Ed Boks New Blog
Boks Last Act: A Five Year Plan to Nowhere
The Proposed Ordinance to Criminalize Feral Cat Colony Management
Section 1. The City Council finds that it is necessary for the preservation of the
public peace, health and safety that this Ordinance take effect immediately. This Ordinance prohibits the feeding of certain animals on public property, including, but not limited to, stray dogs, and feral and stray cats. This provision was inadvertently removed upon the adoption by reference of the Los Angeles Municipal Code Animal Control provisions. The City Council now finds that the Los Angeles Municipal Code does not adequately address the health and safety issues that arise from the feeding of certain animals. The City Council finds that this Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety because the placement of food on public property and in publicly accessible areas attracts not only domesticated animals, but other animals, including vermin such as insects and rodents, raccoons, and coyotes. The City Council finds that this Ordinance will prevent the proliferation of rodent, and insect populations, thereby reducing the spread of disease. This Ordinance will also prevent the expansion of nondornesticated mammalian predator populations in the City by limiting their access to food. The Council therefore finds that it is necessary that this Ordinance take effect immediately and its urgency is hereby declared because without this ordinance food may continue to be placed in public areas attracting vermin and mammalian predators and thereby compromising public health and safety. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Section 2. Section 53.06.5 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, as incorporated
by reference in Chapter 2 of Title 5 of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code, is amended to add the following:
"(d) No person shall feed or in any manner provide or place food for any domesticated animal which is not under the ownership or legal possession of such person, including, but not limited to, dogs and cats, on any public property, or on any property open to the public, or on any private property where the providing or placement of such food is in an area not completely enclosed by a secured wall or fence of at least six feet (6') in height.
(e) No person shall feed or in any manner provide or place food for any feral or
stray cat that is not under the ownership or legal possession of such person."
Section 3. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or
portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 4. The City Clerk is directed to forward a certified copy of this ordinance
to the Director of the City of Los Angeles Department of Animal Services.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance, being an Urgency Ordinance adopted
for the immediate protection of the public safety and health, containing a declaration of the facts
![]()
![]()
Mayor of the City of Beverly Hills, California
BYRON POPE
City Clerk
Video About Beverly Hills Colony Manager, Varjian
Believe it or not, the Beverly Hills City Councilmembers are voting on an "emergency motion" to REINSTATE the inhumane ordinance at their next meeting on Tuesday, July 7th at 7 PM, so we have to make a strong showing then. The prosecutor was saying that it was a "mistake" that the cruel ordinance got deleted! The judge was not ready to make a ruling today because she says she just got the paperwork 2 days ago and needed to absorb it more thoroughly. Katherine's daughter, who is an attorney representing her, wanted a ruling today because the city council may reinstate the ordinance. So, if the ordinance will be reinstated, the judge will hear the case and make a ruling on August 7th at 1:30 PM.
If the city council doesn't vote to reinstate it, then the case will be dismissed.
Only once was feeding ferals even brought up (and it was probably a good 35-40 minutes or so of back and forth legal jumbo). No chance was given to mention how Katherine practices TNR [trap/neuter/release] and adopts out any kittens or cats that can be socialized. The city of Beverly Hills should be giving her an award, not arresting her!
Anyone who would like to tell Beverly Hills City Council how they feel about their "emergency meeting" and quest to jail a kind-to-animals senior citizen should attend:
Council Meeting
Tuesday, July 7 , 2009
Beverly Hills City Council, Rm. 400
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Mayor and City Council: (310) 285-1013
Beverly Hills Neighbor Claims Varjian Is Not Feeding Feral Cats
"First animal rights people sent out e-mails to many claiming that Varjian had been arrested for feeding cats. Now the claim is being made that they are afraid she might have to go to jail. Which is true? Are facts being manipulated to conjure up sympathy and support for Varjian?
Varjian does not live in our neighborhood, but she insists upon littering and leaving cat food in our alleys which draws coyotes, rodents, etc. She also claims that there is a colony of feral cats in our area which is not true. We residents, including animal lovers like myself, have asked Varjian repeatedly to stop her conduct, but she refuses to respect our wishes.
This is not a person who deserves sympathy and support. This is a person who should direct her energy to helping cats in a sensible manner such as by feeding cats who are awaiting adoption. If she would, then she wouldn't have to worry about getting arrested.
Darian Bojeaux
123 Palm Drive
Beverly Hills
Well Darian, do you really believe anyone would believe Mrs. Varjian just goes into your neighborhood to feed invisible or non-existent cats to tick you off or because she is insane? ? Are your values so distorted you have to lie like that?
The City Attorney and the Disposable Homeless Man’s Day in Court. Will things get better under Trutanich?
I went to court today with Jimmy Nasralla who lives in a tent behind Bed and Breakfast in Northridge with 4 cats. A reporter from LA Weekly was there too, Patrick McDonald.
I had received numerous emails from Jim Dellinger, Councilmember Smith Deputy in the
However, we got to court a bit late because Jimmy got the time wrong and there were traffic problems.
When we went in we were greeted by the City Attorney in the case who refused to give his name and said he didn’t have any business cards on him. He was friendly. He took the parcel map, the letter from Mary Cummins and other documents, looked at them and appeared to agree that Jimmy was not on Union Pacific property.
I informed him that Councilmember Smith’s Deputy, Jim Dellinger, had assured me he had been in contact with the City Attorney’s Office about Jimmy’s case (95R02362). However, this City Attorney, who other lawyers called Abraham I believe, said he had heard nothing from Mr. Smith Office or from Mr. Dellinger.
He gave me a number to call, with no name, so that I could give him Mr. Dellinger’s number.
I have phoned Mr. Dellinger twice to find out what has happened, and I left two messages with Mr. Abraham.
I also told the latter that I had sent all the information to Union Pacific as well as the general City Attorney email for Delgadillo, twice, with no response.
The judge had already issued a bench warrant for Jimmy, but that was reversed, and he was re-arraigned and pled not guilty to violation of CA PC 647(j) living on private property without permission.
The trial will be on August 3.
Either Mr. Dellinger never contacted the City Attorney’s Office, or that office is more screwed up than is conceivable. For example:
Jimmy was originally given a ticket by a Union Pacific RR cop in March. It told him the time and date of his appearance which was at the Van Nuys court. He went to court there, and was told that the case had been sent to the
On that date—within walking distance of where Jimmy lives—he appeared I court and went to the court receptionist there and then was told that the venue had again been shifted to the San Fernando Courthouse near Sylmar, 14 miles away THAT SAME DAY.
Jimmy explained he was homeless and had to travel by bicycle or bus and couldn’t possibly make it by the 1:30 deadline she demanded. He asked her to call and help arrange a new date. She refused.
He asked if he could phone them. Again she refused.
She also told him unless he showed up at the
Jimmy stormed out of the court, but a sympathetic Sheriff’s Deputy followed him out, and after leaving the courthouse talked to Jimmy and called the
Jimmy went there about two weeks ago. This is when I first found out about his problem with the courts and began my investigation about Union Pacific’s claim that the County land was theirs.
All this has made it very clear to me that homeless people are not well-treated by the court system. They are bounced around from venue to venue, and even the court appointed attorney he was provided for 5 minutes the first time he went to the San Fernando Courthouse, simple told him to move away, fold his tent and go away.
Will things change under Trutanich? Probably not, but we can hope.
Stay tuned for a long article on this case from Patrick McDonald from the LA Weekly.
Jimmy Goes to Court Today
Jimmy is going to court today accompanied by a reporter from LA Weekly, Patrick McDonald, and me. The local City Attorney visited Jimmy via a passenger ride in a cop car today while the reporter was interviewing Jimmy.
Have the Generic Animal Cruelty Task Force Gone Mad?
Beverly Hills Colony Manager Needs Help
Feral Cat Feeder To Go To Jail?

Feral Cat Caretaker Faces Jail in Beverly Hills
By Sandi Cain, Best Friends Network Volunteer
Each evening, the little group of 20 or so cats comes quietly padding into an alley in the lushly landscaped and star-studded city of Beverly Hills. The cats are hungry, but not starving thanks to area resident Katherine Varjian, 65.
It’s an odd juxtaposition—this group of homeless cats in a residential neighborhood so close to the L’Ermitage and Four Seasons hotels frequented by celebrities. But they’re the lucky ones. For the past 12 years, Varjian has fed cats in her former neighborhood, reduced the population through TNR and found as many as 40 cats and kittens new homes in any given year. She does it at her own expense. The effort should be a shining example of a successful feral cat community like others celebrated on these news pages.
Instead, Varjian could spend July 4—that most American of holidays—in a jail cell for violating a City of Beverly Hills ordinance against feeding domestic animals that are not under her ownership or guardianship. Yet without her, they’d either starve or be picked up and taken to a shelter, where they’d cost the city money in maintenance and, possibly, euthanasia.
