.
In response to my posts that cats were discriminated against by LAAS as opposed to dogs, and that there may have been 1,000 Hayden Law violations regarding cats, and that the total first day kill of cats was 5,258, Ed Boks addresses the single charge that there may have been Hayden 1,000 violations.
He produces what he had called "more refined" data which Mr. Jensen had asked for 5 times previously and been denied.
Mr. Boks states:
“Mr. Jensen’s exposition of the data has been duplicated by my staff and is accurate.”
That is, Boks admits Jensen’s statistics that 5,258 cats were killed on their first day of impoundment. He does not respond to the charge of discriminatory treatment.
He also confirms that 517 cats deemed as apparently healthy were killed on their first date of impoundment.
He expands that number saying that 809 cats identified as apparently healthy were killed within their first 4 days of impoundment.
He states, however, that staff had misidentified 773 of those 809, and that they really were sick, unweaned or injured.
That is, 773 of the apparent Hayden violations were mistakes of identification made by impounding staff, which were cleared up that day or within 4 days afterwards.
He stated new and clearer policies and procedures will be implemented and staff trained so that this will not happen in the future.
There were also 440 actual violations of the Hayden Act, namely adopting out animals before the 4 day hold was up. This provision of the Act was to allow owners time to find their animals before they were killed or adopted out to non-owners. However, these violations are explainable because they were dispositions of cats who otherwise would have been destroyed because they were unweaned or sick.
Unfortunately, I do not understand why LAAS considered the animals too sick or injured to treat, yet rescuers were miraculously able to do so. It is as if LAAS lacked the time, energy or expertise to treat these animals.
Therefore, of the apparent 809 violations of the Hayden Act by premature killing, 773 were really mistakes of identification by LAAS personnel on impound, and were justified killings by law.
I wish I had had Boks' more refined data a week ago as per the Records Request, as opposed to him having sat on the info.
Mr. Jensen’s response to Boks’ claim made 3 days ago that there were more refined data, which he had not received, and which had been requested through the Public Records act a total of 5 times, without response by Boks, was this nightmare situation was brought on by the department itself.
I am very relieved by Mr. Boks’ explanation that the premature killings were not violations and that the 440 actual violations were apparently of good will.
I am also relieved that new policies, protocols, and training will be provided so these problems will not arise in the future.
However, I am still concerned with the apparent discrimination by the department against cats vs. dogs:
.
1. The numbers identified as ill or injured compared to dogs;
.
2. The shorter time they held and the faster they are killed, preventing them from having an equal right to life compared to dogs.
.
5 comments:
So we are just supposed to believe him? Where are his transparent numbers? Why didn't he just give you the raw numbers? How do WE know that these animals were sick or unweaned? He most certainly is responsible for shoddy record keeping and poor oversight.
Here's another question. The law says he has to treat sick animals yet the Hayden act says he can kill any ill, injured, deformed animals. Must he treat them or can he kill them? How severe must the illness be? Fleas, a scratch, a limp, bad hair...?
I am somewhat molified with my new understanding that the Chameleon software used by the shelter has a default setting of "apparently healthy," when in fact the animal was not healthy. That is, if a value is not entered into a description of the animal coming in, the system automatically says the animal is healthy. This is a mistake in record keeping as much as misidentication, and a defect that can be fixed.
.
My biggest concern is why so many cats, for example, compared to dogs are listed as sick, and therefore killed faster. .
A larger number of cats are listed as sick, and sick cats are more quickly killed than dogs..
My next biggest concern is why after 13 months are the same number of animals dying?
Another thought, and I have expressed it before, if Boks were cooking the books, he has not cooked them very well in LA.
If he were cooking the books, he'd at least have given himself a 10% increased saved rate for 2006 or just say we now have a 70% save rate.
So Boks admits to 36 Hayden act violations in cats. Is there any consequence for a violation?
I never thought he cooked the books. If he did, the numbers wouldn't look as bad as they do. I just think he spins the numbers. Things have not improved yet he's telling the world that "nokill is just around the corner."
Beyond any doubt LAAS has been killing dogs as soon as they were impounded, in violation of the Hayden Act. The source of this information is very reliable.
The path to No Kill is not paved with the blood of innocent animals. Unforgivable.
Post a Comment