"It was designed to attract people," explained society Executive
Director Steve McNall. "We have people that literally come here to eat
their lunch."
As several Glendale residents have criticized the Glendale Humane
Society, the alternative they have frequently pointed to as a model for
operations is the Pasadena Humane Society. Some have even suggested
Glendale should follow the lead of cities like San Marino and La Canada
Flintridge, which contract with the Pasadena society for their pet
services.
Leslie Eppick, the director of Glendale's Humane Society, said the
move would be a mistake.
"Would you want to go find your dog in Pasadena?" she asked. She added
that she worried increasing Pasadena's work load would boost the
likelihood of animals being euthanized.
McNall said he would consider negotiating with Glendale to handle its
pets under certain conditions.
"There's no way we would take on more animals if it would jeopardize
an animal's life," he said.
The Pasadena shelter already euthanizes a significantly higher
percentage of the animals it takes in than does Glendale's shelter -- 49%
vs. 21%, according to statistics provided by the two agencies. Pasadena
had 7,746 animals pass through in 2000, compared to Glendale's 3,414.
But the Pasadena shelter can also boast a wide range of resources --
from a mobile pet unit to advanced surgery rooms to an animal adoption
counseling service -- that would make Glendale drool. That's what an
annual budget of $2.8 million and a full-time staff of nearly 50
(compared to 11 in Glendale) can provide.
Would that make Pasadena society a smart option for Glendale? McNall
was cautious in his assessment.
"It would depend on what the city wants," he said.