Neighborhood Driving Complaints Against Varjian
Some neighbors don’t care. About 30 people from the surrounding area signed a petition in January asking the city to force her to stop feeding the cats. On January 14, Varjian was charged with a criminal complaint. The neighbors say the food Varjian leaves for the cats is responsible for bringing cockroaches, raccoons and coyotes to Beverly Hills. Yet there are 16 parks in the city and Beverly Hills proudly touts its 23-year history as a “Tree City USA.” Current drought conditions send wildlife into many hillside communities seeking sustenance regardless of whether there are domestic pets outside.
The cat in this picture is just one of the many cats that Varjian has found a loving home for.Varjian faced similar complaints in 2005, but the charges were dismissed. During the intervening four years, she continued to feed and maintain the colony without interference. She also took a 6-week feral cat workshop offered through Los Angeles Animal Servicesthat is funded by PetSmart.
She has supporters—including veterinarians and neighbors, including one who said she should be given a medal by the city for the good she’s done.
“Katherine Varjian is an amazing woman and I really admire what she does. … We need more people in this world like Katherine,” said another neighbor, who adopted two of the cats. Another adopter wrote, “Thank you for your dedication to saving these homeless and hungry kittens and finding good homes for them.” None of these supporters wished to be identified for this story.
Good Deeds Ignored
Their opponents ignore the fact that Varjian has reduced the colony’s overall population; found homes for cats through Kitten Rescue where she volunteers; and has for years paid for spaying and neutering the cats. They say she’s an outsider, though she lived in the neighborhood for 30 years and works nearby. They film her activities, try to block her from the alleyways and claim their children are in danger—all because of these 20 little cats.
It’s true that Varjian ignored a court order issued February 18 to stop feeding the cats. She’d pleaded with the judge to allow feeding to continue so the cats wouldn’t starve while the case was pending, but was denied. So she agreed to stop in order to stay out of jail. But she couldn’t let them starve. Now she’s the one at risk of a criminal record. Yet city documents indicate the municipal code section under which she is charged was deleted a week before charges were filed.
Her daughter Tina, an attorney who practices in the civil arena, is trying to help, but has met with resistance at every turn. Now she’s filed a motion to dismiss the charges as a violation of due process of law. According to public legal documents, Varjian was charged on January 14 with four counts of illegally feeding animals. She could face contempt of court charges for continuing to feed the cats. The section of the Municipal Code under which her mother was charged was deleted from the Code on January 6 when Beverly Hills finalized a contract with the city of Los Angeles to provide animal care services. Tina is hoping that will invalidate the charges.
Dona Baker, who started the feral cat workshop through LA Animal Services and heads the Feral Cat Caretakers has offered to go to court on Varjian's behalf. "She's a reliable and responsible person," Baker said. Baker sometimes fields calls from Beverly Hills residents seeking feral cats to help reduce rodent populations.
Conviction Could Set Bad Precedent
But a dismissal won’t solve the bigger issue of the homeless cats. And if she’s convicted it could send a chill down the spine of TNR efforts in other communities—a step backward for community cats. It also would be a step backward for Beverly Hills, which could end up with a publicity black eye instead of being lauded for its humane efforts. Tina Varjian is hopeful that mediation with the help of feral cat experts will be the outcome.
One alternative for Beverly Hills might be to look to how this issue is addressed in the Bay Area city of Richmond, where three women have managed a colony with the help and support of area residents. They’ve conducted educational programs about feral colonies and even won over some members of the local police department. Instead, Beverly Hills will pursue this senior citizen.
The next hearing is scheduled for July 1, at which time Katherine Varjian could be sentenced to jail. She and her daughter request your support. “The authorities have the option of ignoring these violations because of the good that it does, or in throwing the book at her,” said Ben Lehrer of Kitten Rescue.” …They've taken the latter approach,” he said.
How You Can Help
• Contact the Beverly Hills Mayor, City Council and City Attorney’s office to voice your concern about this case, to encourage Beverly Hills to embrace TNR and community cats as a humane way to reduce stray populations and save shelter costs, and to encourage city officials to save court costs by mediating this case.As always, polite, brief comments from those who live in the general Southern California vicinity are the most effective.
• To submit online comments via email, you must register on the city website.
You may reach city officials by phone at:
• Mayor Nancy Krasne, (310) 285-1000
• City Attorney Laurence S. Wiener and prosecutor Maria S. Chung, at (310) 285-1055
• Vice mayor Jimmy Delshod and council members Barry Brucker, William Warren Brien, M.D. and John A. Mirisch, (310) 285-1013.
• You may also voice concern about the potential effect of the city’s actions on visitor perception about the city by contacting the Beverly Hills Conference & Visitors Bureau:Kimberli Partlow.
36 Cats to Die Tomorrow at South LA Unless Rescued
From: Stacy Robbins <stacyarobbins@hotmail.com>
Subject: FW: 36 Cats (Several of Whom are Kittens) Will Die on Wednesday 6/24 ALONE at the SOUTH LA SHELTER...WITHOUT RESCUE...IT IS REALLY ALL TOO MUCH TO BARE...
Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 6:08 PM
Unfortunately, I could not attach 36 pictures and impound numbers to this email. But this link will take you to them all. Anyone Redlisted on Wed. 6/17 (CATS and KITTENS alike) will be killed on Wed. 6/24 and anyone Redlisted on Thurs. 6/18 will be killed on Thurs. 6/25. The shelter has already told us that they will make NO EXCEPTIONS... So, in 2 days, SOUTH LA will kill almost 1/3 of their cat population. Can you foster or rescue one? Thanks all...
http://www.petharbor.com/
More on Jimmy, the City, and Jones vs. the City of Los Angeles
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
Appeals Court Ruling Ends the Criminalization of Homelessness
LOS ANGELES -- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a historic decision today in a case filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and the National Lawyers Guild seeking an end to the criminalization of people who sleep on the streets when no shelter is available.
The decision in the case, Jones v. City of Los Angeles, marks the first time in a decade that a court has struck down an ordinance that criminalizes the lack of shelter.
"Anyone who cares about homelessness and finding positive solutions to this serious issue in our community will be delighted and encouraged by this decision," said Ramona Ripston, Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California. "The ACLU has always maintained that police should target serious crime like rape and drug trafficking and not criminalize people for sleeping on the street when there is nowhere else to go."
Writing for the majority, Judge Kim M. Wardlaw ordered the District Court to stop enforcement of a Los Angeles city code that allows police to arrest people for sleeping on the street when there are no available shelter beds. Judge Wardlaw’s opinion cited news articles about the issue from The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, including a recent front-page series on homelessness on Skid Row by columnist Steve Lopez.
"The Eighth Amendment prohibits the City from punishing involuntary sitting, lying, or sleeping on public sidewalks that is an unavoidable consequence of being human and homeless without shelter in the City of Los Angeles," Judge Wardlaw wrote.
ACLU of Southern California Legal Director Mark Rosenbaum, who argued the case in December, called the decision "brave."
"This decision is the most significant judicial opinion involving homelessness in the history of the nation," Rosenbaum said. "The decision means in Los Angeles it is no longer a crime to be homeless. The homeless in our community, twenty percent of whom are veterans and nearly a quarter of whom are children, can no longer be treated as criminals because of involuntary acts like sleeping and sitting where there are not available shelter beds to take them off the mean streets of the city. My hope is that the city will now treat homelessness as a social problem affecting all of us, not as a crime."
The case, originally filed in February 2003 by the ACLU of Southern California and Carol Sobel for the National Lawyers Guild, sought to end the enforcement of Section 41.18 (d) of Los Angeles city code.
In Los Angeles County at least 88,000 men, women and children -- 8,000 to 10,000 in Downtown Los Angeles alone -- are without homes. There are beds for less than half of the homeless in Los Angeles county, comprehensive services are available to far fewer than half, and the county jails are routinely used as a substitution for mental health facilities.
Homeless Man With 4 Cats to Be Evicted
Several months ago I posted some photos of "Jimmy" who lives on a bridge that serves as a railroad easement bridge over a County flood control channel in Northridge, right behind Bed, Bath and Beyond.
View Larger Map
Greig Smith
Councilmember
Mr. Nasralla has been cited for violation of CA Penal Code 647(j), “Lodging on private property without permission” by the Union Pacific Police Department. The case number is 95R02362 and he is due in the
Mr. Naser Nasralla, a legal Palestinian immigrant, has been living on that small bridge over the flood control channel behind the Bed, Bath and Beyond store for three years. He tends to the area and keeps it clean. He also has several cats that live with him. He or his cats harm no one, and there are no nearby residences.
However, Mr. Nasralla is not living on private or City property.
That property is parcel number 2783-028-902 and is owned by LA County Flood Control District. It is not owned by the Southern Pacific Railroad. Please, see attached maps and property descriptions.
The railroad may have had an easement at one time to cross the LACFCD land, but it never had ownership rights, only easement rights. Since Union Pacific abandoned that spur (which goes to Chatsworth station) 37 years ago, even that easement would be dead.
Mary Cummins would be willing to make this statement in a court of law.
The LA animal community is well aware that the West Valley appears to be the center of the LA Animal Cruelty Task Force’s was on “animal hoarders,” pursuing and harassing them for any number of alleged violations, such as animal neglect or violation of the City’s kennel law (M.C. 53.50). The cats are routinely rounded up and then euthanized at the shelter. The survival rate for such cats “rescued” from alleged hoarders is well under 50%.
These tactics concern all animal rescuers in the City because one cannot rescue animals, either by taking them from the City’s shelters and then adopting them out, or by taking them from the street, without having more than three cats on hand at any one time.
It would be unfortunate if the City continues to try to remove Mr. Nasralla from County property where they have no jurisdiction.
In addition, the 2006 court decision on Jones vs. the City of Los Angeles is certainly applicable to Mr. Nasralla’s situation. The court imposed atrong restrictions against jailing homeless people for sleeping on public property and viewing it as a violation of their Eighth Amendment rights.
Sincerely,
Edward Muzika, Ph.D.
Arnie Says Off With Hayden
As you know, we are in the midst of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. We now face a budget shortfall that has grown to $24.3 billion. I have proposed cuts that I would have never proposed except in a worst-case scenario, including eliminating General Fund support for programs like Healthy Families, CalWORKs, Cal Grants and State Parks. This was not an easy decision for me. As a dog owner myself, I have always supported animal welfare and have worked to ensure the humane treatment of animals.
Currently, the state requires all shelters to hold stray animals for four or six days and reimburses them for the associated costs. To address our budget crisis, I have proposed to suspend some Non-Proposition 98 mandates, including the reimbursement funds for these shelters. To help local shelters deal with the challenges of this difficult budget situation, I have also proposed that the state no longer require the four or six day hold time. Shelters still have the flexibility to keep the animals for more days, but my proposal avoids placing an unnecessary burden on local communities.
As I work with my partners in the Legislature to find solutions to these problems, know that I will keep your thoughts in mind. Working together, I believe we can weather this storm and start the slow but steady march back toward prosperity.
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Research from Nathan
This is what we need, more research. Hopefully Nathan will reveal more details of these studies later. However, his faith in S/N programs and TNR may be misplaced, because LA has ratcheted up the number of spay/neuters it subsidizes significantly for the last five years yet cat impounds remain static and are actually up this year. For effective spay/neuter, you need to do it in the poorer and ethnic neighborhoods more than in Chatsworth or West LA. Also, Nathan, if you are reading this, how about using a larger type face with more space between lines and paragraphs? The space is free and makes it so much easier to read. I added a line after each paragraph below, and it helps, but I can't add space between the lines. The Costs of Saving Lives
The Costs of Saving Lives A survey of animal shelter funding and save rates conducted by the No Kill Advocacy Center finds that if communities want lifesaving success, they should invest in leadership. One shelter saved 90% of the animals. Another saved only 40%. One community has seen killing rates increase nearly 30%. Another has caused death rates to drop over 50%. There was, however, no correlation between success/failure and per capita spending on animal control. In other words, the difference between those shelters which succeeded and those which failed was not the size of the budget, but the commitment of its leadership. Roughly, per capita funding ranged from about $1.50 to about $6.30. Save rates ranged from 35% ($2.00 per capita) to 90% ($1.50 per capita), but they did not follow any predictable pattern. There were shelters with an 87% rate of lifesaving spending only $2.80 per capita, and shelters with a 42% rate (less than half of the former) spending more than double that (at $5.80 per capita): In other words, the amount of per capita spending did not seem to make a difference. What did make a difference was leadership: the commitment of shelter managers to saving lives. While communities should provide adequate funding, only throwing money at the problem will do very little without leadership committed both to lifesaving and to accountability. In King County, WA, the City Council has spent millions of additional dollars since three independent evaluations in 2007 and 2008 revealed high rates of illness, deplorable conditions, cruelty and uncaring at King County Animal Care & Control (KCACC). In fact, the King County Council has never denied a funding request for KCACC. But no improvement in animal care has been made. Animals continue to languish, continue to get sick because of poor care, continue to go untreated, continue to suffer, and continue to die. In Portland, OR, likewise: Over the course of the past few years (fiscal years 2003 though 2008), a period during which the total number of animals brought into the shelter increased by only 5 percent and the agency’s budget increased by 50 percent (to a current $4.6 million), nearly every measure of the agency’s performance documents failure. Adoptions are down by 40 percent (dogs) and 18 percent (cats). Nearly half of the dogs not returned to owners are killed; so too are nearly two-thirds of cats. The “kill rate” is now well above rates in neighboring counties facing far more severe budget limitations. Thousands of dollars are squandered on adversarial enforcement efforts that have achieved no meaningful improvement in the public’s safety. The number of animals saved by cooperating life-saving organizations and individuals, a number widely recognized as a key measure of community support, has dropped by 40 percent. That doesn't mean that governments should continue underfunding their shelters. Shelters with low per capita spending claimed difficulty sustaining programs. As a result, the study should not be used as an excuse by self-serving politicians to reduce shelter budgets. It does mean, however, that to really make an impact, communities must also invest in progressive leaders willing to embrace the programs and services which make No Kill possible. In the final analysis, the most important element of the No Kill Equation is: A hard working, compassionate animal control director who is not content to continue killing by hiding behind the myth of “too many animals, not enough homes” or regurgitating tired clichés about public irresponsibility. Please note: The data is preliminary and still being analyzed. Some additional findings of the study included that municipal shelters save more lives than private shelters with animal control contracts, and that municipal shelters paid more for animal control than when private shelters performed animal control under contract. The conclusion for the latter finding was that governments tend to underpay private shelters for the service, at the expense of saving lives and the long-term financial health of these SPCAs and humane societies. Private SPCAs and humane societies have been subsidizing animal control for so long that it has become the unfair and unreasonable expectation of municipalities that these private non-profits should continue to do so. Assuming that the agencies will retain these contracts despite compensation levels that fail to cover the actual costs of running animal control, and regardless of whether they are No Kill or killing shelters, governments are, in effect, having shelters use private donations to subsidize a government mandate. As a result, these shelters are using money raised for adoptions, medical care, and other lifesaving work to pay the cost of sheltering and killing stray and seized animals under their animal control obligations. Donor funding may also be used to enforce often arcane and inhumane animal laws (e.g., breed bans, cat leash laws, feeding bans, pet limit laws) which are inconsistent with lifesaving. There are other notable studies as well: Breed Bans are Economically Wasteful. Not only are dogs needlessly being killed because of them, but they are also wasteful financially. A new study commissioned by Best Friends shows the high economic cost of breed bans, without the corresponding public safety benefit. The study demonstrates that breed discriminatory legislation tends to exhaust limited resources in already under-funded animal control programs by flooding the system with potentially “unadoptable” dogs due to the ban. It is not that the dogs themselves are dangerous. The vast majority (roughly nine out of ten) are healthy, friendly, or treatable. It is that the legislation declares them to be “unadoptable” and slated for execution. Costs to regulate or ban the animals can run into the millions and provide no help to prevent dog bites. At a time when communities are declaring bankruptcy, this is yet one more reason why breed bans should be abandoned. Too Many Homes, Not Enough Animals. The Maddie’s Fund keynote from No Kill Conference 2009 was based on a study by the Ad Council. It shows that 17 million people are going to bring a new pet into their home next year and have not decided where that animal will come from. They can be influenced to adopt from a shelter next year, where there are roughly 3,000,000 available animals. Cost is the Primary Barrier to Spay/Neuter. Alley Cat Allies has a new study that shows while most housecats are neutered, the primary factor for neutering rates in household cats is income. The lower the household income, the lower the sterilization rate. The primary reason cited was cost. The research also found that low cost sterilization of unaltered feral cats would have a dramatic impact on impound and death rates in shelters. This research reaffirms what we have known in this movement since at least the 1970s when the city of Los Angeles opened the nation’s first municipally funded spay/neuter clinic in the United States for low-income pet owners and saw sterilization rates increase, and impound/death rates at local shelters plummet. Another study several years ago in Mississippi found 69% of pet owners with unspayed/unneutered animals would get them sterilized if it were free, a fact which is not surprising for a state with some of the lowest per capita incomes in the nation. It also reaffirms a ten year JAVMA study of feral cat impound and death rates in Ohio. It reaffirms an analysis of impound dates at animal control done in San Francisco in the mid-1990s that found upwards of 75% of kittens are from feral moms. It reaffirms early to mid-1990s-era studies (one in Santa Clara County, CA and the other in San Diego, CA) putting the percentage of sterilized housecats at or around 80%. And it reaffirms many others going back decades. |
Animal Adoption mandate
The below is from the Legislative Analyst's Office. She, Elizabeth Hill, is considered the voice of reason. She has determined that holding pets longer does not increase their adoption rate, and therefore the state should essentially repeal Hayden so as to not pay these fees. She does not provide one shred of evidence that holding the animals an extra three days does not increase adoptions or rescues. She just says it is so.
The wording below is exactly the same as Schwarzenegger used 2-1/2 years ago when last they tried to end the mandatory fee reimbursements; only the dollar amounts have changed.
