The 76-year-old Flynn returned to the Humane Society in September 2003—this time to find a dog to take home. And right away he met Elvis, an 8-year-old Siberian husky/German shepherd mix.

Elvis had been at the Humane Society for 77 days by then, a stray that had had no luck in finding a home. He'd been picked up in Milpitas by police officers who found him tied to a post. At the time, he was wearing a collar with a phone number, but when Humane Society staff called, the number had been disconnected.

It didn't take long for Flynn to decide that Elvis was the companion for him. In the months since, the dog has had to have an abscessed tooth removed and endured two operations. Under the policy of the Humane Society, Flynn could have taken him back—but he declined. "He's quite a dog," Flynn says. "I'm mobile here, and I'd like to stay that way with this guy's help."

And, Flynn says, Elvis is recognized whenever the duo goes out. A December 2003 newspaper story put their picture in the paper, and those associated with the Humane Society still treat the dog with affection. At the Humane Society's fundraising "Fur Ball" in March, Flynn was honored for adopting Elvis, receiving a year's supply of dog food and a bowl engraved with the name "Elvis."

An empty nest

The Humane Society Silicon Valley is where, for the past few decades, most of the cities in Santa Clara County have housed their strays and where they've gone for their animal-control services.

All that's about to change, however, in October, when the city of San Jose is scheduled to open its new animal-care center on Monterey Highway. The cities of Milpitas, Cupertino, Los Gatos and Saratoga will join in the effort.

About 90 percent of the animals at the Humane Society will move, leaving behind the strays picked up from Santa Clara, Campbell, Monte Sereno and Sunnyvale.

And within two years, those animals, too, should be gone: Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority—an independent joint agency—hopes to have its own shelter open by spring 2006. Originally formed by seven cities, SVACA became operated by just three cities—Santa Clara, Campbell and Monte Sereno—starting July 1. Sunnyvale, on the other hand, decided in 2003 to leave SVACA and look to the city of Palo Alto to house its strays.

That means the Humane Society will finally be able to focus on its primary goal—something it's been trying to do for the past six years.

"The core of our mission ... is adoption, spay/neutering and education," says Christine Benninger, president of the Humane Society Silicon Valley. "The basic mission of animal control is to protect people from animals. The mission of the Humane Society is essentially the opposite."

Losing the battle

The Humane Society's struggle to separate itself from animal-control services goes back to late 1998, when the state of California approved Senate Bill 1785, a "No-Kill" bill sponsored by then-Sen. Tom Hayden, that changed the way animal-care providers would operate.

"The new policy is to maximize efforts at saving the lives of lost and stray animals," Hayden said recently. "It includes partnerships with activist adoption groups and mandates longer, flexible times for keeping animals before killing them ... It has become a lightning rod in a culture war over the commitment and resources we give to the abandoned animals in society's care."

Jon Cicirelli, San Jose's deputy director of animal care and services, says the key component of SB 1785 was to increase the amount of time organizations were required to hold strays before euthanizing them. Before the bill took effect, strays had to be held for 72 hours; after, the requirement was four days plus the day of surrender—essentially five or up to six days, depending on the hours of the facility. The holding requirement also applied to owner-surrendered animals. Previously there was no holding requirement for those animals.

An important element of the bill was a requirement that facilities provide nutrition, shelter and prompt veterinary care, including spaying and neutering prior to adoption.

The idea for the bill originated in 1996, when Hayden unsuccessfully ran for mayor of Los Angeles; running in the race exposed him to animal-care issues in the city.

"I was shocked by the figure of 65,000 dogs and cats killed by shelters in L.A. yearly," Hayden says.

According to a case study of the bill, by Sarah Balcom from Tufts University's Center for Animals and Public Policy, the bill faced much opposition, and no one expected it to pass because of its high costs. Most animal-care organizations—including the California Animal Control Directors Association—opposed the bill, as did the League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties.

"As a result, shelters assembled very little active opposition to the bill and contributed very little to it," Balcom wrote. Balcom says, "Many legislators voted for SB 1785 as a way of showing their concern for animal-welfare issues, believing that the governor would not sign it ... SB 1785 virtually sailed through the California Legislature."

Benninger says the law forced the local Humane Society to spend more of its resources on unadoptable animals and less on adoptable animals. "Many more adoptable animals have to be euthanized to make space for the unadoptable animals," she says. The end result was that more, not fewer, animals were euthanized.

Cicirelli says Hayden's bill led to an inability to control animals because dogs had to be doubled up in kennels. He remembers constantly breaking up dog fights at his Southern California shelter.

Dan Soszynski, executive director of SVACA, was with Santa Cruz SPCA at the time and says the SPCA had to euthanize adoptable dogs because of injuries suffered in fights.

"I don't think anybody would argue with you that it's not a good idea to hold animals for a longer period of time," Cicirelli says. Those in the animal-care business would love to hold animals for 10 or 20 days, he says, but in some cases it is not healthy nor practical.

Cicirelli also points out that more animals crowding the shelters led to higher overhead. An increase from a 72-hour to a six-day holding period meant that "by 66 percent, you've increased the cost of sheltering animals," he says. "Had this bill given out money and time to improve infrastructure, I think you would find a more accepting animal-control, animal-welfare community."

Going in different directions

The Humane Society Silicon Valley announced in December 1998 that it would terminate its contracts with cities—due in part to SB 1785, but also because it wanted to move away from animal control to focus on a more humane purpose.

Benninger told the cities, however, that the termination of the contracts was not immediate but an eventual goal. She asked the cities to help facilitate the transition. Today, all of the cities still house their animals at the Humane Society.

