.
Ed Boks lied big time in his presentation to Council in June 20. They bought his lies, hook line and sinker. I am ashamed of Rosendahl.
Boks told them that euthanasia is down. It's down 1%, but the number of animals dying in the shelter has doubled during the past 12 months. The number of animals leaving the shelter dead has not changed. AND. the number and percent leaving alive is down. He completely snowed council.
June 20, 2007 City Council meeting
http://lacity.org/cdvideo_wm.htm and click June 20 video.
Boks: Thanks Zine (Z) and Cardenas (C) for making the motion so I can share things with you and address your concerns. I will talk about lowering the kill rate and success with volunteers. We are trying to broaden our program to reach into the community to create a Humane LA.
I was recruited to help transform LA into the first major metropolitan city to be nokill in the US. What is nokill? In LA, or the 46,000 brought in each year, 18K killed, a 40% kill rate, lower than the state average.
Boks stated that the most scientific way to define nokill is the number killed per thousand people.
He stated that when you get to 5.0, most in the animal community feel that this is nokill.
Rebuttal:
This is nonsense. A few consider it no kill, especially Boks himself. But big cities have fewer animals per household and thus a lower number per 1,000 people end in a shelter. For example, New York is over twice as big as LA but impounds and kills about the same number of animals. Therefore, their rate per 1,000 is about 2.5 versus LA at 5.0. No one in their right mind considers New York No-Kill.
While GM of Maricopa County, in 2002 Boks stated he wanted the County to be No-Kill by 2007. He defined No-Kill then as 3.0 euthanized per 1,000 population.
For him, no kill was 3.0 back then, now he lowers the bar to 5.0/1,000. I’ll also mention that Maricopa Co. never even came close to 3/1,000 kill rate. Currently, just for their County shelters, it is 9/1,000, three times greater that his then definition of no-kill.
Besides, we are only talking about the municipal shelters there. There are private shelters, as in LA. Each of these shelters kill animals, meaning an extra 1/1,000, 2/1,000, etc.
In Maricopa Co. the kill rate is about 11.5/1,000 using the combined euthanasia numbers of all shelters in the area. In order to get down to 3/1,000 in Phoenix, the municipal shelters alone would have to cut their killing by 80%.
A much better measure of No-kill is that used by the father of No-Kill, Nathan Winograd, whose own shelter had a euthanasia rate of 8% of all live animals brought in. Applied to LA, this would mean less than 3,700 animals killed each year, instead of 18,000.
I would note that Winograd has consulted several other smaller shelter systems and each have been brought to an 8% kill rate within about a year. It seems the area around 8-9% euthanized is the best any municipal shalter has done.
In Philadelphia, Winograd brought the killing down from an estimated 90% to 46% in 2 years with a budget of $3,900,000 and 46 employees.
Boks:
There will always be sick or aggressive animals that must be killed.
Rebuttal:
Yes there always will be, but who can believe 40% of all animals impounded, over 18,000, are sick enough or vicious enough to require killing? No one.
However, Ed is only talking about cats and dogs, he does not mention the kill rate for rabbits is almost triple what it was under Stuckey, and the in-shelter deaths due to sickness and injury has doubled for dogs and cats, while the in-shelter deaths for other animals, such as birds, turtles, hamsters, etc., has gone up by 600%.
Boks:
The US average is 14.8. LA is 4.5. We are lower than that thresh hold. There has been a 50% decline in the last five years in euthanasia. This is the most rapid decline in killing in any major city in the US. Jan to May an extra 22% decline.
Rebuttal:
Misleading. He is reporting only kill figures for cats and dogs. The death rate for all animals other than cats and dogs has increased by the same rate as cat and dog deaths have decreased. No net gain.
In addition, 18,000 euthanasias a year means 1,500 per month. If you overcrowd 1,500 additional animals into the shelters, you can reduce the kill rate by 33% for any given quarter. But the killing resumes in the summer after all extra space has been squeezed.
As of July 1, 10 p.m., the LAAS website lists 2,446 animals in the shelter under the category "lost," and a smaller number up for adoption. It does not list the number of animals in the Annex. So, we are talking 3,000 animals. That is two months of intake.
Boks:
We placed 22K dogs and cats in 12 months. We are the #1 pet adoption agency in the world!
Rebuttal:
He said that about Maricopa County too. In 2003 (the latest figure I have) they, along with private rescue partners, adopted out 21,425. During the past 12 months, LAAS with outside rescue groups have adopted out 20,728. I also understand he said NYC was the largest adoption agency also when he was there.
Boks:
We will have 3 vets in a few days, 6 within a month.
Rebuttal:
We’ll see. It is not promising that this is a week and a half since that meeting and we still have just 2 vets.
He said we would have a partnership with a vet school in San Bernadino. That never happened.
Rosendahl: Great report; great leadership.
I wish Rosendahl would get his staffers to actually look at the Boks operation and the Boks numbers.
PROVIDING INFORMATION AND ANALYSES OF ANIMAL ISSUES IN LOS ANGELES http://losanglesveterinarian.blogspot.com/
Boks' Letter to the Editor Rebutted
.
Ed Boks responds to the Daily News article on his progressive clarified statements regarding his new policy on restricted hours for owner turn-ins:
“Readers must wonder how the Daily News can find fault with L.A. Animal Services' attempt to educate pet owners on what might be the most fatal decision they will ever make for their once-loved pet.”
My response:
“Education” is a lie. He thought he could slip by his new policy that would help his numbers and was caught in an avalanche of public protest. He back pedaled so many times I thought he was going to go out and snatch pets from their homes to show how willing he is to impound animals—and then kill them.
His final clarification came after Council and the mayor were inundated with protests? “I didn’t really mean it. This was my puerile attempt at educating the public about the shelter overcrowding problem and also to save my artificially created numbers so I am not fired by the mayor.”
Boks goes on to say:
Readers should ask why more time is not spent on real news, like the challenges we face, the progress we're making in modernizing the department and saving animals, and making Los Angeles the first major metropolitan "no-kill" city in the United States.
My response:
This means, “Why am I not getting away with this increased dumping policy? It worked in Arizona. Muzika, Bell, Guss and Sorentino are really bastards.”
The real news is that LAAS has made almost no improvement towards no-kill. The euthanasia rate for all animals combined with the died-in-shelter due to disease and injury has actually caused a downturn in the live save rate.
Things are getting worse not better. Boks is the first More-Kill general manager hired by any mayor. Why isn’t Villaraigosa, who promised to make the new GM accountable to the community, not accounting?
Boks:
“Instead of editorials like "Just kidding," why not focus on how the department places nearly 21,000 pets into loving homes and returns 4,500 lost pets to their grateful guardians each year ù and has reduced pet euthanasia to a historic low.”
My response:
Yes, “pet” euthanasia has decreased to a historic low, but stored animals has increased to a historic high, as have the number of animals—especially “other animals and rabbits” who have been euthanized or have died in shelter.
The number of animals actually saved is dead even with before, even while the rate of saving has decreased.
“Progress to no-kill?” Another you must be kidding. He used the same statement in Phoenix and NYC. In Phoenix, his strategy was to charge owners for turn-ins. Less animals were turned in and more dumped in a ravine, hit by cars or eaten by coyotes.
I do agree with his policy of charging for turn ins, especially for feral cats. But this needs to work in conjunction with stiff anti-dumping laws, which we have in California, but are never enforced by LAAS or anyone else.
.
Ed Boks responds to the Daily News article on his progressive clarified statements regarding his new policy on restricted hours for owner turn-ins:
“Readers must wonder how the Daily News can find fault with L.A. Animal Services' attempt to educate pet owners on what might be the most fatal decision they will ever make for their once-loved pet.”
