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.
.