Listen to Elizebeth's nonsensical logic. Also notice that she says if the state decides to end these fees, they should substitute a fee paid to each shelter for every animal they actually adopt.
Chapter 752, Statutes of 1998 (SB 1785, Hayden), changed state policy regarding shelter care for stray and abandoned animals. Most notably, Chapter 752 (1) declared, “It is the policy of the state that no adoptable animal should be euthanized if it can be adopted into a suitable home,” and (2) lengthened the time (generally from three days to six) that shelters must care for animals before euthanizing them.
When the Legislature considered Chapter 752, it was advised that the measure would not impose a state–reimbursable mandate because shelters would receive increased adoption and owner–redemption fees. These fees would offset shelter costs to care for the animals for the longer period.
Shortly after Chapter 752 was enacted, local governments filed a mandate test claim with the commission. The commission found that the cost of caring for the animals that were adopted or reunited with their owners was not a reimbursable mandate (because owners paid fees to offset these costs). In the case of animals that were euthanized, however, the commission found that local government shelters’ cost to care for them for three additional days was a state–reimbursable mandate.
Whenever the commission finds a mandate, its next task is to adopt a methodology that local governments use to file reimbursement claims. While mandate law gives the commission flexibility as to the form this methodology takes, the focus must be on reimbursing the specific elements of legislation found to be a mandate, not promoting the legislation’s policy objectives.
In the case of this mandate, the commission created a methodology that reimburses local government shelters for (1) their increased cost of caring for the animals that they euthanize and (2) certain minor costs, such as maintaining lost and found lists. In 2008–09, local governments are expected to claim $23 million for this mandate. Almost all of the cost is for the food, medical care, and space needed to keep animals alive for the longer period. Private shelters are not eligible for the mandate reimbursements.
Analysis
Given the state’s interest in promoting animal adoptions, we examined whether Chapter 752’s longer holding period results in increased adoptions—either directly due to its requirement or indirectly through the mandate funding provided. Our review indicates that there is little reason to believe it does.
Direct Impact of Longer Holding Period. Throughout the United States, there are many more animals in shelters than there are households looking to adopt pets. Partly because of this imbalance between supply and demand, roughly one–half of the animals entering shelters are euthanized. Chapter 752’s requirement that shelters keep animals alive longer increases the supply of animals in shelters on any specific day. It also gives animal rescue organizations more time to transfer animals to their facilities. This increased supply of adoptable animals (at shelters and rescue facilities) can give households greater choice in selecting a pet to adopt. It does not necessarily mean, however, that more households adopt pets. That is, the mandate does nothing to increase the demand for these animals.
Indirect Effect of Shelter Funding. To increase the number of pets adopted, more households need to adopt pets rather than buy them from stores or breeders. Especially over the last decade, as concern regarding the treatment of animals has grown, many shelters, animal rescue, and humane groups have taken significant steps towards promoting animal adoption. Does the funding provided under Chapter 752 support these efforts? Our review finds no link between the funding provided under Chapter 752 and programs that encourage animal adoption. Specifically, under the mandate’s reimbursement methodology, shelters do not get more state funds if more households adopt animals. Rather, shelters that euthanize the most animals receive the most state funds. Shelters that are the most successful in promoting adoptions receive the least state funds.
This gap between Chapter 752’s policy goals and mandate reimbursements stems from the requirements of mandate law. Specifically, the California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local governments for the cost of required activities—without regard to local success in achieving the desired outcomes
Recommendation
Because the goals of Chapter 752 are not suited to implementation as a mandate, we recommend the Legislature repeal the elements of Chapter 752 that impose a mandate. We further recommend that the state pay the outstanding costs for this mandate over time. (Reduce Item 8885–295–0001 by $13 million and increase Item 8885–299–0001 by $3 million.)
Given mandate law’s focus on reimbursing local governments for activities, rather than the achievement of policy objectives, few state objectives are suited to implementation as mandates. This is particularly true when the state seeks to encourage local governments to make significant policy changes, such as in the case of Chapter 752.
Because there is no evidence that the longer holding period (or its mandate funding) furthers state policy objectives, we recommend the Legislature repeal this requirement of Chapter 752 (along with the other minor elements of the measure found to be a mandate). This action would eliminate the state’s obligation to reimburse local governments for their increased costs of caring for animals that they euthanize. If the Legislature wishes to give shelters more incentives to promote animal adoptions, we recommend the Legislature try a different approach. For example, the Legislature could pilot an incentive program that gives funding to those shelters that increase the number of animals successfully adopted. (As a point of reference, based on information provided by the Department of Public Health, the state could give local government shelters $30 for every dog or cat adopted for a total annual cost of about $12 million.)
Reduce Funding in Budget for Mandates by $13 Million. The Constitution generally requires the Legislature to (1) pay all outstanding bills for a mandate in the upcoming budget or (2) suspend or repeal the mandate. Repealing the Animal Adoption mandate, therefore, would allow the Legislature to remove funds for it from the budget bill. While the funds for this mandate were not identified specifically in the budget bill, we estimate it to be about $13 million. (This amount represents the outstanding costs for this mandate from 2005–06 and 2006–07.)
Increase Funding in Budget for Prior–Year Mandate Claims by $3 Million. Repealing the Animal Adoption mandate would not eliminate the state’s long–term obligation to pay outstanding costs incurred before the repeal. If the Legislature repealed this mandate at the time it enacted the 2008–09 budget, we estimate that it would owe local governments about $36 million for 2005–06 through 2007–08 activities. (That is, $13 million for outstanding 2005–06 and 2006–07 claims and $23 million for 2007–08.) The Constitution does not specify a deadline for payment of these outstanding mandate costs. Given the state’s fiscal condition, we recommend the Legislature include resources for outstanding 2005–06 through 2007–08 Animal Adoption claims with the state’s payment for the mandate backlog. Under this approach, local governments would be reimbursed for their Animal Adoption mandate costs, with interest, over the next 13 years, at a rate of about $3 million per year.
Summary of Budget Actions. We recommend the Legislature:
- Repeal the requirements of Chapter 752 found to be a state–reimbursable mandate.
- Reduce by $13 million the funds provided in the budget bill for this mandate to pay 2005–06 and 2006–07 mandate claims.
- Increase by $3 million the funds provided in the budget to make a payment for the mandate backlog and prior year Animal Adoption claims.
Urge California Lawmakers Not to Make Sheltered Dogs and CatsVictims of Budget Crisis
As California faces a $24 billion budget deficit, state leaders have only days to figure out which critical services and programs will be sacrificed to make up the difference. We need to make sure animals are protected.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has again proposed to suspend the "animal adoption mandate," which would reduce the holding period for stray dogs and cats in the state's municipal animal shelters by three days.
The savings generated by suspending this mandate is a paltry 0.1 percent of the $24 billion deficit. These funds are the only state dollars that presently go to assisting local governments with the costly problem of pet overpopulation.
This holding period is critical to give pet owners more time to locate lost animals and to give unclaimed animals more time to either be adopted or transferred to an animal rescue group.
TAKE ACTION
Please take two minutes to make a brief, polite phone call to Governor Schwarzenegger's office at (916) 445-2841. You can say: "My name is [your name] and I live in [your town]. I know the budget situation is dire, but I'm calling to express my concern with the Governor's proposal to suspend the animal adoption mandate."
After you make your call, send a follow-up message to the governor and your state legislators, and tell your friends and family in California how they can take action too.
We're working the halls of the Capitol hard on this one, but we need your help. As California struggles to come to terms with the current economic downturn, we must ensure that animals do not bear the brunt.
Thank you for all you do for animals.
Sincerely,![]()
Mike Markarian
Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
The Humane Society of the United States
Governor proposes another $3 billion in cuts
Matthew Yi, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau
Saturday, May 30, 2009
California would stop paying for school buses, in-home services would be cut for all but the most severely disabled people, and animal shelters would be able to euthanize strays after three days instead of six if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's latest budget cuts are adopted.
In addition, counties would no longer have to provide absentee ballots to all voters, local authorities would no longer have to collect DNA from unidentified human remains, and police would no longer have to notify victims of car theft when their cars are recovered.
The proposals are part of a list of $3 billion in additional spending reductions the state Department of Finance released Friday to help solve a $24.3 billion deficit through June 2010.
"We've really scraped the bottom of the barrel here," said Mike Genest, Schwarzenegger's finance director. "It is unfortunate, but it is what it is and we do have to live within our means."
The newest proposals come on top of other budget-cutting plans by the governor that include releasing thousands of nonviolent prison inmates, closing state parks and eliminating Cal Grants to save education money.
Since voters rejected Schwarzenegger's budget-related ballot measures in the May 19 special election, the governor has maintained that voters want the budget to be balanced through cuts, rather than taxes, borrowing and accounting gimmicks.
After the election, the governor backed off an earlier proposal to borrow nearly $6 billion from Wall Street to help fill the state's budget gap. Instead, on Tuesday, he proposed additional cuts that would close 80 percent of state parks and eliminate health and welfare programs, and cash grants to college students.