My response:
“Education” is a lie. He thought he could slip by his new policy that would help his numbers and was caught in an avalanche of public protest. He back pedaled so many times I thought he was going to go out and snatch pets from their homes to show how willing he is to impound animals—and then kill them.
His final clarification came after Council and the mayor were inundated with protests? “I didn’t really mean it. This was my puerile attempt at educating the public about the shelter overcrowding problem and also to save my artificially created numbers so I am not fired by the mayor.”
Boks goes on to say:
Readers should ask why more time is not spent on real news, like the challenges we face, the progress we're making in modernizing the department and saving animals, and making Los Angeles the first major metropolitan "no-kill" city in the United States.
My response:
This means, “Why am I not getting away with this increased dumping policy? It worked in Arizona. Muzika, Bell, Guss and Sorentino are really bastards.”
The real news is that LAAS has made almost no improvement towards no-kill. The euthanasia rate for all animals combined with the died-in-shelter due to disease and injury has actually caused a downturn in the live save rate.
Things are getting worse not better. Boks is the first More-Kill general manager hired by any mayor. Why isn’t Villaraigosa, who promised to make the new GM accountable to the community, not accounting?
Boks:
“Instead of editorials like "Just kidding," why not focus on how the department places nearly 21,000 pets into loving homes and returns 4,500 lost pets to their grateful guardians each year ù and has reduced pet euthanasia to a historic low.”
My response:
Yes, “pet” euthanasia has decreased to a historic low, but stored animals has increased to a historic high, as have the number of animals—especially “other animals and rabbits” who have been euthanized or have died in shelter.
The number of animals actually saved is dead even with before, even while the rate of saving has decreased.
“Progress to no-kill?” Another you must be kidding. He used the same statement in Phoenix and NYC. In Phoenix, his strategy was to charge owners for turn-ins. Less animals were turned in and more dumped in a ravine, hit by cars or eaten by coyotes.
I do agree with his policy of charging for turn ins, especially for feral cats. But this needs to work in conjunction with stiff anti-dumping laws, which we have in California, but are never enforced by LAAS or anyone else.
.
Live Save Rate Down Since Boks Started
.
Live save is the terrm describing what percentage of animals that go into the shelter alive, leave alive.
They can go out dead to, from euthanasia, disease and fighting/injury.
If you cut euthanasia but the died in shelter rate increases, you could have a lower live save rate than the year before.
Now what is the current live release rate vs. that before Boks arrived?
The following is from Ann Angelino.
The results are really horrible. Things have gotten worse since he got here!
2006
cats/dogs 54%
rabbits 51%
others 56%
total 54.40%
2005
cats/dogs 53%
rabbits 80%
others 63%
total 55.12%
Currently, in the last 12 months it is 53.92% but it was 55.12% before he got here. He's made things worse. Big deal fewer are euth'd when more are dying.
Broken down last 12 months vs previous 12 months by category.
last 12 months
cats/dogs 55.11%
rabbits 51%
others 47%
previous 12 months
cats/dogs 54.4%
rabbits 69%
others 64%
Rabbits and others are paying the heavier price. They are also the ones dying in the shelter.
Live save is the terrm describing what percentage of animals that go into the shelter alive, leave alive.
They can go out dead to, from euthanasia, disease and fighting/injury.
If you cut euthanasia but the died in shelter rate increases, you could have a lower live save rate than the year before.
Now what is the current live release rate vs. that before Boks arrived?
The following is from Ann Angelino.
The results are really horrible. Things have gotten worse since he got here!
2006
cats/dogs 54%
rabbits 51%
others 56%
total 54.40%
2005
cats/dogs 53%
rabbits 80%
others 63%
total 55.12%
Currently, in the last 12 months it is 53.92% but it was 55.12% before he got here. He's made things worse. Big deal fewer are euth'd when more are dying.
Broken down last 12 months vs previous 12 months by category.
last 12 months
cats/dogs 55.11%
rabbits 51%
others 47%
previous 12 months
cats/dogs 54.4%
rabbits 69%
others 64%
Rabbits and others are paying the heavier price. They are also the ones dying in the shelter.
Astounding Info From Arizona
.
If this is true, Boks is one of the worst scoundrels around. However, given the reliability of some of the information provided to me in the past by employees or ex-employees, I will not venture to assign a truth value to this information.
I can assure you, I will attempt to find secondary validation.
I have been speaking to someone from Arizona. They said Boks refused animals in when he got full. People dumped them in the parking lot. Fortunately there is a ravine there between the shelter and the road and most of the animals stayed in the ravine. Some didn't and were hit by cars. Rescuers would try to catch the animals in the parking lot. For those they couldn't catch they left food and water.
Boks did the same overcrowding and refusing tactics in Arizona that he is doing here. It had the same horrible effect on animals being dumped, or dying in the shelter from illness and injury. He knows this doesn't help animals but he is doing it for his numbers. This person said that the same thing happened in New York. (This would be hearsay about hearsay, and the truth value may drop to close to zero.
Concerning the consequences of his overcrowding in our own shelters, I hear more animals are being returned because they are sick. Same thing happened in New York. This is a more substantiated rumor.
I lived in Arizona for some time in the Phoenix area. It is an aweful place to be during the summer where temperatures routinely reach 114 degrees or more. Sometimes a month may pass where the daytime high is over a hundred.
On top of that, rural Phoenix is coyote central. As in some parts of LA, they wander through the streets and fields all during the night and early morning.
There is such consistent bad news about Boks it is hard to know what to say.
If this is true, Boks is one of the worst scoundrels around. However, given the reliability of some of the information provided to me in the past by employees or ex-employees, I will not venture to assign a truth value to this information.
I can assure you, I will attempt to find secondary validation.
I have been speaking to someone from Arizona. They said Boks refused animals in when he got full. People dumped them in the parking lot. Fortunately there is a ravine there between the shelter and the road and most of the animals stayed in the ravine. Some didn't and were hit by cars. Rescuers would try to catch the animals in the parking lot. For those they couldn't catch they left food and water.
Boks did the same overcrowding and refusing tactics in Arizona that he is doing here. It had the same horrible effect on animals being dumped, or dying in the shelter from illness and injury. He knows this doesn't help animals but he is doing it for his numbers. This person said that the same thing happened in New York. (This would be hearsay about hearsay, and the truth value may drop to close to zero.
Concerning the consequences of his overcrowding in our own shelters, I hear more animals are being returned because they are sick. Same thing happened in New York. This is a more substantiated rumor.
I lived in Arizona for some time in the Phoenix area. It is an aweful place to be during the summer where temperatures routinely reach 114 degrees or more. Sometimes a month may pass where the daytime high is over a hundred.
On top of that, rural Phoenix is coyote central. As in some parts of LA, they wander through the streets and fields all during the night and early morning.
There is such consistent bad news about Boks it is hard to know what to say.
Live Save Rate Down Since Boks Started
.
Live save is the terrm describing what percentage of animals that go into the shelter alive, leave alive.
They can go out dead to, from euthanasia, disease and fighting/injury.
If you cut euthanasia but the died in shelter rate increases, you could have a lower live save rate than the year before.
Now what is the current live release rates for 2005, 2006 and currently?
The following is from Ann Angelino.
The results are really horrible. Things have gotten worse since Boks got here!
2006
cats/dogs 54%
rabbits 51%
others 56%
total 54.40%
2005
cats/dogs 53%
rabbits 80%
others 63%
total 55.12%
Currently, in the last 12 months it is 53.92% but it was 55.12% before he got here. He's made things worse. Big deal fewer are euth'd and more are dying.
Broken down last 12 months vs previous 12 months by category.
last 12 months
cats/dogs 55.11%
rabbits 51%
others 47%
previous 12 months
cats/dogs 54.4%
rabbits 69%
others 64%
It's rabbits and others that are paying the heavier price. those are also the ones dying in the shelter.
