on and on. In fact, the vast majority of the issues noted in the consultant reports still exist, leading to an overcrowded shelter with alarming rates of disease, high levels of fear and stress, and inadequate medical care. And beyond the care provided within the shelter, KCACC has failed to implement the programs that would decrease shelter crowding and save more animals. It has failed to increase its adoption numbers, continues to have a poor relationship with many area rescue groups and shelters, has alienated many of its most dedicated volunteers, has not instituted a low-cost spay/neuter program for the community, and continues to kill feral cats. Finally, KCACC’s animal control officers still fail to respond to either cruelty or control calls in a timely and effective manner, putting both people and pets in the community in danger.

Yes and no. Effective and humane animal care and control programs – and successful No Kill programs – have been run for approximately the same amount of money that King County taxpayers are paying now. Given the bloated salaries and administrative overhead at KCACC, we also fully expect that a private, non-profit organization would be able to stretch taxpayers’ dollars much further. However, the current program has been so badly neglected for so long, that we can expect that some increased expenditures will be needed to correct the severe problems that have developed. The most obvious example is the KCACC shelter facility in Kent, a converted barn that has received few upgrades since KCACC first started using it as an animal pound in 1973. As a representative of the King County facilities department admitted to the KCACC Advisory Committee last year, the county has made the decision to allow this facility to simply fall apart: The county has not wanted to "waste" money on renovating such a poor facility, but at the same time, the King County executive branch under Mr. Sims and Mr. Triplett did not take any action to replace it. The executive’s decision to neither renovate nor replace the Kent shelter has left the animals to be housed in conditions that everyone agrees are inadequate and inhumane. No matter which organization or agency runs the county animal sheltering program, it seems clear that within the next few years King County taxpayers are going to need to help build a new shelter facility.

In regard to operating expenses, the taxpayers should be able to save a significant amount of money if a private organization takes over animal services. The current budget for KCACC is $5.7 million. A strategic plan completed by the county in the summer of 2008 indicated that raising the level of care to acceptable levels would require a budget of at least $8.3 million. Given the endemic problems at KCACC and within the King County executive branch, even $8.3 million is unlikely to bring about any significant change within the agency unless it is accompanied by comprehensive reform and bold new leadership at all levels. On the other hand, it is unlikely that a private, non-profit agency would require anything close to $8.3 million to run a model animal care and control program, even considering the pervasive problems that the county has allowed to fester.

Unfortunately, there will be no cheap and easy way out of the mess that King County has made out of its animal services programs. But by turning to organizations that have a track record of expertise and efficiency, county taxpayers will get much more for their money. By simply redirecting current levels of funding, King County taxpayers should be able to pay for an experienced and compassionate organization to build the model, No Kill program described by the council in its May 2007 legislation.

To put it in the simplest terms, animal cruelty and neglect is a crime. It should be treated like one.

Under the current system, the primary responsibility for investigating complaints of animal cruelty and neglect falls to KCACC. However, KCACC officers have only the most rudimentary training in law enforcement. They are not armed, are not adequately trained to protect themselves or the public, do not know how to conduct thorough investigations and preserve evidence so that it can be used in court, do not have the power to perform arrests, and are not trained to protect the Constitutional rights of the accused. In short, they are not law enforcement officers. Frequently, KCACC responds to clear and egregious cases of cruelty not by prosecuting the offenders, but by giving them repeated chances to change their behavior, often with tragic results.

KCACC also lacks the ability to respond to animal cruelty complaints in a timely manner. For example, the King County Sheriff’s Office has access to up to 250 patrol officers on the road who are able to respond to calls throughout King County, which covers more than 2,000 square miles. In contrast, KCACC usually has no more than seven animal control officers able to respond to both animal control and animal cruelty calls at any one time – and usually far fewer than that, because these officers are often tasked with other responsibilities, such as providing basic animal care. As a result, KCACC often has a backlog of hundreds of calls, and frequently fails to respond to either animal cruelty complaints or animal control calls in time to prevent serious injury to pets and people.

It is time for King County to stop acting as if animal cruelty is not a real crime. It should be investigated and prosecuted in the same way as is any other crime, by real law enforcement officials including the King County Sheriff’s Office.

This conclusion is even more obvious when we consider the fact that animal cruelty is often linked to crimes against humans. If someone is abusing their dog, it is more likely they are also abusing their spouse or child. If a person is engaging in dog fighting, it is more likely that they are also involved in drugs and gang violence. In fact, studies have shown that people who abuse animals are five times more likely to commit violent crimes against people, four times more likely to commit property crimes, and three more likely to commit drug or disorderly-conduct offenses. Anyone concerned with the public safety should object to the fact that unarmed animal control officers are frequently entering situations where crimes against humans are probably occurring – but they have neither the training or experience to recognize or investigate these crimes.