The $3 billion in new cuts is the governor's response to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Office's latest revenue forecast. Last week, the analyst projected that the state's deficit had grown from $21.3 billion to $24.3 billion.
State officials also face additional pressure to solve the deficit quickly because, without solutions, California is on pace to run out of cash by the end of July. On Friday, state Controller John Chiang wrote a letter to lawmakers and Schwarzenegger warning that the state's cash balance would dip below zero on July 29.
Chiang said lawmakers would need to balance the budget by June 15 for him to have enough time to borrow from Wall Street to ease the state's looming cash crunch.
But much of the attention on Friday was on the governor's proposed additional cuts. They included the following:
-- $117 million - Eliminate the Adult Day Health Care program offered under the Department of Aging.
-- $550 million - Reduce funds to counties for certain health and social services.
-- $230.8 million - Restrict the In Home Support Services program to the most severely disabled such as those who can't breathe on their own and are partially paralyzed.
-- $680 million - Additional cuts for K-12 schools.
-- $315 million - Redirect transit funds earmarked for school buses to pay transit bond debts.
-- $100.3 million - Suspend various state mandates requiring counties to make mail ballots available to all voters, hold animal shelter strays for six days, and collect DNA from unidentified bodies for the state Department of Justice.
-- $470 million - Reduce state worker pay by 5 percent.
"As if life can't actually get any worse ... this is the quintessential manifestation of death by a thousand cuts," said Kevin Gordon, an education lobbyist.
The elimination of state funds for school buses would mean a loss of $3.2 million for San Francisco Unified School District, jeopardizing school transportation for 7,000 students who rely on busing, said Myong Leigh, deputy superintendent for operations.
"We would have to take a real hard look at the pain of cutting transportation versus cutting money in other places instead," he said.
Gary Passmore, who represents the Congress of California Seniors, an advocacy group for the elderly, said the cuts would be life threatening.
"These cuts and the ones that were announced earlier this week are cruel, they are heartless, and they will literally kill people," he said. "It's no longer a question about whether these folks will end up in nursing homes. There aren't enough beds in nursing homes. They will end up on the streets and die."
Kiska Icard, a spokeswoman for the San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said suspending the state requirement on animal shelters to hold strays at least six days to save the state $24.6 million would result in euthanizing more animals.
"Obviously monies need to come from somewhere, but to do it on the backs of these animals is just really sad," she said.
State finance officials said they recognize the cuts are difficult.
"Easy choices are very much in the rearview mirror right now," said H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for the Department of Finance.
E-mail Matthew Yi at myi@sfchronicle.com.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/29/MNJ417THFK.DTL&type=politics
Liberal Icons Failing
End of First Amendment Rights in Los Angeles?
The action by Judge Terry B. Friedman in Santa Monica replaces a previous preliminary injunction and forbids several organizations, five individuals and anyone working with them from demonstrating near UCLA researchers' homes. It also prohibits the posting of personal information about the university's employees on animal rights websites.
In March, two of the activists named in Wednesday's injunction were indicted by a Los Angeles County grand jury and charged with threatening and harassing UCLA scientists.
However, the two were not charged with a series of separate incidents involving arsons and vandalism against researchers and their families; those cases remain unsolved, officials said.
-- Larry Gordon
Sugarman Claims Volunteers Poorly Treated
LAAS Field Troops Still Harassing Cat People
But we were able to save 9 of them with supportive medication. They were infected with the new strain of calicivirus, which currently there is no vaccine for it. This virus can kill within 24 hours to 3 days if the cat's immune system is not so good. But if they have a better immune system, they can survive and it will run it's course within 10 days.
The death is horrible for those who are really weak and immune system is very low. But even the one's that we predicted will not be able to make it, actually made it. They are all playing and very active now.
All we did was put them in fluids, antibiotics, supportive medication and of course TLC.
There is really no medicine for any viral infection. You can only give supportive medication and antibiotics for secondary bacterial infection.
Apparently, Boks thinks all cats infected with a virus should be killed since he cannot even provide supportive medication.
Even the healthiest cat in the world that gets Class A type of care can be a virus carrier. Boksmission is probably to exterminate all animals.
We spent a lot of money, family and friends helped us, we still owe some money from the vet but it's all worth it.
Boks is obviously lying, I saw the cats on the video and pictures, not even close to what our cats had, but 9 of them survived it.
Who Are The Bad Employees?
Please Help Ed Boks Find a Job
Ed Boks’s Summary
Ed is looking for a position that will allow him to exercise the vast array of executive level skills and talents accumulated over an extensive, successful career.
Ed Boks’s Specialties:
Visioning; Strategic Planning; Public Relations; Communication (Oral and Written); Team Building and Recruitment; Turn Around, Performance, and Transparent Management; National Speaker/Consultant; Contract Negotiation; Teacher/Trainer; Curriculum Development; Lobbyist; Multi-Million Dollar Capital Project Management; adept at Microsoft and other PC based programs and various internet functions such as Blogging, YouTube, etc.
Ed Boks’s Experience
General Manager
LA Animal Services
(Government Administration industry)
January 2006 — Present (3 years 5 months)
Recruited by Mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa, to implement animal care and control policies and programs aligned to City goals and objectives.
• Highest volume pet adoption program in the nation;
• Lowest pet euthanasia rates in Department’s recorded history.• Opened and staffed six LEED Certified state-of-the-art animal care centers;
• Led Department through its first Strategic Planning process;
• Updated and standardized all policies and procedures;
• Recruited and managed exceptional medical and executive staff;
• Recruited and managed record number volunteer organizations and individuals to spearhead Spay/Neuter PR campaign, A House is Not a Home Without a Pet voucher program, and other life saving programs;
• Helped establish Animal Cruelty Task Force;• Built coalition of over 140 Los Angeles based animal welfare organizations;
• Instrumental in development of two animal welfare television programs;
• Managed $22 million budget, seven 24/7 animal care centers, 450 employees.Executive Director
Animal Care & Control of New York City
(Government Administration industry)
July 2003 — January 2006 (2 years 7 months)
Recruited by Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, to implement animal care and control policies and programs aligned to City goals and objectives.
• Highest volume pet adoption agency in the United States at this time;
• Lowest pet euthanasia rate in Department’s recorded history;• Built a coalition of over 160 northeastern based animal welfare organizations;
• Instrumental in obtaining $15 million in grants;
Led Department through its first Strategic Planning process;
• Enrolled community support to effect fund raising and marketing strategies;
• Managed $8 million budget, three 24/7 animal care centers, 150 employees.
• Lifetime Achievement Award presented by the Friends of Animal Care & Control in New York City for a career of extraordinary life saving work;
• Alley Cat Allies National Award for Excellence for transforming the way communities care for feral cats.Notice the remarkable similarity of what he did at each city? He just changed the names of the city to the same list of accomplishments.
ALF Claims Reno Arson of Primate Importer
By SCOTT SONNER
The Associated Press
RENO, Nev.
May 27, 2009
Animal rights activists have claimed responsibility for a fire that gutted the Reno business office of a company that ships monkeys from China for scientific research in the United States and elsewhere.
Reno police and fire officials began investigating the arson claim by the Animal Liberation Front after The Associated Press sought comment about an e-mail the group circulated to media outlets and posted on a Web site.
"At this point we are looking at it as a lead," Reno police spokesman Steve Frady said Wednesday. "There is evidence of arson. At this point there is no physical evidence to link this with the group claiming responsibility," he said.
No one was injured in the fire that broke out about 4 a.m. on May 18 and caused an estimated $300,000 damage to offices of Scientific Resources International Inc. just southwest of downtown Reno, Frady said.
The North American Animal Liberation Front Press Office, which posts messages from groups taking credit for animal rights violence, said on its Web site Tuesday that it received an "anonymous communique" last week indicating ALF was claiming responsibility for the fire.
"In the early morning hours of May 18th, four incendiary devices were planted at Scientific Resources International, a supplier of non-humyn (sic) primates for use in vivisection labs all over northern Nevada," the message read. "The concept of animals existing as `resources' is utterly despicable, and we vow to do all in our power to run businesses like these into the ground."
Vivisection labs are used by scientists who experiment with animals, such as for medical research.
Frady said the building is listed as a business office and didn't believe any animals had been housed there. A man who answered the telephone listing for the office said he was the manager but declined to give his name. He said the building had been destroyed and would be unable to conduct business until it was rebuilt.
The one-story home that housed the offices in a largely residential district still smelled of smoke Wednesday. A sign identified it only as "SRI Inc." The most badly charred parts of the building were by two front doors on a large covered porch and in the rear of the building. Several holes have been boarded up.
"We are hoping the public has information that will help us to thoroughly investigate this case and determine who was responsible for setting this fire," Frady said. He said 33 firefighters were called to battle the blaze.
Frady said he wasn't aware of any other acts of violence involving ALF in the Reno-Sparks area in recent years.
2007 a Big Year for Hoarder Busts
Animal Services seizes 120 pet rats
By Francisco Vara-orta
June 06, 2007
An 81-year-old Wilmington woman was found Monday afternoon by Los Angeles Department of Animal Services officers in her home with more than 100 rats and 35 other animals she kept as pets.