.
Live save is the terrm describing what percentage of animals that go into the shelter alive, leave alive.
They can go out dead to, from euthanasia, disease and fighting/injury.
If you cut euthanasia but the died in shelter rate increases, you could have a lower live save rate than the year before.
Now what is the current live release rates for 2005, 2006 and currently?
The following is from Ann Angelino.
The results are really horrible. Things have gotten worse since Boks got here!
2006
cats/dogs 54%
rabbits 51%
others 56%
total 54.40%
2005
cats/dogs 53%
rabbits 80%
others 63%
total 55.12%
Currently, in the last 12 months it is 53.92% but it was 55.12% before he got here. He's made things worse. Big deal fewer are euth'd and more are dying.
Broken down last 12 months vs previous 12 months by category.
last 12 months
cats/dogs 55.11%
rabbits 51%
others 47%
previous 12 months
cats/dogs 54.4%
rabbits 69%
others 64%
It's rabbits and others that are paying the heavier price. those are also the ones dying in the shelter.
.
Boks More Kill Totals for the Past 12 Months
.
Ed's performance for the past 12 months vs thew previous 12 months:
LIVE RELEASES - Adoption, New Hope, Foster, Released to foster,
Returned to owner
Last 12 months for all animals 30007/55649 = 53.92%
Previous 12 months all animals 31173/55535=56.13%
THE LIVE RELEASE RATE IS DOWN!!
It is down by 2%, just as his past annual report predicted.
Boks has made things worse since he got here.
1,166 fewer animals made it out alive during the last 12 months.
For cats/dogs only:
Last 12 months 25628/46495=55.1%
Previous 12 months 24937/45839=54.4%
This is the only category that shows EVEN SMALL PROGRESS--up .5%
Rabbits only:
Last 12 months 626/1217=51%
Previous 12 months 784/1142=69%
LIVE RELEASE IS DOWN 18%
Others only:
Last 12 months 3753/7937=47%
Previous 12 months 5452/8554=64%
LIVE RELEASE IS DOWN 17%
DEAD RELEASES - Animals euthanized and animals that died in the shelter. This does not include DOA.
Last 12 months total animals that died in shelter (sick, injured) 2075
Previous 12 months total animals that died 1109
ALMOST DOUBLE!
last 12 months total animals euthanized 21070
Previous 12 months total animals euthanized 22008
Total that were euthanized and died last 12 months 23145
Total that were euthanized and died previous 12 months 23117
This is a dead wash. There has been no improvement.
All he did was let 1,000 more animals die a cruel and painful death from illness and injury.
Ed's performance for the past 12 months vs thew previous 12 months:
LIVE RELEASES - Adoption, New Hope, Foster, Released to foster,
Returned to owner
Last 12 months for all animals 30007/55649 = 53.92%
Previous 12 months all animals 31173/55535=56.13%
THE LIVE RELEASE RATE IS DOWN!!
It is down by 2%, just as his past annual report predicted.
Boks has made things worse since he got here.
1,166 fewer animals made it out alive during the last 12 months.
For cats/dogs only:
Last 12 months 25628/46495=55.1%
Previous 12 months 24937/45839=54.4%
This is the only category that shows EVEN SMALL PROGRESS--up .5%
Rabbits only:
Last 12 months 626/1217=51%
Previous 12 months 784/1142=69%
LIVE RELEASE IS DOWN 18%
Others only:
Last 12 months 3753/7937=47%
Previous 12 months 5452/8554=64%
LIVE RELEASE IS DOWN 17%
DEAD RELEASES - Animals euthanized and animals that died in the shelter. This does not include DOA.
Last 12 months total animals that died in shelter (sick, injured) 2075
Previous 12 months total animals that died 1109
ALMOST DOUBLE!
last 12 months total animals euthanized 21070
Previous 12 months total animals euthanized 22008
Total that were euthanized and died last 12 months 23145
Total that were euthanized and died previous 12 months 23117
This is a dead wash. There has been no improvement.
All he did was let 1,000 more animals die a cruel and painful death from illness and injury.
What is Ed's True Resume?
.
Ed is going back and rewriting or deleting a lot of previous blog posts. He also no longer says he was the first shelter director to bring a municipal shelter to No-Kill while he was in Arizona. This after Brad Jensen's challenge to Boks to show the Maricopa Co. stats while Boks was there.
Now Ed is saying his new restricted hours policy was just a little joke, a public education gambit. Why doesn't he just admit that he withdrew the policy because of public and Council pressure? Does he have to lie all the time to make himself look perfect?
Now comes a new item. Has Boks been lying consistently about the years in his life between 1976 and 1993? Was he involved in animal control in Tennesee? What happened during those missing 17 years?
From Craigslist:
Ed Boks Strikes Again <> 06/25 01:58:28
Hello LA (Well, I would really say, "Hey Ya'll)I'm sorry to hear of your woes in the animal community surrounding Ed Boks.
I was the Humane Educator for a major southern city near Chattannooga, TN for 5 years.
I've never been a fan of Ed's. He came to Chattanooga and failed miserably there, too. I read an article in their newspaper about how "wonderful" he was & the numbers at the shelter. I called him on it. I wrote a letter to the editor about the manipulation of the numbers and anyone can sound good if they only euthanize "depressed" animals...heck, they're all depressed at the shelter!
I hate that LA is going through the same thing that NY & TN went through with Ed. I think that he is the con man of the animal welfare industry. He seems to say all the right things to talk his way into top paying top jobs, but then he can't deliver....so he talks his way into another top job somewhere else where, again, he can't cut it.
I got in lots of trouble for what I wrote. Apparently Ed doesn't like anyone to see through his words or call him on it. He emailed the Mayor, city councilmen, my boss. I got in lots of trouble. I told my boss, though, that I stood behind what I wrote. Perhaps I should not have written it from an official capacity, but it was still my opinion.
Unfortunately, he continues to run riot in other major urban areas.I'm sorry for your troubles, but when Ed is in the neighborhood, it doesn't surprise me at all.
I was in the animal welfare industry for the past 15 years. I've held almost every job possible within the industry. The last 3 years, I was the poster-child for compassion fatigue. I traded my "fun" M-F 8-4 job for a third shift desk job just to get out.
People like Ed are the reason people like me don't stay. It's futile.Thank you for your time.
It just gets curiouser and curiouser, doesn't it?
.
Ed is going back and rewriting or deleting a lot of previous blog posts. He also no longer says he was the first shelter director to bring a municipal shelter to No-Kill while he was in Arizona. This after Brad Jensen's challenge to Boks to show the Maricopa Co. stats while Boks was there.
Now Ed is saying his new restricted hours policy was just a little joke, a public education gambit. Why doesn't he just admit that he withdrew the policy because of public and Council pressure? Does he have to lie all the time to make himself look perfect?
Now comes a new item. Has Boks been lying consistently about the years in his life between 1976 and 1993? Was he involved in animal control in Tennesee? What happened during those missing 17 years?
From Craigslist:
Ed Boks Strikes Again <> 06/25 01:58:28
Hello LA (Well, I would really say, "Hey Ya'll)I'm sorry to hear of your woes in the animal community surrounding Ed Boks.
I was the Humane Educator for a major southern city near Chattannooga, TN for 5 years.
I've never been a fan of Ed's. He came to Chattanooga and failed miserably there, too. I read an article in their newspaper about how "wonderful" he was & the numbers at the shelter. I called him on it. I wrote a letter to the editor about the manipulation of the numbers and anyone can sound good if they only euthanize "depressed" animals...heck, they're all depressed at the shelter!
