But you said that you never saw it, so how would you know if it is accurate? I only posted a link for you to see figures from AH and HSUS. The local report is 9 pages, in a table that cannot be posted here. I offered to email my info, but you would not give your email address. I will be more than happy to meet you in person to give you a copy. How about Java Joes at 40/42? Or you can PM your mailing address. The worksheet was provided by the Humane Society of the United States, and local figures were filled in. These numbers were obtained from Johnston County Human Resources, the gas company which sells CO to the shelter, a medical supplier, a pharmaceutical company which sells the euthanasia drug, and a local vet. All of these numbers are accurate. The first report was submitted on December 21, 2004. That was based on 4800 animals euthanized, which is the figure I was given. I had to adjust this recently, after finding the actual number reported to the Department of Heath and Human Services was only 3081. This is why I edited the number in my old post. The bottom line is this: THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL MONEY NEEDED. The totals are less for lethal injection than what is already being spent with CO. In one version, a veterinarian is used with one assistant. Second version uses a vet tech with one assistant. I only counted the hourly wage of one AC officer performing gas euthanasia, when it actually takes THREE according to witnesses. So it is more than fair. And still cheaper to use lethal injection. There could be slight variations based on which brand of drug is used. Sources of costs were listed for verification by anyone who reads it. Anyone who wants more info can PM me.
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?
Should this be called the ECHOOOOOOOO thread? The same post is addressed in another thread. I see no need to duplicate the reply here as well.
Maybe "The Light" was trying to get it over here where it belongs anyway. :? But yes, I would have to agree with you on why the duplicate.
Fair enough, but it would have been better to not have left the post there too. The Light wrote: 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 ...
I have offered to give you a copy, and you will not accept it. So I suggest that you stop calling it "inaccurate" until you have at least read it. You act as if you are the person we have to convince. Do we have to make a "deal with the devil?" By the way Satan, what is your religious affiliation? I find that this has a great deal to do with a person's views on the treatment of our animals.
It is inaccurate if the cost of the new employees required for the injection method are not offset by the reduction in cost by the old employees used for the old method. Without the offset you cannot rationally state there are no increased costs in the change, when there is actually an increase. One does not have to look at any of the figures to understand that simple point of budgeting. While it is true that you do not have to convince me, but I would hope there are others who understand finances well enough to also see the problem with your "comparison" of costs. That may be why it was not acted upon when it was presented. A fatal error in logic does not cause a higher degree of confidence in proposed changes. I am my own religion, and I am lookig for new recruits, interested? The fringe benefits are great!!! :wink: :twisted: :evil: :twisted:
You have not read it, so you have no idea what other costs are involved. Why must you continue to bash something that you have never seen, and refuse to see? You fit in well on this forum....I'm sure you will make lots of new friends, or reunite with old ones. I'm going offline for now. Argue with yourself. This is a waste of my time.
I know the labor costs are the majority of the expenses, are they not? If the largest cost is not offset by a similar reduction in cost you can have no way to cost as much and surely not less. Because you have given enough information to show you have no idea of which you speak. You are comparing the cost of euthanizing animals from a clean slate position and without returning to that clean slate condition your figures are worthless. You have stated that no current labor costs will be reduced, thus the new labor costs are in addition to the current costs. There is no valid way to say this is not going to cost the county more money than it does now. Good, I would hope simple math and logic was more popular than that. Might I suggest a remedial math class or a business economics class to help you understand the situation.
Still attacking a cost analysis which you have NOT SEEN. You are not getting the facts before you post your remarks. And you are apparently afraid of exposing who you really are. We have your IP number now, since you finally posted on the NCAA site.
I wish that typing more slowly would help you understand that I do not need to see the cost analysis since you have already stated that there was no provision to reduce the labor costs of the current ACOs. You are so blinded in trying to compare the cost per animal you overlook the total budget cost which by your statements must be higher. Unless and until you offset the displaced labor costs you have increased the costs to the county by switching methods. It is really that simple and that factual. :roll: I have tried to give you examples of how that false comparison would work, but it did not seem to help you in any way. And you are apparently afraid of exposing who you really are. No, you seem to be afraid of who I am though. Good, now if you can figure out whether I was home, at work, or elsewhere on my laptop, which would all different IP addresses :roll: When will you tell me who I am? :wink:
Let me try to do this one last time. If you have three workers who alternate doing Job A. All three of them make $100.00 a day so you pay them a total of $1500.00 a week for their work. Job A costs you $10.00 per piece in materials and you do 100 of them per week. The only way that you can hire two more people part time using different materials to do Job A is if the labor and materials for the job are less than $10.00 or you cut the cost of the first three workers. Are the costs of the labor for the vet tech, the assistant and the materials less than the cost of the CO gas? If not you are increasing the cost of operating the shelter. If you are increasing the cost of operating the shelter you cannot say "without an increase in cost" without someone like myself calling you on it. <hint> I already know the cost of the gas is not that high so I know you are mistaken in your assertion of no cost increase. :wink:
For real, WTH is that supposed to mean? You want people to take you seriously, but then you go and post some juvenile sh*t like this!? I'm sure people will come in hoards now to post on your NCAA site, Light. Just what are you going to do with somebody's IP number? Say, "oh - you are number 123.456.789.10"... AND??? WHO CARES?? Or "well, you are John Smith of 123 Allen Rd".... AND??? WHO CARES?? And do me a favor, PRINT THIS OUT!!!!
Ooohh, is somebody IMPORTANT and IN THE KNOW? Or just in their own mind. I'm getting confused with allthe BS floating around here.