- Wanda Langstom was taken to a hospital to be treated for animal bites. Her arms were covered with open wounds that were probably caused by her animals, said Annette Ramirez, an animal control officer.
Animal control officers also seized the animals, which included about 120 rats, most in cages but some running loose, 25 rabbits, a dog, six parakeets, a quail and a cockatiel.
"Langstom basically became overwhelmed at how quickly the rats reproduced. She said it just started with two but it got out of hand," Ramirez said. "Hoarding pets is something we see in Los Angeles frequently so it's not actually that rare a case."
Members of Animal Services' Anti-Cruelty Task Force visited Langstom's home in the 1100 block of Laguna Avenue on Monday to investigate "deplorable conditions," as described by a tip from someone who had visited Langstom's home earlier that day after seeing an ad for a rabbit in a local newspaper. "Once inside, the person saw all the cages and how the situation was bad for both the animals and the resident," Ramirez said.
Most of the animals were healthy, Ramirez said. A veterinarian was treating all of the seized animals, which are available for adoption in San Pedro at the Harbor Animal Care Center.
"Most of the animals were healthy." This is in telling contrast to "deplorable conditions," Again, I aks, how many animals left the shelter alive?
Another document by the LAPD said the ACTF conducted 400 investigations of alleged animal cruelty, 35 for cock fighting and 15 for dog fighting. They also said they investigated cases of hoarding, but did not say how many of the 400 cases involved alleged hoarding.
ACTF Was Very Busy in Late 2007 Busting Cat "Hoarders"
Call For Help Saves Animals in Distress
Los Angeles: On Tuesday, July 31, 2007, concerned friends of a West Valley resident notified the Los Angeles Police Department regarding their friend’s threats to kill herself. West Valley Officers responded to the residence in the 19300 block of Welby Way in the San Fernando Valley in an effort to check on the woman’s welfare. When the resident did not answer the door, the officers, fearing that someone had been harmed, entered the location. The officers were unable to locate the resident, but discovered cats, reptiles, a dog, and numerous exotic birds living in deplorable conditions.
The City of Los Angeles’ Animal Cruelty Task Force was contacted and responded to the location to conduct an investigation and rescue the endangered animals. While the animals were being taken into protective custody, the resident arrived home. The officers, suspecting mental illness was a factor, requested the assistance of mental health professionals. This tactic was proven effective as the resident was detained for a 72-hour mental evaluation hold.
A total of 108 animals were taken from the house. The Animal Cruelty Task Force is handling the investigation.
--------------
I have one major question, of the 108 animals taken into "protective custody," how many left the shelter alive?
I would not raised this issue again except that this sort of thing is still happening.
Animal Services 2008 Statistical Report Admits Spay/Neuter Programs Were a Failure
Table 9: Annual Cat Intake Rates
Cat Intakes
2001 22,094
2002 20,908
2003 23,117
2004 20,645
2005 21,651
2006 21,273
2007 19,172
2008 23,378
ACTF Main Activity--Busting Cat "Hoarders"
Cat Hoarder Busted For Cruelty
Los Angeles – On October 4, 2006, Los Angeles Animal Services filed cruelty charges against Linda Lane of Canoga Park. Ms. Lane subjected more than a dozen sick cats to deplorable living conditions. Ms. Lane put 18 cats in her car, drove them into Brown's Canyon, and abandoned them and her car there to avoid being charged with animal cruelty.
LA Animal Services subsequently filed charges under PC597(b) (animal cruelty), 53.50 LAMC (too many cats) and 53.15.2 C and B (illegal breeding of cats).
On Tuesday, February 20, 2007, Ms. Lane pled guilty to all charges. Her sentence includes: 36 months probation, 100 hours community service, $120 in court fees, 24 hours of 597(g) behavioral counseling, 24/7 right of Animal Services to inspect without a warrant or probable cause.
“A key reason we pursued this case is the poor living conditions,” said department General Manager Ed Boks. “We want all cats to have homes, but they have to be homes where the animals are well cared-for. Ms. Lane was failing across the board.”
All 18 cats impounded by Animal Services required extensive care as they were suffering from severe upper respiratory infection and skin lesions, four of these cats were also feral. Four cats ultimately recovered and were adopted. Fourteen cats were humanely euthanized due to irremediable suffering or lack of improvement from treatments.
This case sets a new standard for hoarding and cruelty cases in that this is the first time an owner has been restricted from feeding strays. Ms. Lane was advised that any violation in her probation could result in incarceration.
..................................................
Trutanich and Koretz Win
Now maybe we can get LA's animal Cruelty Task Force to go after actual animal cruelty, instead, as Officer Munez said, "Our biggest problem is people with too many cats."
Kathy Davis Official Word on Kitten Rescue Fees
| I was confused by the various pricing scenarios sent out by the Department regarding cats and neonates fees for rescuers, and by what I have heard from actual rescuers, so that I asked Kathy Davis specifically: How much would a rescuer have to pay for a mom cat and five neonatal kittens? This is her third clarifying email. Print it out and take it with you any time you go to any shelter. Inform staff this is the official charges from their boss. --- On Fri, 5/15/09, Kathy Davis <Kathy.Davis@lacity.org> wrote:
|
SECOND REASON TO VOTE TRUTANICH CITY ATTORNEY
Dear Friends of Animals,
I am Carmen “Nuch” Trutanich--environmental attorney, former Hardcore Gang Prosecutor with the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office, and candidate for Los Angeles City Attorney. I’m pledging to animal lovers that, as your City Attorney, prosecuting criminal acts against animals in Los Angeles will not only continue, but will be enhanced and expanded.Caring for animals is not a political ploy for me--it is a lifelong passion. I grew up in San Pedro and my first rescued pet as a child was a rabbit, named Hoppy, who lived with our family for many years. My wife, Noreen, and I adopted two homeless Jack Russell Terriers when our children were old enough to understand that these were family members, not toys. Fortunately, we still have one of them, Myla, who is now 16 years old. So that Myla wouldn’t be alone, I adopted an adult Beagle, who we named “Lucky”, from a local rescuer three months ago. He has given Myla a new lease on life! Lucky was found in the middle of a downtown street. Today, he can usually be found dozing in the middle of our bed, burrowed under the covers.
I have also rescued many horses, including walking a frightened mare home from a garage sale when I was told by the owners that they would possibly sell her for slaughter because she was “barn sour”. After months of proper care, patience and training, she forgot her fears and enjoyed life as a beloved family companion. My wife and I saved the life of Tonka, my painted quarter horse who was kicked in the leg by a Palomino on a trail ride. The blow fractured his front left leg vertically for eight inches. Tonka was a miracle horse. He broke all expectations after six months at San Luis Rey Equine Center. He lived! In fact, Tonka became the poster horse for animal fracture study and care. His case was studied nationally at many equine veterinary conferences. He taught me so many lessons, the least of which is how much spirit and will animals have to live when they are loved.
I’m telling you this so you will know that the same things that touch your hearts most deeply have also impacted me for a lifetime—not just now that there is an election. The upcoming City Attorney election creates a great opportunity for us, as animal lovers, to put our feelings into action. This is what I envision for the future:
• The City Attorney’s Animal Protection Unit must become a powerful force, assuring that, if someone decides to keep a pet within Los Angeles, they will treat it well…or there will be consequences. On my watch, animal abuse will be vigorously prosecuted and to the full extent of the law.
• Through tough, but just, enforcement, we will increase public awareness that the City of Los Angeles does not tolerate cruelty to any animal—domestic or wildlife. I know this works because, as an environmental prosecutor, I increased public awareness of environmental violations via stern prosecution in the mid-80’s. Corporations protect our air, earth and water better today because of my hard work in the Environmental Crimes/OSHA Division of the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office. The same will hold true for animal-cruelty violations.
• I will partner with the District Attorney’s office to assure that crimes of abuse or neglect of animals receive the full attention they deserve. We will not settle for a misdemeanor if a felony is indicated, and I will work closely with District Attorney Steve Cooley on these cases. That way, criminal offenders will receive the level of justice they deserve. Let the word go out now: “Stay out of the City of Los Angeles if you intend to neglect or abuse animals. It’s a one-way ticket to jail!”
• We meet an additional societal obligation by protecting animals--history has chronicled that humans; especially children, women and the elderly, are often the next victims of those who harm animals. As City Attorney, I will assure that we do not excuse or disregard crimes merely because the victims are voiceless.
I want our City to be a safe place for both humans and animals, and I know you share that dream. I am asking you to give the animals a “true” voice in Los Angeles by voting for me for City Attorney on May 19, 2009.