I hate that LA is going through the same thing that NY & TN went through with Ed. I think that he is the con man of the animal welfare industry. He seems to say all the right things to talk his way into top paying top jobs, but then he can't deliver....so he talks his way into another top job somewhere else where, again, he can't cut it.
I got in lots of trouble for what I wrote. Apparently Ed doesn't like anyone to see through his words or call him on it. He emailed the Mayor, city councilmen, my boss. I got in lots of trouble. I told my boss, though, that I stood behind what I wrote. Perhaps I should not have written it from an official capacity, but it was still my opinion.
Unfortunately, he continues to run riot in other major urban areas.I'm sorry for your troubles, but when Ed is in the neighborhood, it doesn't surprise me at all.
I was in the animal welfare industry for the past 15 years. I've held almost every job possible within the industry. The last 3 years, I was the poster-child for compassion fatigue. I traded my "fun" M-F 8-4 job for a third shift desk job just to get out.
People like Ed are the reason people like me don't stay. It's futile.Thank you for your time.
It just gets curiouser and curiouser, doesn't it?
.
Bos as a More-Kill GM
.
How dare Ed Boks give a talk on No-Kill next week. He has no idea of how to do no-kill.
Boks says LAAS has made great strides since he came in terms of modernization and lowered euthanasia and he is being unfairly criticized by arm chair fanatics.
But the posted statistics on the LAAS site reveal:Animals dying in the shelter from disease and injury have increased more dramatically than the drop in euthanasia.
Cats and Dogs died in shelter for the past 12 months is 812.Died in shelter the year before Ed came was 620.158 more cats and dogs have died of disease and abuse this past year than under Stuckey.
Rabbits euthanized during the past 12 months is 500; two years ago under Stuckey, it was 159.341 more rabbits were euthanized.
He killed 137 more ôOther Animals¤ during the past 12 months, than under Stuckey.
754 more ôOther Animals¤ died of disease or overcrowding this past year than the comparable year under Stuckey (1,206 vs. 452).
Therefore, the died in shelter from disease, abuse and euthanasia of rabbits and others during the past 12 months is 1,391.
1,391 MORE ANIMALS DIED DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS THAN UNDER STUCKEY, completely offsetting the gains made in cutting dog and cat euthanasia!
And what about those cats?
Rescuers tell me there are so many cats in EV that the cages are stacked so high you canْt see the cats in the top cages.
There are even more cats stuffed into two rooms not open to the public.Why on earth is Boks doing this? Those animals will never be adopted.
He is only storing them to make his numbers look better.
The cats get URI repeatedly, and he euthanizes them after the third treatment.
His strategy of storing animals is causing an extreme rise in the number dying in the shelter and will result in a huge euthanasia kill off because the cages canْt hold any more animals.Boks is actually substantially worse than Stuckey.
How dare Ed Boks give a talk on No-Kill next week. He has no idea of how to do no-kill.
Boks says LAAS has made great strides since he came in terms of modernization and lowered euthanasia and he is being unfairly criticized by arm chair fanatics.
But the posted statistics on the LAAS site reveal:Animals dying in the shelter from disease and injury have increased more dramatically than the drop in euthanasia.
Cats and Dogs died in shelter for the past 12 months is 812.Died in shelter the year before Ed came was 620.158 more cats and dogs have died of disease and abuse this past year than under Stuckey.
Rabbits euthanized during the past 12 months is 500; two years ago under Stuckey, it was 159.341 more rabbits were euthanized.
He killed 137 more ôOther Animals¤ during the past 12 months, than under Stuckey.
754 more ôOther Animals¤ died of disease or overcrowding this past year than the comparable year under Stuckey (1,206 vs. 452).
Therefore, the died in shelter from disease, abuse and euthanasia of rabbits and others during the past 12 months is 1,391.
1,391 MORE ANIMALS DIED DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS THAN UNDER STUCKEY, completely offsetting the gains made in cutting dog and cat euthanasia!
And what about those cats?
Rescuers tell me there are so many cats in EV that the cages are stacked so high you canْt see the cats in the top cages.
There are even more cats stuffed into two rooms not open to the public.Why on earth is Boks doing this? Those animals will never be adopted.
He is only storing them to make his numbers look better.
The cats get URI repeatedly, and he euthanizes them after the third treatment.
His strategy of storing animals is causing an extreme rise in the number dying in the shelter and will result in a huge euthanasia kill off because the cages canْt hold any more animals.Boks is actually substantially worse than Stuckey.
Boks as a More-Kill Manager
.
How dare Ed Boks give a talk on No-Kill next week. He has no idea of how to do no-kill.
Boks says LAAS has made great strides since he came in terms of modernization and lowered euthanasia and he is being unfairly criticized by arm chair fanatics.
But the posted statistics on the LAAS site reveal:Animals dying in the shelter from disease and injury have increased more dramatically than the drop in euthanasia.
Cats and Dogs died in shelter for the past 12 months is 812.Died in shelter the year before Ed came was 620.158 more cats and dogs have died of disease and abuse this past year than under Stuckey.
Rabbits euthanized during the past 12 months is 500; two years ago under Stuckey, it was 159.341 more rabbits were euthanized.
He killed 137 more “Other Animals” during the past 12 months, than under Stuckey.
754 more “Other Animals” died of disease or overcrowding this past year than the comparable year under Stuckey (1,206 vs. 452).
Therefore, the died in shelter from disease, abuse and euthanasia of rabbits and others during the past 12 months is 1,391.
1,391 MORE ANIMALS DIED DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS THAN UNDER STUCKEY, completely offsetting the gains made in cutting dog and cat euthanasia!
And what about those cats?
Rescuers tell me there are so many cats in EV that the cages are stacked so high you can’t see the cats in the top cages.
There are even more cats stuffed into two rooms not open to the public.Why on earth is Boks doing this? Those animals will never be adopted.
He is only storing them to make his numbers look better.
The cats get URI repeatedly, and he euthanizes them after the third treatment.
His strategy of storing animals is causing an extreme rise in the number dying in the shelter and will result in a huge euthanasia kill off because the cages can’t hold any more animals.Boks is actually substantially worse than Stuckey.
.
How dare Ed Boks give a talk on No-Kill next week. He has no idea of how to do no-kill.
Boks says LAAS has made great strides since he came in terms of modernization and lowered euthanasia and he is being unfairly criticized by arm chair fanatics.
But the posted statistics on the LAAS site reveal:Animals dying in the shelter from disease and injury have increased more dramatically than the drop in euthanasia.
Cats and Dogs died in shelter for the past 12 months is 812.Died in shelter the year before Ed came was 620.158 more cats and dogs have died of disease and abuse this past year than under Stuckey.
Rabbits euthanized during the past 12 months is 500; two years ago under Stuckey, it was 159.341 more rabbits were euthanized.
He killed 137 more “Other Animals” during the past 12 months, than under Stuckey.
754 more “Other Animals” died of disease or overcrowding this past year than the comparable year under Stuckey (1,206 vs. 452).
Therefore, the died in shelter from disease, abuse and euthanasia of rabbits and others during the past 12 months is 1,391.
1,391 MORE ANIMALS DIED DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS THAN UNDER STUCKEY, completely offsetting the gains made in cutting dog and cat euthanasia!
And what about those cats?
Rescuers tell me there are so many cats in EV that the cages are stacked so high you can’t see the cats in the top cages.
There are even more cats stuffed into two rooms not open to the public.Why on earth is Boks doing this? Those animals will never be adopted.
He is only storing them to make his numbers look better.
The cats get URI repeatedly, and he euthanizes them after the third treatment.
His strategy of storing animals is causing an extreme rise in the number dying in the shelter and will result in a huge euthanasia kill off because the cages can’t hold any more animals.Boks is actually substantially worse than Stuckey.