After the Humane Society's announcement, the nine cities started discussions about forming their own agency.

The talks failed when San Jose insisted on having more than 50 percent of the vote because it would produce most of the animals in the proposed shelter and fund a majority of the costs. San Jose left the partnership, forming its own animal-care division and planning its own shelter together with the city of Milpitas.

Meanwhile, the other seven cities formed the Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority. The board hired a staff and took over animal-control services for the cities in July 2001.

Soszynski says at first, the board was amenable to a shelter with a projected $8 million to $8.5 million price tag.

"And that's when the economy started to tank," he says. "As the economy started to change, everybody really started to re-evaluate their animal-service needs." In 2003 and earlier this year, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Los Gatos and Saratoga pulled out; all four cited financial reasons.

According to Los Gatos­Monte Sereno police Capt. Alana Forrest, Los Gatos' share of the operating costs for SVACA would be at the very least $196,000, in contrast to the $164,000 annually with San Jose. And helping build San Jose's shelter would cost the town $300,000, whereas "the number for SVACA is a moving target," she adds.

"We found that the reasons to choose San Jose were compelling," says Mayor Steve Glickman, the town's representative on SVACA's governing board. "The other issue was that other cities were dropping out."

Glickman says the town called animal services in Palo Alto, Fremont and San Jose, soliciting bids for Los Gatos' contract. "What San Jose came back with was ultimately the best we could find," he says. "SVACA's field services did a very, very good job. There was no question of that. But San Jose provides at least the same quality, in terms of coverage and hours—the same as what we had."

"I'm excited for the new opportunity to work with San Jose. I have no doubt that it's going to work," Forrest says.

The cities that left SVACA are still involved in the organization, however, to discuss reimbursement. In the joint powers agreement, cities that leave are entitled to get back a portion of the net profit in the years that they contributed to SVACA, but the reimbursement amount per city is still unknown. "There's a lot of information to go over," Forrest says. "I anticipate it not being settled until we get all of our audited financial reports"—September or October, she says.

Three cities remain with SVACA: Campbell, Monte Sereno and Santa Clara. SVACA continues to provide full field services for those cities, handling bite cases, animals attacking humans or other animals, or animal-cruelty incidents. Soszynski says the agency is reworking its shelter plan based on capacity from three cities instead of seven, but SVACA has gone ahead and purchased a building in Santa Clara.

Based on numbers of strays, Santa Clara will pay for approximately 77 percent of the shelter, with the remainder funded by Campbell and Monte Sereno. Of the 4,000 animals that SVACA collected in 2002­03, four of the dogs and 15 cats came from Monte Sereno.

Soszynski is confident that SVACA will thrive, despite financial uncertainty. Soszynski says that Campbell, Monte Sereno and Santa Clara "feel like they're getting high-quality service" and that they have control over SVACA's decisions.

Monte Sereno Councilwoman Barbara Nesbet is on the agency's board. "The reason we're staying in this is because we have a say in this," she says. Nesbet also says Monte Sereno's costs should not go up, despite fewer cities contributing to the shelter. Monte Sereno, she says, only pays for about 1 percent of the total cost.

New digs

Soszynski's plan for SVACA to open a shelter in March 2006 coincides with the Humane Society's vision to open a new facility in Milpitas by April of the same year.

Benninger says the current shelter doesn't fit the values of the Humane Society. She envisions a place that people want to visit on a regular basis and one where they can share experiences.

"You won't see chain link, you won't see cement, because all of that communicates 'backyard,' " she says. "We want to break the mold of a traditional animal shelter." The animal community center will have a dog park, performance stage, areas for education on pet training and gallerias for people to visit with the animals.

San Jose is close to finishing its 52,000-square-foot animal-care center. The $18 million project will see approximately 20,000 animals each year and be an open-door facility, accepting all animals that the public turns in, Cicirelli says. "That shelter is the largest single shelter in California, which puts it in the running as one of the largest shelters in the United States."

Cupertino, Los Gatos and Saratoga's additional funding have provided for a spay/neuter clinic that will be made available to rescue groups, an expanded surgery space and more cat-holding spaces.

Shelters tend to see more cats than any other animals, especially feral cats. The numbers skyrocket during the breeding season of each year, Cicirelli says. "When we open our facility ... we'll be filled to capacity with cats. We'll be hurting."

With a courtyard, classrooms and cat-socializing rooms, Cicirelli says he hopes to expand services beyond what's required and support new programs with donated money.

It may sound like the goals compete with the Humane Society's goals, Cicirelli says. But there is a sameness of purpose with the animal-care groups—putting animals first. "This isn't about you and me. It's about us as leaders in the animal-welfare organizations in the community," Cicirelli says.

"It's very, very important that we communicate together," says Kerrie Watkins, San Jose shelter operations supervisor. "It used to be shelters versus nonprofits. We can't have that anymore. That has to go out the window ... It's important that we develop relationships and communication."

Benninger says some good has come of the Hayden bill.

"We have created more holding space in the state of California," she says, pointing to the state's new shelters. Benninger has also seen cities fund more medical care for animal treatment.

"In hindsight, has it really made a difference in the state? Are the animals better off? I can't really say," Benninger says. "Our commitment has always been to find homes for 100 percent of our adoptable animals. What Hayden did is make that job more difficult."

Cicirelli says the bill lacked structure and explicit instruction. "Tom Hayden was right," he says. "The intent was good. But there were some bad parts in it. It just had no mechanism for local jurisdictions or counties."

Soszynski agrees. The intent, he says, was "noble, but the law could've been crafted differently. It's very well-intentioned and it's something we're all striving to do, is to not kill animals."