Download my response to The League of Humane Voters, California Chapter questionnaire, by clicking here
Sincerely,
.jpg)
VOTE FOR TRUTANICH FOR CITY ATTORNEY!
| From Trutanich's website; this is listed as his number 2 priority: Animal Welfare & Protection |
Los Angeles must be a safe place for both humans and animals. My wife, Noreen and I share our home with two adopted dogs, 16-year-old Myla, and Lucky, a rescued Beagle, and I have a lifelong commitment to the welfare and protection of animals. As City Attorney, I will prosecute animal abuse and neglect to the full extent of the law. No crime will be excused or disregarded merely because the victims are voiceless. |
Caught On Tape: Animal Shelter Abuses
David Goldstein LOS ANGELES (CBS) ―
CBS 2 News obtained surveillance video revealing what goes on behind the scenes at some L.A. County animal shelters.
These surveillance videos -- obtained by CBS 2 News -- show what some L.A. County animal shelter employees do when they think the public's not watching.
"How do you pull a defenseless dog through the facility like that, dragging it, and you have nothing to say at all."
We have the videos and obtained documents showing a hidden culture at the county shelters, where animals are allegedly euthanized and abused by employees, sometimes for kicks.
"There were quite a few of them who high-fived each other when they got certified to put the animals to sleep, as if it was a major coup."
L.A. County's Animal Care and Control claims to be one of the largest and progressive shelter systems in the nation. Their slogan is "care with compassion."
But our investigation found that is not always the case.
Animal control officers are watched from dozens of surveillance cameras set up all around the six shelters across L.A. County, watching them when no one else may be watching.
In a video from the backroom of the Downey shelter, an animal control officer is seen putting his foot on the dog he just brought in. While it's fully restrained on what is called a catch pole, he pins the dog down, jabbing the pole in its throat.
In this video from the Baldwin Park shelter last December, the officer drags the dog all the way down the long corridor, pulling it by a rope, as the animal spreads out on all fours. When he stops, the friendly dog wags its tail, only to be dragged along even further.
The day before at Baldwin Park, a camera catches another officer doing the exact same thing -- dragging a dog by a rope down a corridor.
In March at Baldwin Park an officer is seen flinging a Chihuahua into the cage. The tiny dog is tossed in like a piece of meat.
And finally in Baldwin Park in 2006, a dog is appears unsteady on its feet, having just come back from the vet with a hip injury. But that didn't stop the officer, who has been identified as Felix Reyes, from first pulling the dog, then dragging it by a rope.
As a family of five walks by, Reyes drags the dog across the compound.
After a short time, the dog finally succumbs to the pressure and gets up, only to have Reyes captured by another camera, as he walks it along and yanks the injured dog across the threshold and into a cage.
"Every animal has a story and they can't talk," said Cathy Nguyen.
Nguyen is an animal lover and frequent critic of the shelter system, who has troubled by the videos.
"The dog could be someone's dog. They didn't know. If this is how they treat my dog it wouldn't be acceptable," Nguyen said.
It was almost sadistic?
"Sadistic. Absolutely."
"Hey Felix, I'm David Goldstein with CBS 2 News."
I tried to question Reyes.
"You were pulling that defenseless dog down through the whole place. What were you doing that for?"
But he never said a word.
"How do you keep quiet about that? How do you live with yourself at night? You've got nothing to say?"
Critics of the shelter system say the videos bring to light the sometimes dark side of what goes on goes behind the cages -- a culture that can breed cruelty, neglect and even torture.
These investigative reports, obtained by CBS 2 News, document dogs that were intentionally or mistakenly euthanized, killed in the shelters after being put on hold for adoption or the return to their owners.
"There were definitely people working there who didn't even like animals."
This former shelter employee, who would only talk if we concealed their identity, says the euthanizing of animals was sometimes a sought after position.
"They enjoyed putting the animals to sleep?"
"Yes. Some of them volunteered. They wanted to be the ones doing that."
"What kind of person is that?"
"Narcissistic. Lack of compassion. It wasn't uncommon at all."
But the head of L.A. County's shelter system says three instances is just a small amount.
"We take in 90,000 animals a year, three incidents over the numbers of thousands of animals that have come in during that period of time I think is very minor."
Mary Cummins Lawsuit Was the Reason Boks Was Fired
VIDEOS OF COUNTY ANIMAL ABUSE ON CBS TV WEBSITE
TV Story On Animal Cruelty in County Shelters Thursday
Investigative Reporter
KCBS/KCAL TV Los Angeles
818-655-2420
818-655-2440-Fax
djgoldstein@cbs.com
www.cbs2.com/goldstein
Raising New Hope Fees Is Killing Cats
Daily News Op Ed by Phyllis Daugherty
By Phyllis M. Daugherty
Updated: 05/13/2009 03:11:32 PM PDT
SELECTING the Los Angeles City Animal Services General Manager has become the humane world's version of "American Idol."
E-blasts promote contenders and phones frantically submit votes, while contestants navigate their way through a maze of sniping and in-house politics to try to survive until the selection date. Recently animal services General Manager Ed Boks extended his tenure by tap dancing through a litany of City Council and public criticisms and by maintaining self-serving blogs to defend his controversial sideshow antics, such as, "Hooters for Neuters" and the parolee-staffed Pit Bull Academy.
Boks was hired in 2006 to extricate Mayor Villaraigosa from the political nightmare caused by his promise to animal-activists to fire Boks' predecessor, Guerdon Stuckey, whose accomplishments were acceptable by industry standards.
Boks recently resigned amid the furor over a settlement for his alleged sexual harassment of a female volunteer. The week before, Boks' prior employer, New York City Animal Care & Control also settled a lawsuit on Boks' behalf for racial discrimination - filed before Boks came to Los Angeles.
L.A. Animal Services is a serious and vital public health and safety agency - not a circus; and in that capacity it deserves the same respect as police or fire agencies.
LAAS employees, our city's animals and the public must not be subjected to further games of "musical general managers." Because the victims they serve are voiceless, the dangerous
Advertisement
and disheartening work done by this department is largely undervalued and overlooked until a major disaster occurs.
In 1999, Los Angeles property owners agreed to pay $154 million in bond indebtedness for new shelters for the city's unwanted or homeless animals. This was done on the promise that it would end overcrowding, pet-overpopulation would decrease, and dangerous dog packs would disappear from the streets.
It is now the obligation of our elected officials to fulfill their part of that commitment by assuring these facilities and the city's very successful spay/neuter campaigns are managed and maintained so that we accomplish these goals.
Los Angeles cannot risk the experiment of transferring our sheltering responsibilities to private organizations because of the legal mandates for municipal animal control. Nor can we abdicate our responsibility to the county, which is struggling under even greater problems of shelter overpopulation and understaffing.
In these dire economic times, we must seriously address the problems that cause animals to be dumped in shelters and drain city resources. We can start with serious enforcement of the myriad humane laws in the state, county and city codes.
It is important that an animal is sterilized but more important that it is well treated. Los Angeles can join other local cities in implementing a program that holds offending pet owners financially responsible for the administrative costs incurred in enforcing humane laws.
This would create an immediate improvement in pet care citywide and a revenue source for enforcement. Those who do not want to fulfill the legal responsibilities of ownership can opt not to get a pet. A large number of neglect and abuse cases are the result of an attitude of disposability, such as, getting a puppy or kitten "to see how it works out."
Many result from deliberate exploitation; such as illegal animal fighting and breeding for this purpose. Some people don't believe an animal needs care and attention, feel that it can be released into the street at will, or don't get veterinary attention for illness or injuries.
Animals are sentient beings. They feel fear, pain and loneliness and experience hunger, thirst and cold. Failure to protect them and provide their basic necessities is a crime - not an oversight.
Statistical probability based upon U.S. Census human-population figures indicates that there could be up to 1.2 million dogs in the city of Los Angeles. All animal-control agencies in California are required to assure owned dogs have up-to-date rabies vaccinations. Licenses are validation of compliance and are required by municipal code.
LAAS needs to collect these animal licensing fees so that the department is not a burden on taxpayers. Los Angeles must stop chasing the elusive myth of "no kill," which does not apply to municipal shelters that accept animals regardless of condition. It dooms any general manager to failure and gives the public the impression that all unwanted pets will live happily ever after.
It is time to heal, restore and rebuild the internal structure of L.A. Animal Services. It is time for a leader with respect for protocol, whose primary goal is not star-studded photo-ops but effective animal-welfare and public-service programs supported by sound city policy.
Phyllis M. Daugherty is the director Animal Issues Movement.
Don't Expect a Replacement for Boks Soon
URGENT ACTION NEEDED!
From: pnina gersten <pnina.gersten.eblasts@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:54 AM
It appears Ms. Daugherty has “urged" City Council to remove the municipal code section 53.11 (p), which is what permits fee waivers for non-profit humane and rescue organizations. In essence, Ms. Daugherty’s action would do away with rescue discounts for New Hope partners. In her proposal Ms. Daugherty goes so far as to name specific rescue groups and the adoption fees they charge for the animals they rescue. Apparently using the unfounded equation that adoption fee minus shelter bail fee equals profit. As a result City Council took action.
According to the Daily News article of May 8th, 2009, City Council declared “in an effort to keep private groups from getting the dogs from shelters just to sell them for hundreds or thousands of dollars, the Los Angeles City Council on Friday voted to restrict the ability of such organizations from profiting on the animals.” Furthermore, “ The council authorized an audit procedure of the private non-profits to see how they were handling the animals." http://www.dailynews.com/search/ci_12330743
Congratulation Ms Daugherty and City Council, as a shelter scout who works closely with New Hope partners and LA City shelters, it is my opinion that actions like these should raise the euthanasia rate and whip out the progress we have made over the years.
It appears that Ms Daugherty and city council are not accounting for the expenses New Hope partners incur in rescuing shelter animals. For example, basic needs such as, collars, tags, leashes, blankets, food, basic medical testing, deworming, flea and tick control, chew toys, basic blood panels, cat trees, beds, puppy and kitten milk replacement and bottles for the unweaned, feeding and water bowls, cleaning supplies, treats, litter and litter boxes, grooming, cages for adoption events, gas for transportation, insurance coverage, website fees, fund raisers expenses, change of microchip, and boarding fees. In my opinion they also fail to accounting for the current economic climate which has reduced the number of adoption, thus increasing the period of time that animals New Hope partner rescue are boarded in facilities or paid foster homes. Of course real rescuers know that many of the bigger expenses arise because rescuers typically DO NOT take the perfect, healthy adoptable animal, rather, rescuers take the injured, the sick, those needing training and the senior who have been disposed. That is, those animal NEEDING rescue thus saving LAAS extended cost to house them and then kill them. If Ms Daugherty and City Council are so confident in their economic analysis of NH partners and their supposed profit then I invite them to offer reimbursement to New Hope partners who lost out of pocket money on the aforementioned expenses. Attach please find Ms Daugherty’s proposal and list of New Hope partners she names and fees they charge when adopting out an animal. Yes, Ms Daugherty, it is an “adoption”. BTW, LAAS and LA County Animal Control call it an adoption also. City Council has already heard from Ms. Daugherty and what she has to say. Now they need to hear the facts from New Hope partners and what it really cost to rescue a shelter animal. Pnina |
Phoenix: A City That Does Not Care
Despite taking in a few thousand more animals than
http://www.maricopa.gov/budget/pdf/ABS2008-09ADP.PDF
Page 182
Maddies Statistics 2007-2008:
http://www.maricopa.gov/pets/pdf/MaddiesStats.pdf
Mayeda Contract Says County Disposes of 100,000 Animals a Year
County of Los Angeles Department of Animal Care and Control Administrative Office (562) 728-4610 • Fax (562) 422-3478 | COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL | |
| Marcia Mayeda |
August 21, 2008
| Shelter Locations Downey Shelter 11258 S. Garfield Ave. Downey, CA 90242 (562) 940-6898 Carson Shelter 216 W. Victoria St. Gardena, CA 90248 (310) 523-9566 | To: | Supervisor Yvonne B. Burke, Chair Supervisor Gloria Molina Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky Supervisor Don Knabe Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich |
Baldwin Park Shelter 4275 N. Elton St. Baldwin Park, CA 91706 (626) 962-3577
From: Marcia Mayeda Director
CONTRACT - D&D DISPOSAL, INC.
This is to advise you that the Department of Animal Care and Control (Department) intends to negotiate a sole-source contract with the existing vendor, D&D Disposal, Inc. of Vernon, for the removal and disposal of animal carcasses from the Department's six shelters. We have determined that D&D Disposal is the only vendor with the capacity and expertise to effectively accommodate the large volume of animal carcasses processed by the Department on an annual basis.
Background
The Department currently contracts with D&D Disposal to pickup animal carcasses at the Department's six shelters on a pre-determined schedule. In addition, special pick-ups may be required if circumstances warrant. D&D Disposal furnishes and maintains storage containers and other apparatus as needed to provide for the timely removal of the animal carcasses. The existing contract with D&D Disposal was for a term of five years and is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2008.
Sole Source Justification
In an effort to establish the continued sole source nature of this contract, we contacted all County animal care and control agencies in the region, large municipal animal care agencies within the County, and other local entities performing animal care and control services to determine their process for removal and disposal of animal carcasses. All counties surveyed, including Kern, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura, contract with D&D Disposal, Inc. for their animal removal and disposal services. In addition, the cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Santa Monica contract with D&D Disposal as well.
The City of Los Angeles, which is the most comparable agency surveyed, issued a Request for Proposals for animal disposal services in 2005. The City's Bureau of Sanitation performs the pick-up of dead animals. West Coast Rendering, an affiliate of D&D Disposal, was the only respondent to this solicitation. The City of Los Angeles subsequently executed an agreement for the period December 2006 through December 2009. Other agencies surveyed, including the Inland Valley Humane Society, Pasadena Humane Society, San Gabriel Humane Society, and Southeast Area Animal Control Authority indicated that D&D Disposal was being utilized for animal carcass removal and disposal. Attachment I summarizes the results of this survey.
In addition, we conducted research to identify other potential vendors that could provide services that would meet the needs of the Department. Utilizing information published by the State Department of Agriculture, the National Renderers Association, and a recent solicitation for services by the City of Los Angeles, we reviewed potential vendors that provided services related to removal and/or disposal of animal carcasses. Vendors from these lists performing some level of the required services were contacted to determine their ability to meet the needs of the Department.
The Department disposes of nearly 100,000 carcasses annually through regularly scheduled pickups. The Department also makes requests each month for special pickup of animals outside of the normal pickup dates. None of the vendors contacted could provide a full scope of removal and disposal services that would meet these requirements. Typically, vendors provided limited services such as pickup and removal of livestock and other farm animals. Additionally, vendors indicated that the geographic size and demands of servicing the County precluded their organization from effectively providing the required services. Attachment II provides a summary of these firms.
Unless otherwise instructed, we will commence negotiations with D&D Disposal and prepare an agreement for consideration by your Board in September 2008.
If you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact me at (562) 256-2406 or via e-mail at mmayeda@animalcare.lacounty.gov.
More Photos From Lancaster Shelter

WORST YEAR FOR CATS EVER AT LA'S SHELTERS, 3,009 More Cats Killed This Year Compared to Last
My Response to the Recent Daily News Editorial
The Daily News editorial characterized the job of General Manager of Animal Services as to be impossible due to fragmented and violent activist segment of the
The editorial never, ever addressed the issue of job performance by the various general managers or the department.
One General Manager was referred to as being hospitalized due to job stress from the activists. The writer is talking about Don Knapp who had epilepsy and was sustaining almost constant gran mal seizures. Dan hid his epilepsy from the City until well after he started his employment as GM. The public loved Dan and his job until the Mayor forced him to round up street dogs prior to the Democratic convention. Then criticism may have exacerbated Dan’s epilepsy. Dan likely would have been having gran mal seizures by that point even without job stress.
The editorial writer, like reporter Rick Orlov, states that Boks and other GMs suffered from “shifting support” by City leaders out of political opportunity. Who is the writer talking about, councilmembers, Zine, Cardenas and Alarcon? What opportunism is the writer talking about? The activist community, the union, Animal Service employees, and rescuers have been asking for action to get Ed Boks to resign for almost three years and the Mayor took no action. Council did because the Mayor refused to act.
The writer writes the City should drop the goal of No Kill, that no one knows what it means, and the concept is only a sound bite for campaigning.
In fact, the definition is becoming increasingly clear. "No-kill" means no adoptable, treatable or trainable animal will be put to death; eventually they will all find homes. Since this definition begs definitions of “adoptable,” “treatable,” or “trainable,” an easier to understand and operational definition is gaining wider acceptance: A general admission shelter is “No-kill” if 90% or more of all animals impounded make it out alive either through adoptions or by rescue by various non-profit rescue groups. This 90% “save rate” would apply to
No kill recognizes that there will always be a percentage of animals that should be put down for public safety or because of irremediable suffering. This means finding foster parents to bottle feed 3 week old kittens without mothers until they are adopted, providing good medical treatment for newly impounded sick and injured animals, working well with rescue groups and working to find homes for the hard-to-adopt animals, the elderly and those with chronic health issues.
Some smaller cities have approached that 90% mark, such as
Critics of No Kill say the problems of the big city are a completely different ball game. However, the former head of
PIE CHARTS
Think of it. At County, of every 100 cats impounded, only 18 make it out alive. Do we want that for the City, or do we want the No Kill 97% live release rates of
Why on earth do you think anyone in
The writer is correct that the shelter might be better run by non-profits; however, setting up the administration of such an entity would be very difficult as it would involve the current shelter employee unions, civil service, ownership questions about the buildings and its contacts, and whether any group of LA’s small rescues be able to paste together the resources to run such a large system. Setting up such an organization probably would be an ideal situation, but the obstacles are daunting to say the least.
I urge the Daily News editors to get a clue in terms of numbers and performance before shooting from the hip about stress allegedly causing a previous general manager to be hospitalized, and who have not heard about all the lawsuits by activists against the County system. I simply can’t believe that the Daily News still doesn’t own the numbers and problems with both systems, or offer a more concrete plan by which a "fragmented" and violent activist and rescue community could pull off a non-profit takeover. If you could offer some ideas grounded in plausibility, we’d all listen.