.
Yet Another Clarification on the New Policy
.
If Ed backpedals any further on his new policy by yet another "clarification," soon the department will be accepting owner and non-owner turn ins, 24/7, of any kind of neonatal cat, cat, dog, cow, mule, mink, fox, squirrel, insect, reptile and mollusk, no questions asked. Staff will even give them a thank you note. Of course, this is what Ed says, but the shelters will still be turning away animals as they were two months ago.
Imagine, even Scott is outraged.
There is no way now for Ed to avoid a July kill-off of epic proportions. At least now he is actually doing things he should have been doing 15 months ago.
He is transferring animals to West LA; a policy change. I hope it works; we all hope it works.
Boks is bashed enough; time to rescue the animals or set them free in Griffith Park with five staffers as shepherds.
.
If Ed backpedals any further on his new policy by yet another "clarification," soon the department will be accepting owner and non-owner turn ins, 24/7, of any kind of neonatal cat, cat, dog, cow, mule, mink, fox, squirrel, insect, reptile and mollusk, no questions asked. Staff will even give them a thank you note. Of course, this is what Ed says, but the shelters will still be turning away animals as they were two months ago.
Imagine, even Scott is outraged.
There is no way now for Ed to avoid a July kill-off of epic proportions. At least now he is actually doing things he should have been doing 15 months ago.
He is transferring animals to West LA; a policy change. I hope it works; we all hope it works.
Boks is bashed enough; time to rescue the animals or set them free in Griffith Park with five staffers as shepherds.
.
Re the Restricted Surrender Hours
.
Actually, the below is quite well argued. It makes a lot of sense. I may change my position.
Rescue & Humane Alliance-Los Angeles
As you may know, LA Animal Services recently announced a new policy substantially restricting the hours that shelters will accept owner-surrendered animals from the public (see attached press release).
According to this policy, members of the public will only be permitted to surrender animals during specific "receiving hours" (2-5pm Wednesday/Friday and 2-7pm Tuesday/Thursday). There will be no weekend relinquishment hours.
Within days after the initial press release, General Manager Ed Boks wrote a follow-up blog (reprinted below for your convenience) stating that in practice the staff will not refuse animals at other times if the member of the public persists.
In order to fully evaluate this policy (even as amended), one needs to look not at an "ideal world," where this policy might have arguable merit, but in the "world in which we live," where the consequences will almost certainly be disastrous. Among the many reasons this policy is unworkable, here are five:
1. People rebuffed at the shelter (and only some will be insistent) are not going to suddenly have a "change of heart." Neither will those who by chance become aware of the policy and feel the times are too inconvenient. They will likely tie their animals to a tree, simply let them go, or dump them somewhere else. This shows blatant disregard for public safety, a charter-mandated function of animal services, and the welfare of the animals.
2. When animal services picks up these newly-dumped animals as strays, they will no longer be immediately available for adoption (as they otherwise would have been as owner-surrendered), but instead will be unavailable for 4 days. This will have the unintended effect of additionally taxing shelter staff and resources.
3. This policy does not affect strays, so people will simply say the animals they are dumping are stray. Has no one in management discussed this with experienced staff who see this every day?
4. Some people will be confused and think the policy does apply to strays, and thus be less likely to help a stray they might encounter in a dangerous situation (on the freeway, on a busy street, etc.). Staff are frequently confused about shelter policies, so imagine how confused the public will be.
5. The restricted hours seem to be deliberately inconvenient so that very few people would be available at these times. In fact, these hours are openly antagonistic to the public, which will likely lead to a high volume of complaints.
This is a careless, thoughtless, and reckless policy - almost an act of desperation. It says that despite all of the "new" programs, the shelters are more overwhelmed than ever and have no real plan and no real solutions. It seeks to address the problem by not addressing the problem. It amounts to a refusal by LA Animal Services to perform its charter-mandated public safety function. It seeks to improve statistics at the expense of animal welfare. Its governing principle is: if the animals are not in the shelter (because we refuse to intake them), they are not our problem, they won't affect our statistics, and we don't give a damn what happens to them.
RHA-LA is outraged, and you should be, too! Please join us by imploring the City Council, the LAAS Commisioners and General Manager Ed Boks to immediately repeal this policy and implement proven programs and services that will actually address the underlying causes of pet relinquishment.
When the shelter has experienced, compassionate volunteer or staff relinquishment counselors at every shelter, and when comprehensive pet retention programs are in place, THEN maybe limitations on hours for relinquishment would make sense. But even then, the hours will have to be convenient for the public. In fact, because this education is so important, the hours should be the most convenient for the public.
REPLY to this message in the next 24 hours and we will compile the responses and share them with your City Councilmembers, LAAS Commissioners, LAAS Senior Staff and the Mayor's office. Thank you.
Board of Directors
Rescue & Humane Alliance-Los Angeles
.
Actually, the below is quite well argued. It makes a lot of sense. I may change my position.
Rescue & Humane Alliance-Los Angeles
As you may know, LA Animal Services recently announced a new policy substantially restricting the hours that shelters will accept owner-surrendered animals from the public (see attached press release).
According to this policy, members of the public will only be permitted to surrender animals during specific "receiving hours" (2-5pm Wednesday/Friday and 2-7pm Tuesday/Thursday). There will be no weekend relinquishment hours.
Within days after the initial press release, General Manager Ed Boks wrote a follow-up blog (reprinted below for your convenience) stating that in practice the staff will not refuse animals at other times if the member of the public persists.
In order to fully evaluate this policy (even as amended), one needs to look not at an "ideal world," where this policy might have arguable merit, but in the "world in which we live," where the consequences will almost certainly be disastrous. Among the many reasons this policy is unworkable, here are five:
1. People rebuffed at the shelter (and only some will be insistent) are not going to suddenly have a "change of heart." Neither will those who by chance become aware of the policy and feel the times are too inconvenient. They will likely tie their animals to a tree, simply let them go, or dump them somewhere else. This shows blatant disregard for public safety, a charter-mandated function of animal services, and the welfare of the animals.
2. When animal services picks up these newly-dumped animals as strays, they will no longer be immediately available for adoption (as they otherwise would have been as owner-surrendered), but instead will be unavailable for 4 days. This will have the unintended effect of additionally taxing shelter staff and resources.
3. This policy does not affect strays, so people will simply say the animals they are dumping are stray. Has no one in management discussed this with experienced staff who see this every day?
4. Some people will be confused and think the policy does apply to strays, and thus be less likely to help a stray they might encounter in a dangerous situation (on the freeway, on a busy street, etc.). Staff are frequently confused about shelter policies, so imagine how confused the public will be.
5. The restricted hours seem to be deliberately inconvenient so that very few people would be available at these times. In fact, these hours are openly antagonistic to the public, which will likely lead to a high volume of complaints.
This is a careless, thoughtless, and reckless policy - almost an act of desperation. It says that despite all of the "new" programs, the shelters are more overwhelmed than ever and have no real plan and no real solutions. It seeks to address the problem by not addressing the problem. It amounts to a refusal by LA Animal Services to perform its charter-mandated public safety function. It seeks to improve statistics at the expense of animal welfare. Its governing principle is: if the animals are not in the shelter (because we refuse to intake them), they are not our problem, they won't affect our statistics, and we don't give a damn what happens to them.
RHA-LA is outraged, and you should be, too! Please join us by imploring the City Council, the LAAS Commisioners and General Manager Ed Boks to immediately repeal this policy and implement proven programs and services that will actually address the underlying causes of pet relinquishment.
When the shelter has experienced, compassionate volunteer or staff relinquishment counselors at every shelter, and when comprehensive pet retention programs are in place, THEN maybe limitations on hours for relinquishment would make sense. But even then, the hours will have to be convenient for the public. In fact, because this education is so important, the hours should be the most convenient for the public.
REPLY to this message in the next 24 hours and we will compile the responses and share them with your City Councilmembers, LAAS Commissioners, LAAS Senior Staff and the Mayor's office. Thank you.
Board of Directors
Rescue & Humane Alliance-Los Angeles
.
Brad's Challenge Renewed
.
Boks claimed that he brought the first municipal shelter to no-kill in Arizona when he was there. That would be either 2002 or 2003. Winograd definitely brought a municipal shelter to no-kill in 2002 in Ithaca.
Since Boks killed 51% of the animals impounded in Maricopa Co. in 2003, how can he claim to have have brought any shelter to No-Kill?
I understand Maricopa Co. has two shelters and an adoption center. He claimed he brought one of the shelters to no-kill, not the entire county.
I want to reissue Brad Jensen's challenge to Boks to supply all of the Maricopa County's statistics for the time Ed was there--for all shelters and adoption centers. Brad will study and render a verdict. I'll publish the results.
Ed, this is the challenge. Will you accept, or will you avoid comment altogether?
.
Boks claimed that he brought the first municipal shelter to no-kill in Arizona when he was there. That would be either 2002 or 2003. Winograd definitely brought a municipal shelter to no-kill in 2002 in Ithaca.
Since Boks killed 51% of the animals impounded in Maricopa Co. in 2003, how can he claim to have have brought any shelter to No-Kill?
I understand Maricopa Co. has two shelters and an adoption center. He claimed he brought one of the shelters to no-kill, not the entire county.
I want to reissue Brad Jensen's challenge to Boks to supply all of the Maricopa County's statistics for the time Ed was there--for all shelters and adoption centers. Brad will study and render a verdict. I'll publish the results.
Ed, this is the challenge. Will you accept, or will you avoid comment altogether?
.
Press Release Ani...
.
In our continuing efforts at increasing our transparency, starting with the April 2007 report, we break down the former "Stolen" category into three more precise categories. Animals still shown in the "Stolen" category had a police report for the theft. Animals for which the outcome is not certain due to inputing errors or other techie problems are simply "Missing." We then added a few more unprecise categories which are also not "Euthanized" but some other condition.
These new categories include the following: "Abducted by aliens," "Spontaneous combustion," "Struck by lightning," "Kidnapped by the Russian mob," "Ran away to join the circus," "Transferred Lord only knows where," and the ever popular "Animal signed consent form to be used in animal research." Consequently, LA is now the first large municipal City to become "NoKill !
Honestly yours,
Ed Boks
.
In our continuing efforts at increasing our transparency, starting with the April 2007 report, we break down the former "Stolen" category into three more precise categories. Animals still shown in the "Stolen" category had a police report for the theft. Animals for which the outcome is not certain due to inputing errors or other techie problems are simply "Missing." We then added a few more unprecise categories which are also not "Euthanized" but some other condition.
These new categories include the following: "Abducted by aliens," "Spontaneous combustion," "Struck by lightning," "Kidnapped by the Russian mob," "Ran away to join the circus," "Transferred Lord only knows where," and the ever popular "Animal signed consent form to be used in animal research." Consequently, LA is now the first large municipal City to become "NoKill !
Honestly yours,
Ed Boks
.
LA Animal Services Opens Cages - Shuts Doors
by No-Kill Joe
LOS ANGELES - General Manager Ed Boks of the Los Angeles Department of Animal Services, in a controversial move which has come under fire from City Hall, ordered all cages at the City's six Animal Care Centers opened and all animals set free. Citing desperation in its failure to manage, care for and adopt out the thousands of homeless pets impounded each year, Boks said the Department was forced to take this unprecedented action early Saturday morning.
At 8am, residents were awakened by barking, caterwauling, and braying as over 1,500 cats, dogs and rabbits, together with hundreds of reptiles, 2 donkeys, 7 horses, and assorted livestock ran out of the six facilities and into the streets of Los Angeles.
Council offices and City Hall were immediately flooded with calls. While many expressed outrage, some animal activists praised the move. "I guess we're no-kill now!" proclaimed a representative of ADL-LA, a group which has criticized Boks for killing shelter animals, and organized protests at the homes of various officials.
The move wreaked havoc on busy intersections throughout the City, as animals
darted in and out of traffic. In Van Nuys, the sudden appearance of hundreds of cats and dogs bounding joyfully down Vanowen Street caused 6 separate collisions, injuring 12 people.
Elsewhere, residents experienced memorable encounters with the newly-freed pets. In Lincoln Heights, three exotic dancers from a local strip club were initially frightened when a pack of pit bulls and rottweilers ran up to them as they were leaving work. Surprisingly, the young women were ultimately greeted with kisses and tail wags from the happy pooches finally released from bondage.
Boks, who has been the subject of controversy throughout his 18-month tenure, cited the Department's inability to manage the thousands of animals in their care. "We just didn't know what to do. We're completely overwhelmed. If someone has a better idea, I'd like to hear it so I can write a blog to refute it."
The doors of each facility were closed as soon as the last animal passed safely through. Department officials said that barring a court order, they would not reopen.
Many employees expressed relief that they would no longer have to see animals killed every day. "I think it's a good move," said one shelter worker. "Look, if the General Manager doesn't know what to do, and he makes a six-figure salary, how am I supposed to figure this out for $13.75 an hour."
The president of the union that represents most of the shelter staff reassured members via email that regardless of the shelter closings, employees would be paid indefinitely their full salaries.
The Mayor, who sources say spent the night at a hotel with "a good friend," was unavailable for comment.
.
LOS ANGELES - General Manager Ed Boks of the Los Angeles Department of Animal Services, in a controversial move which has come under fire from City Hall, ordered all cages at the City's six Animal Care Centers opened and all animals set free. Citing desperation in its failure to manage, care for and adopt out the thousands of homeless pets impounded each year, Boks said the Department was forced to take this unprecedented action early Saturday morning.
At 8am, residents were awakened by barking, caterwauling, and braying as over 1,500 cats, dogs and rabbits, together with hundreds of reptiles, 2 donkeys, 7 horses, and assorted livestock ran out of the six facilities and into the streets of Los Angeles.
Council offices and City Hall were immediately flooded with calls. While many expressed outrage, some animal activists praised the move. "I guess we're no-kill now!" proclaimed a representative of ADL-LA, a group which has criticized Boks for killing shelter animals, and organized protests at the homes of various officials.
The move wreaked havoc on busy intersections throughout the City, as animals
darted in and out of traffic. In Van Nuys, the sudden appearance of hundreds of cats and dogs bounding joyfully down Vanowen Street caused 6 separate collisions, injuring 12 people.
Elsewhere, residents experienced memorable encounters with the newly-freed pets. In Lincoln Heights, three exotic dancers from a local strip club were initially frightened when a pack of pit bulls and rottweilers ran up to them as they were leaving work. Surprisingly, the young women were ultimately greeted with kisses and tail wags from the happy pooches finally released from bondage.
Boks, who has been the subject of controversy throughout his 18-month tenure, cited the Department's inability to manage the thousands of animals in their care. "We just didn't know what to do. We're completely overwhelmed. If someone has a better idea, I'd like to hear it so I can write a blog to refute it."
The doors of each facility were closed as soon as the last animal passed safely through. Department officials said that barring a court order, they would not reopen.
Many employees expressed relief that they would no longer have to see animals killed every day. "I think it's a good move," said one shelter worker. "Look, if the General Manager doesn't know what to do, and he makes a six-figure salary, how am I supposed to figure this out for $13.75 an hour."
The president of the union that represents most of the shelter staff reassured members via email that regardless of the shelter closings, employees would be paid indefinitely their full salaries.
The Mayor, who sources say spent the night at a hotel with "a good friend," was unavailable for comment.
.
Curious
.
Boks is a politician, he tells everybody different stories. In an April 17, 2007 news release by LAAS, Boks told Council:
"I am here today representing the 400 employees of Animal Services and the hundreds of volunteers and partners we have throughout Los Angeles who carry the burden and brunt of pet overpopulation everyday – as we take in, care for and ultimately kill 50% of the animals in our charge. This act is both a fiscally responsible and humane solution to our City’s vexing pet overpopulation woes, and I ask for your support.”
Why on earth would he say 50% of animals turned in are killed? To Council no less? This is actually worse than the 41% kill it was then.
Why would he tell them he has 400 employees when 320 are budgeted? In the past he has told Council LAAS has a budget of $25,000,000, but the new annual report just published says $18,000,000.
Ed, sometimes people actually listen to what you say and make note.
.
Boks is a politician, he tells everybody different stories. In an April 17, 2007 news release by LAAS, Boks told Council:
"I am here today representing the 400 employees of Animal Services and the hundreds of volunteers and partners we have throughout Los Angeles who carry the burden and brunt of pet overpopulation everyday – as we take in, care for and ultimately kill 50% of the animals in our charge. This act is both a fiscally responsible and humane solution to our City’s vexing pet overpopulation woes, and I ask for your support.”
Why on earth would he say 50% of animals turned in are killed? To Council no less? This is actually worse than the 41% kill it was then.
Why would he tell them he has 400 employees when 320 are budgeted? In the past he has told Council LAAS has a budget of $25,000,000, but the new annual report just published says $18,000,000.
Ed, sometimes people actually listen to what you say and make note.
.
Boks Bounces Back!
.
Ed has posted four new Rumor vs. Truth posts on ww.laanimalservices.org.
His responses sound plausible, but I don't know how truthful.
He states neonatals and nursing moms are not excluded by his new restricted hours for owner turn-ins. I guess they are not considered owner turn-ins, even if they were turned in by owners. He didn't state this in his policy announcement.
But he is turning away neonatals as there were considerably fewer impounds this past May ccompared to 2006, 233 to be exact. This can only be explained by a very slow kitten season or turning them away.
I agree with his new limited turn-in hours. Naysayers will say more will die on the streets, but dying is dying, whether by truck or by euthanol, and it is mere speculation on the naysayers' that accepts only the worst case scenario as an outcome.
.
Ed has posted four new Rumor vs. Truth posts on ww.laanimalservices.org.
His responses sound plausible, but I don't know how truthful.
He states neonatals and nursing moms are not excluded by his new restricted hours for owner turn-ins. I guess they are not considered owner turn-ins, even if they were turned in by owners. He didn't state this in his policy announcement.
But he is turning away neonatals as there were considerably fewer impounds this past May ccompared to 2006, 233 to be exact. This can only be explained by a very slow kitten season or turning them away.
I agree with his new limited turn-in hours. Naysayers will say more will die on the streets, but dying is dying, whether by truck or by euthanol, and it is mere speculation on the naysayers' that accepts only the worst case scenario as an outcome.
.
Brad Jensen Challenges Boks:
I remarked a few posts back that Boks has a way of using words very deceptively. (Lies) In his annual report as well as on his blog in the bio section, he claims to be the first shelter director to bring a municipal shelter to no-kill. This would be in Maricopa County, Arizona in 2002.
When I contronted him asking how this was possible when the kill rate was 51% that year, he replied Maricopa Co. had three shelters, and he brought one of them to no-kill.
However, one of those shelters is not a shelter, but an adoption center. I assume it was the adoption center he claims he brought to no-kill status. Well, an adoption center is not a shelter.
Brad Jensen, the statistical genius who has been tracking LAAS intake and disposition numbers has issued a challenge:
"Boks, provide me the animal records for those 3 Arizona shelters prior to and while you were there and we'll see what you achieved. You know how to get hold of me.
PS. Oh and Boks, you still owe me LAAS animal records. I paid you in good faith and you have yet to provide all the information I was told would be sent. Very suspicious."
Brad Jensen
So far--surprise, surprise--Boks has not accepted Jensen's challenge. How on earth an anyone claim to have brought a municipal shelter to no-kill when he killed 29,000 cats and dogs in 2003 out of 57,000 impounded?
As Edward R. Murrow said to McCarthy, "Have you no shame?"
I remarked a few posts back that Boks has a way of using words very deceptively. (Lies) In his annual report as well as on his blog in the bio section, he claims to be the first shelter director to bring a municipal shelter to no-kill. This would be in Maricopa County, Arizona in 2002.
When I contronted him asking how this was possible when the kill rate was 51% that year, he replied Maricopa Co. had three shelters, and he brought one of them to no-kill.
However, one of those shelters is not a shelter, but an adoption center. I assume it was the adoption center he claims he brought to no-kill status. Well, an adoption center is not a shelter.
Brad Jensen, the statistical genius who has been tracking LAAS intake and disposition numbers has issued a challenge:
"Boks, provide me the animal records for those 3 Arizona shelters prior to and while you were there and we'll see what you achieved. You know how to get hold of me.
PS. Oh and Boks, you still owe me LAAS animal records. I paid you in good faith and you have yet to provide all the information I was told would be sent. Very suspicious."
Brad Jensen
So far--surprise, surprise--Boks has not accepted Jensen's challenge. How on earth an anyone claim to have brought a municipal shelter to no-kill when he killed 29,000 cats and dogs in 2003 out of 57,000 impounded?
As Edward R. Murrow said to McCarthy, "Have you no shame?"
A New First:
.
LAAS is the first municipal shelter in the country to implement a closed door policy.
Like I said before. I agree in principle that not taking animals into the shelters saves lives, but it also makes others suffer more.
The problem is thrown back onto the community to solve for itself with few resources.
This is irresponsible and artificially brings LAAS to No-Kill. No animals; no kill.
There has to be some way for LAAS to help the rescue groups at this time, and not just provide the public with “resource” lists of full-up non-profits. Regarding neonatals, who he killed 5,600 last year, the situation is most desperate. he has to have some of his lazy-assed employees greet people at the shelter door telling people the truth about neonatals, returning the kittens to their moms, teaching how to bottle-feed, and working with groups to help them deal with the flood of kittens.
Why not assign some of his lazy-assed employees do nothing but bottle-feed and work with New Hope groups? Why not have some employees bottle feeding kittens in the shelter reception area when the public brings the kittens in? Anything.
What is happening with East Valley and the SALA's 150 day neonatal center?
One thing is unquestionable. Ed is not sharing the wealth or success with anyone else. He is not embracing offered help and expertise from the community or from across the country. He is not bringing the New Hope and welfare groups together for the common good. There is too much of Ed in everything. New Hope rescues have been down all during his tenure here.
Ed has to accept help from No-Kill experts and offered help from out the city.
I know of one shelter director who offered his shelter management expertise, free for the asking. Ed did not return his phone calls. For his own good and that of the animals he really needs to bring Nathan in, no matter how much humiliation this brings him. It will show the community he is working to help the animals not just his reputation.
Hell, he could ask for consulting help from Carl Friedman from the San Francisco municipal shelter instead of investing in programs that do not work.
Boks is going. There is no doubt about that at this point, maybe by March of next year.
There is a tiny chance if he were to embrace outside help and resources he could keep his job longer and a lot more lives would be saved.
This is a comment from an outside shelter director:
Like I said before. I agree in principle that not taking animals into the shelters saves lives, but it also makes others suffer more.
The problem is thrown back onto the community to solve for itself with few resources.
This is irresponsible and artificially brings LAAS to No-Kill. No animals; no kill.
There has to be some way for LAAS to help the rescue groups at this time, and not just provide the public with “resource” lists of full-up non-profits.
What is happening with East Valley and the SALAS 150 day neonatal center?
One thing is unquestionable. Ed is not sharing the wealth or success with anyone else. He is not embracing offered help and expertise from the community or from across the country. He is not bringing the New Hope and welfare groups together for the common good. There is too much of Ed in everything. New Hope rescues have been down all during his tenure here.
Ed has to accept help from No-Kill experts and offered help from out the city.
I know of one shelter director who offered his shelter management expertise, free for the asking. Ed did not return his phone calls. For his own good and that of the animals he really needs to bring Nathan in, no matter how much humiliation this brings him. It will show the community he is working to help the animals not just his reputation.
Hell, he could ask for consulting help from Carl Friedman from the San Francisco municipal shelter instead of investing in programs that do not work.
Boks is going. There is no doubt about that at this point, maybe by March of next year.
There is a tiny chance if he were to embrace outside help and resources he could keep his job longer and a lot more lives would be saved.
This is a comment on Ed's closed door admission policy by another shelter system director:
This policy is so bad! What he needs to do is say bring all unwanted pets to the shelter and offer free S/N's to people who bring in pets. They will likely keep one, the mom, and volunteers can foster the others and find homes for them. This should increase adoptions of cats and dogs significantly.
Transferring the problem to another day is stupid.
Thanks for the update and info. I think Mr. Boks is listening to the chickens while the coop burns down.
.
LAAS is the first municipal shelter in the country to implement a closed door policy.
Like I said before. I agree in principle that not taking animals into the shelters saves lives, but it also makes others suffer more.
The problem is thrown back onto the community to solve for itself with few resources.
This is irresponsible and artificially brings LAAS to No-Kill. No animals; no kill.
There has to be some way for LAAS to help the rescue groups at this time, and not just provide the public with “resource” lists of full-up non-profits. Regarding neonatals, who he killed 5,600 last year, the situation is most desperate. he has to have some of his lazy-assed employees greet people at the shelter door telling people the truth about neonatals, returning the kittens to their moms, teaching how to bottle-feed, and working with groups to help them deal with the flood of kittens.
Why not assign some of his lazy-assed employees do nothing but bottle-feed and work with New Hope groups? Why not have some employees bottle feeding kittens in the shelter reception area when the public brings the kittens in? Anything.
What is happening with East Valley and the SALA's 150 day neonatal center?
One thing is unquestionable. Ed is not sharing the wealth or success with anyone else. He is not embracing offered help and expertise from the community or from across the country. He is not bringing the New Hope and welfare groups together for the common good. There is too much of Ed in everything. New Hope rescues have been down all during his tenure here.
Ed has to accept help from No-Kill experts and offered help from out the city.
I know of one shelter director who offered his shelter management expertise, free for the asking. Ed did not return his phone calls. For his own good and that of the animals he really needs to bring Nathan in, no matter how much humiliation this brings him. It will show the community he is working to help the animals not just his reputation.
Hell, he could ask for consulting help from Carl Friedman from the San Francisco municipal shelter instead of investing in programs that do not work.
Boks is going. There is no doubt about that at this point, maybe by March of next year.
There is a tiny chance if he were to embrace outside help and resources he could keep his job longer and a lot more lives would be saved.
This is a comment from an outside shelter director:
Like I said before. I agree in principle that not taking animals into the shelters saves lives, but it also makes others suffer more.
The problem is thrown back onto the community to solve for itself with few resources.
This is irresponsible and artificially brings LAAS to No-Kill. No animals; no kill.
There has to be some way for LAAS to help the rescue groups at this time, and not just provide the public with “resource” lists of full-up non-profits.
What is happening with East Valley and the SALAS 150 day neonatal center?
One thing is unquestionable. Ed is not sharing the wealth or success with anyone else. He is not embracing offered help and expertise from the community or from across the country. He is not bringing the New Hope and welfare groups together for the common good. There is too much of Ed in everything. New Hope rescues have been down all during his tenure here.
Ed has to accept help from No-Kill experts and offered help from out the city.
I know of one shelter director who offered his shelter management expertise, free for the asking. Ed did not return his phone calls. For his own good and that of the animals he really needs to bring Nathan in, no matter how much humiliation this brings him. It will show the community he is working to help the animals not just his reputation.
Hell, he could ask for consulting help from Carl Friedman from the San Francisco municipal shelter instead of investing in programs that do not work.
Boks is going. There is no doubt about that at this point, maybe by March of next year.
There is a tiny chance if he were to embrace outside help and resources he could keep his job longer and a lot more lives would be saved.
This is a comment on Ed's closed door admission policy by another shelter system director:
This policy is so bad! What he needs to do is say bring all unwanted pets to the shelter and offer free S/N's to people who bring in pets. They will likely keep one, the mom, and volunteers can foster the others and find homes for them. This should increase adoptions of cats and dogs significantly.
Transferring the problem to another day is stupid.
Thanks for the update and info. I think Mr. Boks is listening to the chickens while the coop burns down.
.
Comments on the Policy Change
.
I'm just shocked that things are getting worse. Who would have ever believed that they'd just shutter the shelter doors to stop intake to reduce euthanasia numbers?
Blame not just Boks, but much of LAAS personnel. Someone told me 80% are deadheads.
In fact when Stuckey first started here he told someone that he had no idea the staff could possibly be so stupid and lazy. Now with Boks they are more than just stupid and lazy. They hate him because he comes from more of an activist background. The staff turned Boks in to the LAPD telling them he was a terrorist with ADL.
The City’s red tape, sociopaths in the Mayor’s Office (not Bickhart), stupid lazy employees working against you, Boks doesn't have an easy job. He bit off way more than he could chew and the animals are paying for it. He didn't think it'd be this bad. He thought activists would love him. Of course he brought a lot of this on himself by lying and making impossible projections.
We were told Debbie Knaan quit because she was offered a job she couldn't refuse. But any job would be unrefusable compared to working for this department. Employee problems, Boks' alleged criminal actions, Hayden act violations, fudging the books, upcoming lawsuits, activist opposition; who wants to go down with Boks?
It is Interesting that Knaan announced her resignation the day after ADL protested at her house.
Before she was the AGM, she knew there were major problems. She just thought she could fix them. I think she made progress but there are just too many problems.
You could make great new policies and programs but if the employees aren't implementing things, what's the point?
.
I'm just shocked that things are getting worse. Who would have ever believed that they'd just shutter the shelter doors to stop intake to reduce euthanasia numbers?
Blame not just Boks, but much of LAAS personnel. Someone told me 80% are deadheads.
In fact when Stuckey first started here he told someone that he had no idea the staff could possibly be so stupid and lazy. Now with Boks they are more than just stupid and lazy. They hate him because he comes from more of an activist background. The staff turned Boks in to the LAPD telling them he was a terrorist with ADL.
The City’s red tape, sociopaths in the Mayor’s Office (not Bickhart), stupid lazy employees working against you, Boks doesn't have an easy job. He bit off way more than he could chew and the animals are paying for it. He didn't think it'd be this bad. He thought activists would love him. Of course he brought a lot of this on himself by lying and making impossible projections.
We were told Debbie Knaan quit because she was offered a job she couldn't refuse. But any job would be unrefusable compared to working for this department. Employee problems, Boks' alleged criminal actions, Hayden act violations, fudging the books, upcoming lawsuits, activist opposition; who wants to go down with Boks?
It is Interesting that Knaan announced her resignation the day after ADL protested at her house.
Before she was the AGM, she knew there were major problems. She just thought she could fix them. I think she made progress but there are just too many problems.
You could make great new policies and programs but if the employees aren't implementing things, what's the point?
.