From the prices of scrap, which would be the logical course, they would not recover much of anything. I have an employee that sells our recyclable waste materials and he stays informed on the pricing. The major porblem is in the way the operational costs were compared. They have ACOs employed and to add the two additional employees is an additional cost unless they reduce the cost of the current ACOs. This was pointed out in the first round of discussion and still has yet to be completely understood. Actually, there could be a model, but key would be the accuracy of that model. It could not be as accurate as the weather predictions are with their models with which we deal daily. "There is only a 20% chance that you will die using this treatment, but as it is a new compound and there is no data on it specifically the accuracy of this model is expected to be only 10%." weeks later "See, you did not die, you are cured, and that head of bright green hair is stunning. The pale skin and the smile are a little unusual though, Mr. Joker"
Let me see if I can make the problem any clearer. The cost estimates which have been compiled using the form from the HSUS appear to be for a clean slate approach. This means there are no costs that exist prior to this being undertaken, which is not the case. Unless you are removing, reducing the hours, or replacing an ACO the salary of that ACO does not offset the costs of the two new employees which would have to be hired. Without that offset the only reduction is in the cost of the CO being used and while I do not purchase pure CO in a gas I do purchase it in analytical standards. The major cost in the purchase is the certification of the concentration, which would not be a necessity in this case, so I have an idea of the cost ranges. This is enough to show a fatal flaw in the comparison unless there is an offsetting cost reduction in labor. An example: I have an clerk who does a pretty good job and they make $10.00 an hour working 40 hours a week. I pay out $400.00 a week in wages (much more once taxes and benefits are included but to keep it simple we will ignore those added costs) for their job. Part of their job is to perform function X, which they do. Now, a salesman sells me a new way to do function X "cheaper" than I do now and he has the figures to prove it. The figures show that two people can do the job with the new procedure more cheaply than my original employee. I hire the expert needed on a part time basis for the 2 hours a day they will be needed at $15.00 and hour and there assistant at $8.00 an hour. The first week, I pay out $630.00 in wages. I am shocked since this was supposed to be cheaper than my old way which cost me $400.00 a week. I catch my mistake since I have been using my original employee in other jobs during that time. I fire the assistant, replace them with my original employee and keep the required expert. I know have now save money. The next week I find I have to pay less than the previous week but it is still $75.00 more than it was originally. How can this be if the figures the salesman showed me were correct? Of course, this is using different figures but it does make the point. The cost comparison is per animal, which is not the way the costs will accrue nor does it consider the removal of present employees involved with the same process.
SJ, I read the links you posted for New Mexico Animal Control. The additional start-up costs are not correct in the case of the Johnston County shelter. There would be no need for additional training of staff, so long as a vet and vet tech perform euthanasia. They have already been trained. There should be no reduction in hours of any AC officers. I was told that they are overworked and understaffed, so they should welcome the prospect of not having to spend their time killing the animals. That would give them more time to go on calls and perform other aspects of their jobs. It would most certainly make the job less stressful. It would also eliminate the risk of lawsuits from workers who become sick or die from inhaling the carbon monoxide. They are exposed to low levels of the gas when they open the chamber door to unload dead animals, and when standing near the chamber when it leaks. It was found to have a leaky seal recently when it was serviced. Workers have become sick in three NC counties recently due to inhaling the gas. They could have died, just as the worker in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Very low levels of CO can cause many health problems over time, which could also result in lawsuits from workers' families. Let's take better care of them...more humane treatment for the animals and the workers. You have obviously seen the cost comparison, whoever you are. If it will make you feel better, I will rework it with no pay for the one AC officer. (Even though three officers are used to run the gas chamber.) But it really doesn't matter, if you have never seen it and I cannot get a copy to you. There's no need to use the excuse that employee hours would be cut. That is ridiculous. By the way, their pay is listed as "salary." Doesn't that mean that they are not paid by the hour? You should also consider the age of the gas chamber. According to Mr. Hester, it is over 8 years old. The expected life span is only 10 years. It has electronic parts that can malfunction, and seals that can leak. The older the machine, the more likely this becomes. A new gas chamber can cost $16,000 to $20,000. The shelter may obtain its own DEA license with a vet signed on as medical director, which does not risk the vet's private license. First, a state license is obtained through Department of Health and Human Services. The fee is WAIVED for county shelters. The logbooks for the drug would be kept by the veterinarian. The other costs listed in your New Mexico link: Table (already in the "Vet Tech Room" at the shelter, next to the plastic hand) Clippers, Safe, Needles, Syringes (already figured in the comparison) There are approximately 40 counties in North Carolina which have made the change to lethal injection for unwanted animals. Is Johnston County not intelligent enough to make this work? As far as the United States, we are still in the 2% of shelters using gas chambers. We want this shelter to be the "Shining Star" of our community. As long as the gas chamber is there, it gives a bad impression to new residents and businesses coming to our area. Not to mention natives of Johnston County who love their animals and do not want to see them suffer. Our tax dollars fund it, and we have a say in how it is done. As I said before, I would like to give you a copy of the cost analysis...that is, if you don't already have one. If the government officials think that changes should be made, then I will be glad to do that. You may email me at ncanimaladvocates@yahoo.com. I can send it though email, snail mail, or hand deliver it. Why are you so afraid to let me know who you are?
I did not say they would all be transferable but there would have to be a certification for the shelter and that cost would be added to the start up. Then how can there be no increase in cost. You have the same number of people working the same amount of time for the same cost per hour and you are adding a vet and vet tech per hour cost. I do not believe the cost of CO is that high, is it? All well and good, but this is still an increase in costs, which was the point you were supposed to address, not to try to justify the added cost. If they are not paid by the hour and there is no reduction in salary, the only cost that would be eliminated is the cost of the CO gas, which would have to exceed the cost of the labor of the vet and vet tech in addition to the cost of the medical supplies. It is really that simple to compare..... If and when there is such a failure the conversion coste should be considered along with the cost of repair or replacement, but until that time it would be more difficult to consider. The vet would either have to donate their time or be an additional cost, which would be added to the cost of the secure storage for the drugs. The other costs listed in your New Mexico link: Good, was there a complete conversion cost estimate provided or just the basic start up comparison? That is all well and good, however the tax dollars used in the operation must be spent wisely in order to provide the most important services first and lesser services as the funding is available. In order to do this a compleat and accurate cost accounting would have to be done, and just from what you have provided here I can tell the comparison was not complete nor accurate. I am not afraid to let you know who I am, but it is so much fun watching you try to find out who I am ... :twisted:
