.
I have posted several claims by former NYCACC employees that Ed Boks, at some point, made a policy decision to exclude owner requested euthanasias from euthanasia in general, which might explain 4% of the improvement in NYC's euth numbers.
A current allegation is that a lot of the "impounded" animals in the NYC shelters are actually still in the care of people who found the animals, and that the total number of currently impounded animals is: 181 cats, 140 dogs and 21 other animals, which is 342 animals on hand, including those at finders' homes.
On the other hand, LA currently (according to info on animals per shelter on the LAAS website) has curreently impounded: 1,100 dogs, 950 cats and 950 other animals. Therefore, according to calculations based on these observations/allegations, LAAS has warehoused 9 X the number as NYC.
This is relevant to Philly also, who currently has 120 dogs and 180 cats on hand (according to my sources. This may not be true; this may be the number of cat cages and dog kennels and the number of animals on hand may be triple that). I don't know how many Philly has in the "Other animal" category, if even they have any. Again, LAAS warehouses 10X as many as Philly.
The huge capability of LAAS to warehouse animals accounts for a lot of the decrease in killing. Until very recently, there has been no increases in adoptions or fosters. Even these would not explain the decreased killing. Not accepting neonatals would explain a lot, but warehousing them explains more.
The huge warehouse space allows LAAS to keep euth down for a much longer period of time than either Philly or NYC.
.
Something Positive About Boks
.
I talked to one of my friends who works at one of the shelters.
She says things have improved dramatically under Boks. Far fewer animals are being killed and all animals are being treated now compared two 2 years ago when it was very iffy if an animal got treated at all. They are also being kept longer--a lot longer, which she considered a good thing. (Adoptions are up. Fosters are up.)
She also said no animal was ever turned away from her shelter. She once saw some employees try to refuse a man from turning in his dog. He just laughed at them and said, “You are government employees, you can’t refuse to take the dog.” (I still agree that refusing owner turn-ins is a good idea no matter what some might think, at least with cats. On the streets they might have a higher survival rate than in the shelters.
The single biggest cause of euthanasia was neonates. When I informed her of the dramatic decrease in neonates being impounded, she said part of that was likely due to urging people who are turning in neonates to foster them. This was not a lot of people, but a few. These do not get booked in.
She didn’t think they were being reclassified after being booked in, but suggested darkly, that at some shelters, neonates turned in at night are not booked in, but the next day shift might just take them into a back room and euthanize them without ever booking them in. As a matter of fact this was an ADL allegation that Boks was dong in NY and at Maricopa.
Personally, I do not think either of these explanations would explain the hundreds of decreased neonate impounds, nor do I believe for a second Boks' explanation that the sudden and precipitous drop was due to spay/neuters last year. This explanation is plain silly, as there would have been a gradual decrease begining in March or so. I am jusr perplexed. However, I do believe Ed had something to do with this, either a policy change or numbers manipulation, or turning neonates away in ceratin shelters.
Now that I think about it, neonates may not have much chance of survival if not impounded and their deaths would have much more suffering involved. But, adult cats are different. They have a chance to survive in the streets or of owners actually making an effort to adopt the cats to friends and neighbors.
In any event, about 1,000 have disappeared compared to a year ago.
.
As someone else told me, "Be careful, the next GM you get may be worse." Food for thought.
.
I talked to one of my friends who works at one of the shelters.
She says things have improved dramatically under Boks. Far fewer animals are being killed and all animals are being treated now compared two 2 years ago when it was very iffy if an animal got treated at all. They are also being kept longer--a lot longer, which she considered a good thing. (Adoptions are up. Fosters are up.)
She also said no animal was ever turned away from her shelter. She once saw some employees try to refuse a man from turning in his dog. He just laughed at them and said, “You are government employees, you can’t refuse to take the dog.” (I still agree that refusing owner turn-ins is a good idea no matter what some might think, at least with cats. On the streets they might have a higher survival rate than in the shelters.
The single biggest cause of euthanasia was neonates. When I informed her of the dramatic decrease in neonates being impounded, she said part of that was likely due to urging people who are turning in neonates to foster them. This was not a lot of people, but a few. These do not get booked in.
She didn’t think they were being reclassified after being booked in, but suggested darkly, that at some shelters, neonates turned in at night are not booked in, but the next day shift might just take them into a back room and euthanize them without ever booking them in. As a matter of fact this was an ADL allegation that Boks was dong in NY and at Maricopa.
Personally, I do not think either of these explanations would explain the hundreds of decreased neonate impounds, nor do I believe for a second Boks' explanation that the sudden and precipitous drop was due to spay/neuters last year. This explanation is plain silly, as there would have been a gradual decrease begining in March or so. I am jusr perplexed. However, I do believe Ed had something to do with this, either a policy change or numbers manipulation, or turning neonates away in ceratin shelters.
Now that I think about it, neonates may not have much chance of survival if not impounded and their deaths would have much more suffering involved. But, adult cats are different. They have a chance to survive in the streets or of owners actually making an effort to adopt the cats to friends and neighbors.
In any event, about 1,000 have disappeared compared to a year ago.
.
As someone else told me, "Be careful, the next GM you get may be worse." Food for thought.
.
Eric Jones Spaygate II
.
Remember, Jone is not just getting a $320,000 a year contract amount, he is also getting fees from the City for spay/neuters performed for LAAS, which might be another $350,000 plus any services performed for the clinic as a private practice. We may be talking about $800-900,000 a year. AND, he does not have the usual expenses EVERY OTHER VET CLINIC FACES: facility rent, utilities and outlay of a lot of money for "major equipment."
What will Jones give the City in return?
He gives a 7% discount on LAAS requested spay/neuters. That's it basically.
Let us say he provides 2,500 cat spay/neuters and 2,500 dogs.
Let us say his fee is $60 (average for spay or neuter) for a cat and $90 average for dogs (spay/neuter from 8 lb males to 90 lb females). For all I know he is charging double this. Some one call his clinic to find out how much he charges the general public and let me know. I don't know how he is listed.
He gets approximately $150,000 for the LAAS cats he treats and $225,000 for dogs. He gives $25,000 back to the city.
The City is paying him $320,000 per year on contract, and he gets another $350,000 a year from the spay/neuters he does for the city. Therefore, he is getting $670,000 a year from LAAS and the City for 5,000 spay/neuters. If the city were to pay private vets $100 for each spay neuter instead of $30 or $60, the 5,000 operations would cost the City $500,000. BUT, Jones gets free rent, free utilities and free major equipment. He moves into a free, fully equipped clinic and is guaranteed at least $670,000 a year just from the City and who knows what other from a general practice with the public.
However, there is nothing in the contract that says how many spay/neueters Jone is to provide for LAAS. It must be mutually agreed upon. Ditto other services for LAAS and the public.
This is a deal like no other.
.
But, it allows Boks to say he opened a spay neuter clinic in a shelter, even if it provided no value to anyone except Jones and Boks.
.
Details of the contract from January Commission Minutes:
http://www.laanimalservices.com/PDF/commission/2007/012207Agd.pdf
.
Remember, Jone is not just getting a $320,000 a year contract amount, he is also getting fees from the City for spay/neuters performed for LAAS, which might be another $350,000 plus any services performed for the clinic as a private practice. We may be talking about $800-900,000 a year. AND, he does not have the usual expenses EVERY OTHER VET CLINIC FACES: facility rent, utilities and outlay of a lot of money for "major equipment."
What will Jones give the City in return?
He gives a 7% discount on LAAS requested spay/neuters. That's it basically.
Let us say he provides 2,500 cat spay/neuters and 2,500 dogs.
Let us say his fee is $60 (average for spay or neuter) for a cat and $90 average for dogs (spay/neuter from 8 lb males to 90 lb females). For all I know he is charging double this. Some one call his clinic to find out how much he charges the general public and let me know. I don't know how he is listed.
He gets approximately $150,000 for the LAAS cats he treats and $225,000 for dogs. He gives $25,000 back to the city.
The City is paying him $320,000 per year on contract, and he gets another $350,000 a year from the spay/neuters he does for the city. Therefore, he is getting $670,000 a year from LAAS and the City for 5,000 spay/neuters. If the city were to pay private vets $100 for each spay neuter instead of $30 or $60, the 5,000 operations would cost the City $500,000. BUT, Jones gets free rent, free utilities and free major equipment. He moves into a free, fully equipped clinic and is guaranteed at least $670,000 a year just from the City and who knows what other from a general practice with the public.
However, there is nothing in the contract that says how many spay/neueters Jone is to provide for LAAS. It must be mutually agreed upon. Ditto other services for LAAS and the public.
This is a deal like no other.
.
But, it allows Boks to say he opened a spay neuter clinic in a shelter, even if it provided no value to anyone except Jones and Boks.
.
Details of the contract from January Commission Minutes:
http://www.laanimalservices.com/PDF/commission/2007/012207Agd.pdf
.
The Jones SpayGate Saga
.
Just for your info, a lot of people have been contacting me about the Jones contract. They wanted to know where I got my info on the $1.6,000,000 sweatheart deal beyween the City and Eric Jones.
Below is from the City's CAO on a Council action of July 20, 2007 when Council approved:
I'll bet they didn't even read it before they passed it. It went through Public Safety after Boks authored it and set up the agreement.
The specific conditions of the contract and the source are in a previous blog entry.
File Number07-2044Last Changed Date07/23/2007TitleDR. ERIC D. JONES / CONTRACT / SOUTH LOS ANGELES SPAY AND NEUTER CLINICInitiated byCity Administrative OfficerSubjectTransmittal from the Mayor of a City Administrative Officer 0150-08240-0000 report, dated June 14, 2007, relative to a contractbetween the Department of animal Services and Dr. Eric D. Jones, DVM toprovide animal spay/neuter surgeries at the South Los Angeles Spay andNeuter Clinic, for a term of five years, with up to four one-yearrenewal options, at an estimated $1.6 million over the five year period.Date Received06/22/2007File History6-22-07 - For ref6-25-07 - Ref to Public Safety Committee 6-25-07 - File to Public Safety Committee Clerk7-13-07 - Council Action - Verbal Motion - Weiss Mover 2007 / Smith -ADOPTED - HEREBY MOVE that Council AUTHORIZE the General Manager,Department of animal Services to execute a contract with Eric D. Jones, DVM to perform animal spay/neuter surgeries at the South Los AngelesSpay and Neuter Clinic for five years for $1.6 million, with up to fourone-year renewals subject to the approval of the City Attorney as toform and legality.7-23-07 - File to Public Safety Committee Clerk OKsunset provision here. this program expires september 2008. I assume they will renew it if it's successful.
The contract specifics were presented to the Commision by Boks.
This RFP and subsequent recommendation of award of the Agreement is an important early step before the Departmentْs expansion of its animal shelter and care facilities, which will feature fully-equipped spay/neuter veterinary clinics, and therefore will enhance the Cityْs continuing efforts to spay/neuter the animal population.
What is does not say here is that LAAS is only getting a 7% discount on spay neuters on LAAS animals.
With the South Los Angeles clinic in the lead, these other five new clinics will provide spay and neuter services for shelter dogs and cats, feral cats as part of a sterilization program, and rabbits; services may also be provided to the public who may bring in their pets for sterilization and related medical assistance. These services are key to the Departmentْs goal of becoming the largest City in the United States with a successful ôNo-Kill¤ policy.
Yes, but letْs look at the agreement. Jones only gives the city a 7% discount on spay/neutering of LAAS animals!!! This is astounding. The public gets a 7% discount!! AND, get this, he can also conduct a private practice but must keep his fees at fair market rates and, he only has to give the City 10% of his private practice net income.
Under the proposed Agreement, which is based substantially on the RFP, Dr. Jones will perform spay/neuter surgeries on dogs, cats, and rabbits, and other ancillary medical procedures associated with the surgical sterilization, in conformance with all surgical standards as dictated by the California Veterinary Medical Practice Act. Dr. Jones shall also provide related veterinary services such as cursory pre-surgical physical examinations on all surgical candidates; Wellness Clinics (vaccine clinics); emergency medical treatments; micro-chipping all dogs, cats, and rabbits that are adopted from the Shelters if mutually agreed upon by Dr. Jones, the adopter, or requested by the Department; post-treatment care; and other services.
Notice, this long winded paragraph says nothing about provided exclusive no-cost services for LAAS animals. We are paying him $1,600,000 over 5 years for him to run his own private practice on the Cityْs dime. He gives LAAS a 7% discount. The City pays his utilities.
SIGNIFICANT AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS:Prices of ServicesCharges for spay/ neuter services are as set by the Board; prices of other services to the public shall be subject to Department disapproval, but are not to exceed prevailing market prices in the immediate area.(That is, he can provide services to the public as a private practitioner.)
EquipmentThe Department shall provide most major equipment required, such as surgical tables and sterilizers, and make them available for use by the contractor. Dr. Jones will be required to purchase all additional equipment and all medical supplies necessary to provide services.
Well, well, LAAS also provides the major equipment also.
Payments to CityIn consideration for the use of City property and equipment, Dr. Jones shall reimburse the Cityْs Animal Sterilization Fund for its costs and expenses quarterly as follows: a seven percent (7%) discount below pre-set base prices on all spay/neuter services billed to the Department; a payment to the Department of fifty percent (50%) of net profits from Wellness (vaccine) clinics up to $15,000 per year; and a payment to the Department of ten percent (10%) of other proposed veterinary services to be provided to the public by this clinic.
What the City gets out of this contract:A 7% discount on all spay/neuters for the City. 7%!!! He will also give $15,000 to the City out of shot clinic profits.
Cost of OperationsThe cost of setting up, staffing, maintaining, and performing related services under the Agreement shall be the responsibility of Dr. Jones. No extra charges shall be paid by the Department or the pet owner for dog, cat, and rabbit spay, and neuter surgery beyond those stated in the Agreement.UtilitiesThe City shall provide electricity, water, heating and air conditioning, and maintain the delivery systems thereof. Dr. Jones will be responsible for all additional utilities, including telephone service and data.
Dr. Jones has to pay for his own phone, but power, heating and water are paid for by the City.
Faithful Performance BondA Faithful Performance Bond shall be required of Dr. Jones prior to starting operations, for an amount of $36,600.00, to guarantee faithful performance of all work, within the time period prescribed, in a manner satisfactory to the City.EVALUATION:Dr. Jones exceeds the minimum experience in spay/neuter programs required in the RFP, having been practicing veterinary medicine for the past six years. He has provided such services within the City of Los Angeles, operating a veterinary clinic in Pacoima since 2002, during which time he provided spay/neuter services to the Department. As Dr. Jones proposed to move his staff and equipment from his current location to the South Los Angeles clinic, start-up operating costs will be minimized, which will allow him to focus his resources on continuing service levels and not on significant start-up costs.Dr. Jones proposed a seven percent (7%) discount below pre-set base prices on all spay/neuter services billed to the Department; a payment to the Department of fifty percent (50%) of net profits from Wellness (vaccine) clinics up to $15,000 per year; and a payment to the Department of ten percent (10%) of other proposed veterinary services to be provided by this clinic to the public.
The City gets 10% of Jones net profit of services offered to the public OUT OF CITY FACILITIES!! He is bringing his private practice from Pacoima.
The review of Jonesْ proposal, his interview, and confirmation of his credentials indicated sufficient qualifications and experience to operate the clinic as proposed. The evaluation of his proposal did not lend itself to use of a point system as there were no other competing proposals received in response to the RFP.It is hard to believe that with this cushy agreement, there were no other bids.FISCAL IMPACT:There is no impact to the General Fund. Funds will be used from Fund 543, Spay and Neuter Trust Fund; Fund 842, Animal Sterilization Trust Fund; and Fund 841, Veterinary Medical Trust Fund, in accordance with trust fund limitations and as they would be paid to an outside veterinarian. Due to savings of 7% on sterilizations, funds will be available to accomplish more surgeries. Revenue from work for the public will also supplement the funding for additional spay and neutering.That is, what the City gets ouit of all this is a 7% discount on spay/neuter for LAAS animals, and 10% of his net private practice income.What this particular announcement does not say is that the City is also paying him $320,000 per year for a 7% discount on LAAS spay/neuters.
Just for your info, a lot of people have been contacting me about the Jones contract. They wanted to know where I got my info on the $1.6,000,000 sweatheart deal beyween the City and Eric Jones.
Below is from the City's CAO on a Council action of July 20, 2007 when Council approved:
I'll bet they didn't even read it before they passed it. It went through Public Safety after Boks authored it and set up the agreement.
The specific conditions of the contract and the source are in a previous blog entry.
File Number07-2044Last Changed Date07/23/2007TitleDR. ERIC D. JONES / CONTRACT / SOUTH LOS ANGELES SPAY AND NEUTER CLINICInitiated byCity Administrative OfficerSubjectTransmittal from the Mayor of a City Administrative Officer 0150-08240-0000 report, dated June 14, 2007, relative to a contractbetween the Department of animal Services and Dr. Eric D. Jones, DVM toprovide animal spay/neuter surgeries at the South Los Angeles Spay andNeuter Clinic, for a term of five years, with up to four one-yearrenewal options, at an estimated $1.6 million over the five year period.Date Received06/22/2007File History6-22-07 - For ref6-25-07 - Ref to Public Safety Committee 6-25-07 - File to Public Safety Committee Clerk7-13-07 - Council Action - Verbal Motion - Weiss Mover 2007 / Smith -ADOPTED - HEREBY MOVE that Council AUTHORIZE the General Manager,Department of animal Services to execute a contract with Eric D. Jones, DVM to perform animal spay/neuter surgeries at the South Los AngelesSpay and Neuter Clinic for five years for $1.6 million, with up to fourone-year renewals subject to the approval of the City Attorney as toform and legality.7-23-07 - File to Public Safety Committee Clerk OKsunset provision here. this program expires september 2008. I assume they will renew it if it's successful.
The contract specifics were presented to the Commision by Boks.
This RFP and subsequent recommendation of award of the Agreement is an important early step before the Departmentْs expansion of its animal shelter and care facilities, which will feature fully-equipped spay/neuter veterinary clinics, and therefore will enhance the Cityْs continuing efforts to spay/neuter the animal population.
What is does not say here is that LAAS is only getting a 7% discount on spay neuters on LAAS animals.
With the South Los Angeles clinic in the lead, these other five new clinics will provide spay and neuter services for shelter dogs and cats, feral cats as part of a sterilization program, and rabbits; services may also be provided to the public who may bring in their pets for sterilization and related medical assistance. These services are key to the Departmentْs goal of becoming the largest City in the United States with a successful ôNo-Kill¤ policy.
Yes, but letْs look at the agreement. Jones only gives the city a 7% discount on spay/neutering of LAAS animals!!! This is astounding. The public gets a 7% discount!! AND, get this, he can also conduct a private practice but must keep his fees at fair market rates and, he only has to give the City 10% of his private practice net income.
Under the proposed Agreement, which is based substantially on the RFP, Dr. Jones will perform spay/neuter surgeries on dogs, cats, and rabbits, and other ancillary medical procedures associated with the surgical sterilization, in conformance with all surgical standards as dictated by the California Veterinary Medical Practice Act. Dr. Jones shall also provide related veterinary services such as cursory pre-surgical physical examinations on all surgical candidates; Wellness Clinics (vaccine clinics); emergency medical treatments; micro-chipping all dogs, cats, and rabbits that are adopted from the Shelters if mutually agreed upon by Dr. Jones, the adopter, or requested by the Department; post-treatment care; and other services.
Notice, this long winded paragraph says nothing about provided exclusive no-cost services for LAAS animals. We are paying him $1,600,000 over 5 years for him to run his own private practice on the Cityْs dime. He gives LAAS a 7% discount. The City pays his utilities.
SIGNIFICANT AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS:Prices of ServicesCharges for spay/ neuter services are as set by the Board; prices of other services to the public shall be subject to Department disapproval, but are not to exceed prevailing market prices in the immediate area.(That is, he can provide services to the public as a private practitioner.)
EquipmentThe Department shall provide most major equipment required, such as surgical tables and sterilizers, and make them available for use by the contractor. Dr. Jones will be required to purchase all additional equipment and all medical supplies necessary to provide services.
Well, well, LAAS also provides the major equipment also.
Payments to CityIn consideration for the use of City property and equipment, Dr. Jones shall reimburse the Cityْs Animal Sterilization Fund for its costs and expenses quarterly as follows: a seven percent (7%) discount below pre-set base prices on all spay/neuter services billed to the Department; a payment to the Department of fifty percent (50%) of net profits from Wellness (vaccine) clinics up to $15,000 per year; and a payment to the Department of ten percent (10%) of other proposed veterinary services to be provided to the public by this clinic.
What the City gets out of this contract:A 7% discount on all spay/neuters for the City. 7%!!! He will also give $15,000 to the City out of shot clinic profits.
Cost of OperationsThe cost of setting up, staffing, maintaining, and performing related services under the Agreement shall be the responsibility of Dr. Jones. No extra charges shall be paid by the Department or the pet owner for dog, cat, and rabbit spay, and neuter surgery beyond those stated in the Agreement.UtilitiesThe City shall provide electricity, water, heating and air conditioning, and maintain the delivery systems thereof. Dr. Jones will be responsible for all additional utilities, including telephone service and data.
Dr. Jones has to pay for his own phone, but power, heating and water are paid for by the City.
Faithful Performance BondA Faithful Performance Bond shall be required of Dr. Jones prior to starting operations, for an amount of $36,600.00, to guarantee faithful performance of all work, within the time period prescribed, in a manner satisfactory to the City.EVALUATION:Dr. Jones exceeds the minimum experience in spay/neuter programs required in the RFP, having been practicing veterinary medicine for the past six years. He has provided such services within the City of Los Angeles, operating a veterinary clinic in Pacoima since 2002, during which time he provided spay/neuter services to the Department. As Dr. Jones proposed to move his staff and equipment from his current location to the South Los Angeles clinic, start-up operating costs will be minimized, which will allow him to focus his resources on continuing service levels and not on significant start-up costs.Dr. Jones proposed a seven percent (7%) discount below pre-set base prices on all spay/neuter services billed to the Department; a payment to the Department of fifty percent (50%) of net profits from Wellness (vaccine) clinics up to $15,000 per year; and a payment to the Department of ten percent (10%) of other proposed veterinary services to be provided by this clinic to the public.
The City gets 10% of Jones net profit of services offered to the public OUT OF CITY FACILITIES!! He is bringing his private practice from Pacoima.
The review of Jonesْ proposal, his interview, and confirmation of his credentials indicated sufficient qualifications and experience to operate the clinic as proposed. The evaluation of his proposal did not lend itself to use of a point system as there were no other competing proposals received in response to the RFP.It is hard to believe that with this cushy agreement, there were no other bids.FISCAL IMPACT:There is no impact to the General Fund. Funds will be used from Fund 543, Spay and Neuter Trust Fund; Fund 842, Animal Sterilization Trust Fund; and Fund 841, Veterinary Medical Trust Fund, in accordance with trust fund limitations and as they would be paid to an outside veterinarian. Due to savings of 7% on sterilizations, funds will be available to accomplish more surgeries. Revenue from work for the public will also supplement the funding for additional spay and neutering.That is, what the City gets ouit of all this is a 7% discount on spay/neuter for LAAS animals, and 10% of his net private practice income.What this particular announcement does not say is that the City is also paying him $320,000 per year for a 7% discount on LAAS spay/neuters.
The Mysterious Disappearing Neonates
.
Two years ago according to LAAS stats, for May and June the number of neonatal puppies and kittens impounded was 2220. This year it was 1550. That is a decrease of 670 animals or 31%.
This is extraordinary and especially surprising for two reasons:
In the ten months leading up to these extraordinary two months, LAAS actually took in 200 animals more than the year before. Then, suddenly, in a two month period, they took in almost 700 less!
This by itself would be extraordinary. But there is more.
A quick run through of all five years of unweaned dog and cat figures shows there has never been two contiguous months with such a large drop in intakes. Never. Every now and again there would be a drop of 200 or so for isolated months compared to the year before, but never two months together at a rate of 335 a month.
Now Ed is claiming the June drop was the result of the previous year's spay/neuter efforst by LAAS. This is the most ridiculous nonsense I ever heard. Why did the reduction start only in April throguh June? Why wasn't Jan-March lower? Impounds were actually 200 more than 2006 before going into these Bermuda Triangle months when the neonates just disappeared.
Where did they go?
In addition, in March-June of this year, 271 neonates just disappeared! They were impounded, but there is no statistic as to what happened to them. They were not fostered, adopted, or euthanized. They just disappeared. They checked in but they didn't check out. Probably Ed reclassified them as cats, and cat euthanasia did not drop much.
Between these two extraordinary, unexplained statistics, we get an even more unexplainable statistic: unweaned euthanasia is down nearly a thousand (956) for just the past two months, which makes just about a thousand fewer euths than last year. These two months changed everything.
Now I have been told that animals are not being turned away. But, come on, 670 fewer than last year? AND, nearly 300 are unaccounted for without explanation.
This is why Boks transparency is transparent no more. No one can trust anything that comes out of the department.
By the way, do you think Eric Jones, DVM is Boks’ cousin? Maybe Villaraigosa's? Didn't Schwartzenegger give AV's sister a cushy job? Maybe Eric is related to Blackman, who the more we know about him, the sleasier he seems to get.
But this makes me think. Maybe Chick ought to look into the Eric Jones RFP process, his being the only bid to get a free $320,000+ free rent+ free equipment + free utilities, and the analysis done by whoever did it in the City and gave this whopper deal to Jones. Why is it only Jones put in a bid, and a bid that did only him good, certainly not LAAS or the City?
.
Two years ago according to LAAS stats, for May and June the number of neonatal puppies and kittens impounded was 2220. This year it was 1550. That is a decrease of 670 animals or 31%.
This is extraordinary and especially surprising for two reasons:
In the ten months leading up to these extraordinary two months, LAAS actually took in 200 animals more than the year before. Then, suddenly, in a two month period, they took in almost 700 less!
This by itself would be extraordinary. But there is more.
A quick run through of all five years of unweaned dog and cat figures shows there has never been two contiguous months with such a large drop in intakes. Never. Every now and again there would be a drop of 200 or so for isolated months compared to the year before, but never two months together at a rate of 335 a month.
Now Ed is claiming the June drop was the result of the previous year's spay/neuter efforst by LAAS. This is the most ridiculous nonsense I ever heard. Why did the reduction start only in April throguh June? Why wasn't Jan-March lower? Impounds were actually 200 more than 2006 before going into these Bermuda Triangle months when the neonates just disappeared.
Where did they go?
In addition, in March-June of this year, 271 neonates just disappeared! They were impounded, but there is no statistic as to what happened to them. They were not fostered, adopted, or euthanized. They just disappeared. They checked in but they didn't check out. Probably Ed reclassified them as cats, and cat euthanasia did not drop much.
Between these two extraordinary, unexplained statistics, we get an even more unexplainable statistic: unweaned euthanasia is down nearly a thousand (956) for just the past two months, which makes just about a thousand fewer euths than last year. These two months changed everything.
Now I have been told that animals are not being turned away. But, come on, 670 fewer than last year? AND, nearly 300 are unaccounted for without explanation.
This is why Boks transparency is transparent no more. No one can trust anything that comes out of the department.
By the way, do you think Eric Jones, DVM is Boks’ cousin? Maybe Villaraigosa's? Didn't Schwartzenegger give AV's sister a cushy job? Maybe Eric is related to Blackman, who the more we know about him, the sleasier he seems to get.
But this makes me think. Maybe Chick ought to look into the Eric Jones RFP process, his being the only bid to get a free $320,000+ free rent+ free equipment + free utilities, and the analysis done by whoever did it in the City and gave this whopper deal to Jones. Why is it only Jones put in a bid, and a bid that did only him good, certainly not LAAS or the City?
.
Comment on the Sweetheart Deal with Jones
.
Comment on my Jones post below:
The City can't even hire vets for the shelters. How could they possibly recruit spayneuter vets? I believe they had hired a vet for the clinic a while back but he quit. Remember, they were going to open the SLA spayneuter clinic two years ago I think, but it never panned out.
Let's look at the math again. $320,000 for a vet and probably vet tech, receptionist to run the clinic. Vet $100,000, vet tech $48,000, receptionist $30,000. That's $180,000 just for salaries.
You still have to pay for supplies, phone, insurance... They could easily be at $250,000 for the Dept to run the clinic on their own. And what if the vet quits? The clinic shuts down. While I do think the vet is getting a great deal, this is probably the only way the dept can get the clinic up and running right now. Maybe in a few years they can renegotiate.
----------------------------
What the commenter is not saying, is that the City does not even get ONE free spay/neuter out of this deal even after paying him a third of a million dollars a year. They have set Jones up in a private practice on City property and he charges the City like any other private client. Also, the contract says Jones can come or go any time he wants. There is nothing said about how many spay/neuters he is to do a year, either for the public or LAAS, or limitations placed on non-spay/neuter services.
THIS IS NOT A SITUATION THAT BENEFITS THE TAXPAYING PUBLIC OR LAAS IN ANY WAY OTHER THAT TO ALLOW BOKS TO SAY HE GOT A SPAY/NEUTER CLINIC RUNNING. THE ONLY BENEFIT LAAS GETS IS A 7% REDUCTION IN SPAY/NEUTER CHARGES, WHICH MAY BE ENOUGH TO PAY FOR AN EXTRA 400 SPAY/NEUTERS A YEAR AFTER PAYING FULL FEE ON 5,000. MAYBE. THIS IS PURE BOKS PR.
The $320,000 could buy 5,000 free surgeries for the public with $60 certificates; some vets take them as full fee (Noreda in Northridge and the Value Vets). As it is, Jones get the $320,000 and we, and the public, pay him almost full fee for spay neuters in addition. I wonder if Jones wants to go public; I'd like to buy stock in his government subsidized private practice.
.
Comment on my Jones post below:
The City can't even hire vets for the shelters. How could they possibly recruit spayneuter vets? I believe they had hired a vet for the clinic a while back but he quit. Remember, they were going to open the SLA spayneuter clinic two years ago I think, but it never panned out.
Let's look at the math again. $320,000 for a vet and probably vet tech, receptionist to run the clinic. Vet $100,000, vet tech $48,000, receptionist $30,000. That's $180,000 just for salaries.
You still have to pay for supplies, phone, insurance... They could easily be at $250,000 for the Dept to run the clinic on their own. And what if the vet quits? The clinic shuts down. While I do think the vet is getting a great deal, this is probably the only way the dept can get the clinic up and running right now. Maybe in a few years they can renegotiate.
----------------------------
What the commenter is not saying, is that the City does not even get ONE free spay/neuter out of this deal even after paying him a third of a million dollars a year. They have set Jones up in a private practice on City property and he charges the City like any other private client. Also, the contract says Jones can come or go any time he wants. There is nothing said about how many spay/neuters he is to do a year, either for the public or LAAS, or limitations placed on non-spay/neuter services.
THIS IS NOT A SITUATION THAT BENEFITS THE TAXPAYING PUBLIC OR LAAS IN ANY WAY OTHER THAT TO ALLOW BOKS TO SAY HE GOT A SPAY/NEUTER CLINIC RUNNING. THE ONLY BENEFIT LAAS GETS IS A 7% REDUCTION IN SPAY/NEUTER CHARGES, WHICH MAY BE ENOUGH TO PAY FOR AN EXTRA 400 SPAY/NEUTERS A YEAR AFTER PAYING FULL FEE ON 5,000. MAYBE. THIS IS PURE BOKS PR.
The $320,000 could buy 5,000 free surgeries for the public with $60 certificates; some vets take them as full fee (Noreda in Northridge and the Value Vets). As it is, Jones get the $320,000 and we, and the public, pay him almost full fee for spay neuters in addition. I wonder if Jones wants to go public; I'd like to buy stock in his government subsidized private practice.
.
Don't Become Cynical of No-Kill
.
Many of you have grown cynical about "No Kill."
But what Ed has done here, in NYC and in Maricopa is a perversion of no-kill.
But I don't think the concept is worthless no matter what that the Naysayers or Merritt from Animal People say.
When a shelter system the size of SF can have an 80% save rate and the SF/SPCA a 93% save rate, for a combined 87%, I'd say that with proper facilities, a good enough budget, employees who care and a shelter director dedicated to community outreach and building a volunteer base, a kill rate of 20% is attainable in even the largest shelter system. Of course, this is just my opinion.
When the smaller systems are getting a 93% save rate in just a few months, it means great changes can be made nearly overnight with proper and committed management and a manageable sized shelter system.
Philly, I think is a good test case as to what can be done with such a small shelter (120 dogs, 180 cats) in a middle-sized shelter system. I will make an arrangement with them to track their progress. They will be a true test case.
I doubt they will get to be No-Kill within another year, but I bet they make it to 75% save for cats by next year. If they had three times the space and three times the budget, they could do a lot better. They are unionized but do not have civil service, making firing easier. But Ed didn't have civil service in NYC either.
As someone pointed out, there are probably between 400-700,000 housed cats in LA and about the same number of dogs.
Figuring an average lifespan for cats of 10 years (14 if they were just indoor), the death rate would create a yearly replacement market for an estimated 60,000 cats and maybe 60,000 dogs. These are just replacement openings, but there is always a growing population that can absorb more.
If we take SF's 80% save for a Good-Enough No-Kill, we'd have to find homes for 36,000 dogs and cats, less than 1/3 of the openings. We'll give the benefit of the doubt that 20% are untreatable, meaning too sick, injured or aggressive to be adopted. I think this is attainable within a 2-3 year time frame even if spay/neuter does not decrease impounds.
I think the concept of No-Kill and the goal of no-kill are extraordinarily important. It is already being implemented all over the country in smaller shelters, SF seems to be closing in on Good Enough No-Kill, and Philly is a test case of what can be done within a three year time span.
.
Many of you have grown cynical about "No Kill."
But what Ed has done here, in NYC and in Maricopa is a perversion of no-kill.
But I don't think the concept is worthless no matter what that the Naysayers or Merritt from Animal People say.
When a shelter system the size of SF can have an 80% save rate and the SF/SPCA a 93% save rate, for a combined 87%, I'd say that with proper facilities, a good enough budget, employees who care and a shelter director dedicated to community outreach and building a volunteer base, a kill rate of 20% is attainable in even the largest shelter system. Of course, this is just my opinion.
When the smaller systems are getting a 93% save rate in just a few months, it means great changes can be made nearly overnight with proper and committed management and a manageable sized shelter system.
Philly, I think is a good test case as to what can be done with such a small shelter (120 dogs, 180 cats) in a middle-sized shelter system. I will make an arrangement with them to track their progress. They will be a true test case.
I doubt they will get to be No-Kill within another year, but I bet they make it to 75% save for cats by next year. If they had three times the space and three times the budget, they could do a lot better. They are unionized but do not have civil service, making firing easier. But Ed didn't have civil service in NYC either.
As someone pointed out, there are probably between 400-700,000 housed cats in LA and about the same number of dogs.
Figuring an average lifespan for cats of 10 years (14 if they were just indoor), the death rate would create a yearly replacement market for an estimated 60,000 cats and maybe 60,000 dogs. These are just replacement openings, but there is always a growing population that can absorb more.
If we take SF's 80% save for a Good-Enough No-Kill, we'd have to find homes for 36,000 dogs and cats, less than 1/3 of the openings. We'll give the benefit of the doubt that 20% are untreatable, meaning too sick, injured or aggressive to be adopted. I think this is attainable within a 2-3 year time frame even if spay/neuter does not decrease impounds.
I think the concept of No-Kill and the goal of no-kill are extraordinarily important. It is already being implemented all over the country in smaller shelters, SF seems to be closing in on Good Enough No-Kill, and Philly is a test case of what can be done within a three year time span.
.
Comment on Jones Sweetheart Deal With LAAS
.
No one seems to care about Jones sweetheart deal with LAAS. Almost no comments. Finally I got one from a former animal shelter director:
Ed,
I cannot believe this! The City could hire vets to perform the work for less. This is really wierd and unusual. Did LAAS check with SCVMA for referals and references?
The moving from Pacima to an LAAS's shelter with equipment is beyond belief. The cost of running a clinic is unbelieveable.
------------------
Think of it. The City is paying Jones $320,000 a year for no free say neuters and to support Jone's private practice, for which the City gets 10% of the net income. Of course net may be closer to gross than in most practices, as Jones is not paying rent or utilities.
Certainly Ed could buy two qualified vets who would jump at the chance to make $120,000 a year and two cheap techs. AND, the spay/neuters would be FREE.
.
No one seems to care about Jones sweetheart deal with LAAS. Almost no comments. Finally I got one from a former animal shelter director:
Ed,
I cannot believe this! The City could hire vets to perform the work for less. This is really wierd and unusual. Did LAAS check with SCVMA for referals and references?
The moving from Pacima to an LAAS's shelter with equipment is beyond belief. The cost of running a clinic is unbelieveable.
------------------
Think of it. The City is paying Jones $320,000 a year for no free say neuters and to support Jone's private practice, for which the City gets 10% of the net income. Of course net may be closer to gross than in most practices, as Jones is not paying rent or utilities.
Certainly Ed could buy two qualified vets who would jump at the chance to make $120,000 a year and two cheap techs. AND, the spay/neuters would be FREE.
.
Naysayers Bark Up the Wrong Tree
.
I have two Naysayers who make regular “contributions” to this blog. One sends me every negative article about any Winograd-related shelter that has announced any degree of success. The other Naysayer is frankly insane. If I don’t post her comments, mainly because she doesn’t know how to write or her arguments do not make sense, she (or he) begins to send me comments like, “Ed, you are certifiable,” or “You need help,” or the like. Naturally, this is not a way of getting on my good side. I wish “Cheap Shot” would let me know who she (or he) is so I can send her equally ugly remarks.
However, this morning, Naysayer #1 sent me an article she thought was negative about the Philadelphia shelter. Unfortunately, the article did not present the full stats and I will ask Tara or Susan for them.
For the past month, Philly killed 400 kittens, adopted 150 and fostered 700. Naysayer figured this was indictment enough of all Winograd projects and the concept of no kill altogether.
But let’s look at the record.
Philly has 46 employees to LAAS 350. Philly has a budget under $4,000,000 while LAAS has $25,000,000.
The current LAAS animal statistics are too bizarre to take seriously, such as May-June when 291 neonates were unaccounted for. So I will use the July figures for 2006 before Ed’s lying got out of control.
LAS Neonatal numbers, July 2006:
Adopted------------26
New Hope----------71
Fostered------------23
Killed--------------857
Impounded------1,088
So Philly, with a workforce 1/8 the size of LAAS, adopted over 50% more of kittens in raw numbers. It fostered 2,800% more. Of course, the numbers from Philly are for kittens I guess, not neonates, and the fosters probably are including all kittens and all cats, not just neonates. (and maybe fostered dogs too?)
But if we include all cats for LAAS we get:
Adopted-------500
New Hope----150
Fostered------- 24
Killed---------1,171
Impounded--2,643
As I said, we do not have comparable numbers. The ones from Philly do not discriminate neonates from kittens, and neither do the LAAS numbers.
But note that the LAAS fosters are a tiny fraction of Philly’s meaning they have a powerful force of volunteers.
Look Naysayers, please stick it; you don’t know what you are talking about. LAAS killed 3 times as many at Philly and fostered 1/28th.
Adoptions appear comparable though except after Philly's 2 for 1 sale, when they adopt out 4 months worth of cats in 4 days.
.
I have two Naysayers who make regular “contributions” to this blog. One sends me every negative article about any Winograd-related shelter that has announced any degree of success. The other Naysayer is frankly insane. If I don’t post her comments, mainly because she doesn’t know how to write or her arguments do not make sense, she (or he) begins to send me comments like, “Ed, you are certifiable,” or “You need help,” or the like. Naturally, this is not a way of getting on my good side. I wish “Cheap Shot” would let me know who she (or he) is so I can send her equally ugly remarks.
However, this morning, Naysayer #1 sent me an article she thought was negative about the Philadelphia shelter. Unfortunately, the article did not present the full stats and I will ask Tara or Susan for them.
For the past month, Philly killed 400 kittens, adopted 150 and fostered 700. Naysayer figured this was indictment enough of all Winograd projects and the concept of no kill altogether.
But let’s look at the record.
Philly has 46 employees to LAAS 350. Philly has a budget under $4,000,000 while LAAS has $25,000,000.
The current LAAS animal statistics are too bizarre to take seriously, such as May-June when 291 neonates were unaccounted for. So I will use the July figures for 2006 before Ed’s lying got out of control.
LAS Neonatal numbers, July 2006:
Adopted------------26
New Hope----------71
Fostered------------23
Killed--------------857
Impounded------1,088
So Philly, with a workforce 1/8 the size of LAAS, adopted over 50% more of kittens in raw numbers. It fostered 2,800% more. Of course, the numbers from Philly are for kittens I guess, not neonates, and the fosters probably are including all kittens and all cats, not just neonates. (and maybe fostered dogs too?)
But if we include all cats for LAAS we get:
Adopted-------500
New Hope----150
Fostered------- 24
Killed---------1,171
Impounded--2,643
As I said, we do not have comparable numbers. The ones from Philly do not discriminate neonates from kittens, and neither do the LAAS numbers.
But note that the LAAS fosters are a tiny fraction of Philly’s meaning they have a powerful force of volunteers.
Look Naysayers, please stick it; you don’t know what you are talking about. LAAS killed 3 times as many at Philly and fostered 1/28th.
Adoptions appear comparable though except after Philly's 2 for 1 sale, when they adopt out 4 months worth of cats in 4 days.
.
Boks Says Muzika Kills
.
Boks and Bickhart are continuing to say about critics as they did last year: ADL and other critics are killing the animals through their criticism. I latched onto that litany myself a year ago and attacked Ed's critics.
But I cannot understand how criticism hurts the department's (Ed's) ability to place animals. As a matter of fact, LAAS showed NO IMPROVEMENT in percentages or number of animals killed or saved until a few of us began to attack Ed's lousy performance as opposed to attacking his faulted character.
April, May and June numbers are better this year, but as I stated in the previous post, this is best explained by LAAS doing less and turning animals away.
I challenge Ed and Jim to tell me, the retired other blogger, Brad Jensen, Mike Bell, Dan Guss and a few others, how our criticism is killing animals and how everything would work out much better if we just smiled, patted Ed on the back, and said good job.
Couldn't Bush say the same thing (Oh, I forgot, he is), that it is criticism of his policies that is aiding the terrorists and killing our troops?
Can Ed blame Guss for LAAS not getting vets because Guss complains about not getting vets? Is Boks going to get more vets because no one complains about having enough vets. Does this mean if you don't hear about a problem it will fix itself in LAAS?
Ed and Jim, and the other Jim, quit blaming others for your inability to make LAAS work.
.
Boks and Bickhart are continuing to say about critics as they did last year: ADL and other critics are killing the animals through their criticism. I latched onto that litany myself a year ago and attacked Ed's critics.
But I cannot understand how criticism hurts the department's (Ed's) ability to place animals. As a matter of fact, LAAS showed NO IMPROVEMENT in percentages or number of animals killed or saved until a few of us began to attack Ed's lousy performance as opposed to attacking his faulted character.
April, May and June numbers are better this year, but as I stated in the previous post, this is best explained by LAAS doing less and turning animals away.
I challenge Ed and Jim to tell me, the retired other blogger, Brad Jensen, Mike Bell, Dan Guss and a few others, how our criticism is killing animals and how everything would work out much better if we just smiled, patted Ed on the back, and said good job.
Couldn't Bush say the same thing (Oh, I forgot, he is), that it is criticism of his policies that is aiding the terrorists and killing our troops?
Can Ed blame Guss for LAAS not getting vets because Guss complains about not getting vets? Is Boks going to get more vets because no one complains about having enough vets. Does this mean if you don't hear about a problem it will fix itself in LAAS?
Ed and Jim, and the other Jim, quit blaming others for your inability to make LAAS work.
.
Boks Failure to Do Job is Paying Off in Terms of Fewer Unweaned Animals Killed
.
Boks failure to do his job of impounding and placing unweaned cats and dogs is paying off in terms of fewer animals killed. Of course, they may be dying on the streets now. We no longer have any accountability.
THE JUNE STATS FOR UNWEANED KITTENS AND PUPPIES HAVE NOT BEEN PUBLISHED YET ON THE LAAS WEBSITE. THE REASON IS THAT IT MAKES VERY CLEAR THAT MOST OF THE IMPROVEMENT IN DIMINISHED ANIMALS KILLED IS DUE TO TURNING AWAY ANIMALS, NOT INCREASED ADOPTIONS, NEW HOPE, FOSTER, ETC. THESE PLAY A MINOR ROLE.
Euth was down 1,093 for April-June of this year for unweaned cats and dogs (dogs are always a very small number compared to cats), but impounds from refusing animals were down 674. AND, 291 of the impounded kittens in May/June were never accounted for in the statistical outcomes. They check in, but they don't check out. 291 and 674 is 965 which explains almost all of the decreased killing of neonatals.
Adoptions were up 136 from a year ago, but down 1 from two years ago. LAAS did a poor job last year under his reign.
New Hope was down 76 from a year ago and 285 from 2 years ago. Guess New Hopes don't like working with the new LAAS.
The one bright spot is fosters, which are up 235 form a year ago and 257 from 2 years ago. For this, a yea.
LAAS is killing 1,400 fewer neonates than 2 years ago, but intake is also down 1,267 animals, explaining almost all of the fewer animals killed.
Moral of the story: the more animals turned away, the fewer euthanized. Of course, as I said before, I agree with this policy even though we don't know how many lives it saves or not, and it is a cheap way of improving Boks numbers: just don't do your job and then brag about how little you did.
.
Boks failure to do his job of impounding and placing unweaned cats and dogs is paying off in terms of fewer animals killed. Of course, they may be dying on the streets now. We no longer have any accountability.
THE JUNE STATS FOR UNWEANED KITTENS AND PUPPIES HAVE NOT BEEN PUBLISHED YET ON THE LAAS WEBSITE. THE REASON IS THAT IT MAKES VERY CLEAR THAT MOST OF THE IMPROVEMENT IN DIMINISHED ANIMALS KILLED IS DUE TO TURNING AWAY ANIMALS, NOT INCREASED ADOPTIONS, NEW HOPE, FOSTER, ETC. THESE PLAY A MINOR ROLE.
Euth was down 1,093 for April-June of this year for unweaned cats and dogs (dogs are always a very small number compared to cats), but impounds from refusing animals were down 674. AND, 291 of the impounded kittens in May/June were never accounted for in the statistical outcomes. They check in, but they don't check out. 291 and 674 is 965 which explains almost all of the decreased killing of neonatals.
Adoptions were up 136 from a year ago, but down 1 from two years ago. LAAS did a poor job last year under his reign.
New Hope was down 76 from a year ago and 285 from 2 years ago. Guess New Hopes don't like working with the new LAAS.
The one bright spot is fosters, which are up 235 form a year ago and 257 from 2 years ago. For this, a yea.
LAAS is killing 1,400 fewer neonates than 2 years ago, but intake is also down 1,267 animals, explaining almost all of the fewer animals killed.
Moral of the story: the more animals turned away, the fewer euthanized. Of course, as I said before, I agree with this policy even though we don't know how many lives it saves or not, and it is a cheap way of improving Boks numbers: just don't do your job and then brag about how little you did.
.
Comment Left re Vet-Gate-My rebuttal
.
A comment that came in:
The city already allocated those funds. If they don't use them for spay neuter, they go back to the general city fund. It would be more effective to give more coupons but not that many vets will take them. And, the person still has to pay for blood tests, vaccinations before they will do surgery. The $30 and $60 coupons only help a little in some cases. While it wasn't the best deal for the city, it's better than nothing and the money is basically free to the department.
I don't get it. This person thinks we get a deal for setting this guy up in private practice in a LAAS, with free rent, free equipment, free utilities, and he doesn't have to do even one free spay/neuter for the city, and that's supposed to be a bargain????
If he does 1000 spay/neuters for LAAS and charges $100 each, the City pays him an additional $100,000 less a $7,000 dollar discount? For this $7,000 discount we pay $320,000 contract amount plus $93,000 for LAAS spay/neuters?
I don't get how anyone thinks this is fair for the city at all.
The objection is that the $30-$60 certificates do not cover the entire price of the spay/neuter. That's true, but blood tests for surgery are not need if the cat is young and most will be kittens. Many vets accept the $60 certificate as full payment (Noreda Clinic, Value Vet), and $320,000 would buy 10,000 certificates.
As it is, the $320,000 does not buy even one free spay/neuter for LAAS. Am I missing something? This guy is getting a free lunch, free dinner and free beakfast, plus snacks.
.
.
A comment that came in:
The city already allocated those funds. If they don't use them for spay neuter, they go back to the general city fund. It would be more effective to give more coupons but not that many vets will take them. And, the person still has to pay for blood tests, vaccinations before they will do surgery. The $30 and $60 coupons only help a little in some cases. While it wasn't the best deal for the city, it's better than nothing and the money is basically free to the department.
I don't get it. This person thinks we get a deal for setting this guy up in private practice in a LAAS, with free rent, free equipment, free utilities, and he doesn't have to do even one free spay/neuter for the city, and that's supposed to be a bargain????
If he does 1000 spay/neuters for LAAS and charges $100 each, the City pays him an additional $100,000 less a $7,000 dollar discount? For this $7,000 discount we pay $320,000 contract amount plus $93,000 for LAAS spay/neuters?
I don't get how anyone thinks this is fair for the city at all.
The objection is that the $30-$60 certificates do not cover the entire price of the spay/neuter. That's true, but blood tests for surgery are not need if the cat is young and most will be kittens. Many vets accept the $60 certificate as full payment (Noreda Clinic, Value Vet), and $320,000 would buy 10,000 certificates.
As it is, the $320,000 does not buy even one free spay/neuter for LAAS. Am I missing something? This guy is getting a free lunch, free dinner and free beakfast, plus snacks.
.
.
Comments on Vet-Gate
.
An insider comment was left below:
Boks said he'd get the clinics up and running. Turns out the spay neuter clinics in the new shelters won't be done until next year. He wants to make it seem like he's doing something so he approves any offer. There was only one person interested in this RFP, Dr. Eric Jones. He could name his price, and he did.
Another way to look at it I guess is to figure out how much money it would cost for the city to run such a clinic on their own. $95,000 for a vet, $40,000 for a vet tech, insurance, medical supplies, phones, receptionist... Maybe it is cheaper this way. I have no idea. I do think that it's probably faster to subcontract it out like this. I think they just wanted any contract approved, just like with the spay neuter clinic in NC. They just gave it to that feral cat group. Better to have someone using that clinic rather than no one.
All this may be true, but the City is not getting value received.Most vets have to pay rent, for equipment and utilities, Jones gets those paid by the City.
Jones is running a private practice, not a spay/neuter services for the City. LAAS may be a prime customer, but it is on a private practice basis. If Jones performed 5,000 spay/neuters for the City for free, it might make sense if he provides spay/neuter, shot clinics and general vet service for the public ALSO.
But being in a City shelter, Jones has a built in guaranteed clientele with no risk of failure and $320,000 a year to pay his expenses in addition to any money he makes.
.
An insider comment was left below:
Boks said he'd get the clinics up and running. Turns out the spay neuter clinics in the new shelters won't be done until next year. He wants to make it seem like he's doing something so he approves any offer. There was only one person interested in this RFP, Dr. Eric Jones. He could name his price, and he did.
Another way to look at it I guess is to figure out how much money it would cost for the city to run such a clinic on their own. $95,000 for a vet, $40,000 for a vet tech, insurance, medical supplies, phones, receptionist... Maybe it is cheaper this way. I have no idea. I do think that it's probably faster to subcontract it out like this. I think they just wanted any contract approved, just like with the spay neuter clinic in NC. They just gave it to that feral cat group. Better to have someone using that clinic rather than no one.
All this may be true, but the City is not getting value received.Most vets have to pay rent, for equipment and utilities, Jones gets those paid by the City.
Jones is running a private practice, not a spay/neuter services for the City. LAAS may be a prime customer, but it is on a private practice basis. If Jones performed 5,000 spay/neuters for the City for free, it might make sense if he provides spay/neuter, shot clinics and general vet service for the public ALSO.
But being in a City shelter, Jones has a built in guaranteed clientele with no risk of failure and $320,000 a year to pay his expenses in addition to any money he makes.
.
Eric Jones, Boks' Vetgate?
.
Boks said he'd get the spay/neuter clinics up and running. He didn't say that it would be of little or no benefit to the City, and that he'd have to pay the vet $320,000 a year for a 7% discount on LAAS spay/neuters.
He didn't say the vet would also be allowed to run a private practice on City property, using City supplied equipment with City paid utilities, all for a 7% discount on LAAS spay/neuters.
Eric Jones, DVM will also have a private shot clinic practice, for which he gives the City 50% up to $15,000 a year.
If his private practice makes a few hundred thousand net, he has to pay the City 10%.
Why is the City paying the expenses to support a private practice on City property? How did Boks ram this through? What is Boks association with Jones?
I am really, really shocked by this apparent corruption.
.
Boks said he'd get the spay/neuter clinics up and running. He didn't say that it would be of little or no benefit to the City, and that he'd have to pay the vet $320,000 a year for a 7% discount on LAAS spay/neuters.
He didn't say the vet would also be allowed to run a private practice on City property, using City supplied equipment with City paid utilities, all for a 7% discount on LAAS spay/neuters.
Eric Jones, DVM will also have a private shot clinic practice, for which he gives the City 50% up to $15,000 a year.
If his private practice makes a few hundred thousand net, he has to pay the City 10%.
Why is the City paying the expenses to support a private practice on City property? How did Boks ram this through? What is Boks association with Jones?
I am really, really shocked by this apparent corruption.
.
Eric Jones, DVM Boondoggle
.
Here is a rip off you seldom see.
There was a motion before Council this past Friday to authorize a contract to Eric Jones DVM to pay him $1,600,000 for 5 years to provide spay neuter services to LAAS and the community as part of a private practice. It passed.
The City gives Jones free rent, free utilities, provides the major equipment so that he can move his private practice from Pacoima to the SLA shelter.
He can run a private practice out of the shelter, offering services to the public.
What does the City get?
It gets a 7% discount on spay/neuters he does on shelter animals, up to $15,000 from a shot clinc, and 10% of Jones private practice net income.
Forgot. The City also gives him $1,600,000.
From Council Agenda notes and minutes of Boks message to the Commission.
From my Blog (http://www.imalwatch.blogspot.com/):
LAAS/Jones sweetheart deal; City to pay Jones $320,000 to move his private practice from Pacoima to the SLA shelter to run a spay neuter clinic/ So, whatْs wrong?
Jones only gives the City a 7% discount for spay/neuters for LAAS!!
Jones gets free utilities.
Jones gets most of the major equipment needed for the clinic from the City.
Jones can run a private practice out of SLA and he gives 10% of the net to the City.
Jones give the City up to $15,000 a year out of shot clinics.
AND , the City pays him $1,600,000 over 5 years with an extra four years of yearly options.
From Commission minutes; my comments are in blue.
Transmittal from the Mayor of a City Administrative Officer0150-08240-0000 report, dated June 14, 2007, relative to a contractbetween the Department of animal Services and Dr. Eric D. Jones, DVM toprovide animal spay/neuter surgeries at the South Los Angeles Spay andNeuter Clinic, for a term of five years, with up to four one-yearrenewal options, at an estimated $1.6 million over the five year period.Date Received
This RFP and subsequent recommendation of award of the Agreement is an important early step before the Departmentْs expansion of its animal shelter and care facilities, which will feature fully-equipped spay/neuter veterinary clinics, and therefore will enhance the Cityْs continuing efforts to spay/neuter the animal population.
What is does not say here is that LAAS is only getting a 7% discount on spay neuters on LAAS animals.
With the South Los Angeles clinic in the lead, these other five new clinics will provide spay and neuter services for shelter dogs and cats, feral cats as part of a sterilization program, and rabbits; services may also be provided to the public who may bring in their pets for sterilization and related medical assistance. These services are key to the Departmentْs goal of becoming the largest City in the United States with a successful ôNo-Kill¤ policy.
Yes, but letْs look at the agreement. Jones only gives the city a 7% discount on spay/neutering of LAAS animals!!! This is astounding. The public gets a 7% discount!! AND, get this, he can also conduct a private practice but must keep his fees at fair market rates and, he only has to give the City 10% of his private practice net income.
Under the proposed Agreement, which is based substantially on the RFP, Dr. Jones will perform spay/neuter surgeries on dogs, cats, and rabbits, and other ancillary medical procedures associated with the surgical sterilization, in conformance with all surgical standards as dictated by the California Veterinary Medical Practice Act. Dr. Jones shall also provide related veterinary services such as cursory pre-surgical physical examinations on all surgical candidates; Wellness Clinics (vaccine clinics); emergency medical treatments; micro-chipping all dogs, cats, and rabbits that are adopted from the Shelters if mutually agreed upon by Dr. Jones, the adopter, or requested by the Department; post-treatment care; and other services.
Notice, this long winded paragraph says nothing about provided exclusive no-cost services for LAAS animals. We are paying him $1,600,000 over 5 years for him to run his own private practice on the Cityْs dime. He gives LAAS a 7% discount. The City pays his utilities.
SIGNIFICANT AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
Prices of Services
Charges for spay/ neuter services are as set by the Board; prices of other services to the public shall be subject to Department disapproval, but are not to exceed prevailing market prices in the immediate area.
(That is, he can proved services to the public as a private practitioner.)
Equipment
The Department shall provide most major equipment required, such as surgical tables and sterilizers, and make them available for use by the contractor. Dr. Jones will be required to purchase all additional equipment and all medical supplies necessary to provide services.
Well, well, LAAS also provides the major equipment also.
Payments to City
In consideration for the use of City property and equipment, Dr. Jones shall reimburse the Cityْs Animal Sterilization Fund for its costs and expenses quarterly as follows: a seven percent (7%) discount below pre-set base prices on all spay/neuter services billed to the Department; a payment to the Department of fifty percent (50%) of net profits from Wellness (vaccine) clinics up to $15,000 per year; and a payment to the Department of ten percent (10%) of other proposed veterinary services to be provided to the public by this clinic.
What the City gets out of this contract:
A 7% discount on all spay/neuters for the City. 7%!!! He will also give $15,000 to the City out of shot clinic profits.
Cost of Operations
The cost of setting up, staffing, maintaining, and performing related services under the Agreement shall be the responsibility of Dr. Jones. No extra charges shall be paid by the Department or the pet owner for dog, cat, and rabbit spay, and neuter surgery beyond those stated in the Agreement.
Utilities
The City shall provide electricity, water, heating and air conditioning, and maintain the delivery systems thereof. Dr. Jones will be responsible for all additional utilities, including telephone service and data.
Dr. Jones has to pay for his own phone, but power, heating and water are paid for by the City.
Faithful Performance Bond
A Faithful Performance Bond shall be required of Dr. Jones prior to starting operations, for an amount of $36,600.00, to guarantee faithful performance of all work, within the time period prescribed, in a manner satisfactory to the City.
EVALUATION:
Dr. Jones exceeds the minimum experience in spay/neuter programs required in the RFP, having been practicing veterinary medicine for the past six years. He has provided such services within the City of Los Angeles, operating a veterinary clinic in Pacoima since 2002, during which time he provided spay/neuter services to the Department. As Dr. Jones proposed to move his staff and equipment from his current location to the South Los Angeles clinic, start-up operating costs will be minimized, which will allow him to focus his resources on continuing service levels and not on significant start-up costs.
Dr. Jones proposed a seven percent (7%) discount below pre-set base prices on all spay/neuter services billed to the Department; a payment to the Department of fifty percent (50%) of net profits from Wellness (vaccine) clinics up to $15,000 per year; and a payment to the Department of ten percent (10%) of other proposed veterinary services to be provided by this clinic to the public.
The City gets 10% of Jones net profit of services offered to the public OUT OF CITY FACILITIES!! He is bringing his private practice from Pacoima.
The review of Jonesْ proposal, his interview, and confirmation of his credentials indicated sufficient qualifications and experience to operate the clinic as proposed. The evaluation of his proposal did not lend itself to use of a point system as there were no other competing proposals received in response to the RFP.
It is hard to believe that with this cushy agreement, there were no other bids.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no impact to the General Fund. Funds will be used from Fund 543, Spay and Neuter Trust Fund; Fund 842, Animal Sterilization Trust Fund; and Fund 841, Veterinary Medical Trust Fund, in accordance with trust fund limitations and as they would be paid to an outside veterinarian. Due to savings of 7% on sterilizations, funds will be available to accomplish more surgeries. Revenue from work for the public will also supplement the funding for additional spay and neutering.
That is, what the City gets ouit of all this is a 7% discount on spay/neuter for LAAS animals, and 10% of his net private practice income.
What this particular announcement does not say is that the City is also paying him $320,000 per year for a 7% discount on LAAS spay/neuters.
Here is a rip off you seldom see.
There was a motion before Council this past Friday to authorize a contract to Eric Jones DVM to pay him $1,600,000 for 5 years to provide spay neuter services to LAAS and the community as part of a private practice. It passed.
The City gives Jones free rent, free utilities, provides the major equipment so that he can move his private practice from Pacoima to the SLA shelter.
He can run a private practice out of the shelter, offering services to the public.
What does the City get?
It gets a 7% discount on spay/neuters he does on shelter animals, up to $15,000 from a shot clinc, and 10% of Jones private practice net income.
Forgot. The City also gives him $1,600,000.
From Council Agenda notes and minutes of Boks message to the Commission.
From my Blog (http://www.imalwatch.blogspot.com/):
LAAS/Jones sweetheart deal; City to pay Jones $320,000 to move his private practice from Pacoima to the SLA shelter to run a spay neuter clinic/ So, whatْs wrong?
Jones only gives the City a 7% discount for spay/neuters for LAAS!!
Jones gets free utilities.
Jones gets most of the major equipment needed for the clinic from the City.
Jones can run a private practice out of SLA and he gives 10% of the net to the City.
Jones give the City up to $15,000 a year out of shot clinics.
AND , the City pays him $1,600,000 over 5 years with an extra four years of yearly options.
From Commission minutes; my comments are in blue.
Transmittal from the Mayor of a City Administrative Officer0150-08240-0000 report, dated June 14, 2007, relative to a contractbetween the Department of animal Services and Dr. Eric D. Jones, DVM toprovide animal spay/neuter surgeries at the South Los Angeles Spay andNeuter Clinic, for a term of five years, with up to four one-yearrenewal options, at an estimated $1.6 million over the five year period.Date Received
This RFP and subsequent recommendation of award of the Agreement is an important early step before the Departmentْs expansion of its animal shelter and care facilities, which will feature fully-equipped spay/neuter veterinary clinics, and therefore will enhance the Cityْs continuing efforts to spay/neuter the animal population.
What is does not say here is that LAAS is only getting a 7% discount on spay neuters on LAAS animals.
With the South Los Angeles clinic in the lead, these other five new clinics will provide spay and neuter services for shelter dogs and cats, feral cats as part of a sterilization program, and rabbits; services may also be provided to the public who may bring in their pets for sterilization and related medical assistance. These services are key to the Departmentْs goal of becoming the largest City in the United States with a successful ôNo-Kill¤ policy.
Yes, but letْs look at the agreement. Jones only gives the city a 7% discount on spay/neutering of LAAS animals!!! This is astounding. The public gets a 7% discount!! AND, get this, he can also conduct a private practice but must keep his fees at fair market rates and, he only has to give the City 10% of his private practice net income.
Under the proposed Agreement, which is based substantially on the RFP, Dr. Jones will perform spay/neuter surgeries on dogs, cats, and rabbits, and other ancillary medical procedures associated with the surgical sterilization, in conformance with all surgical standards as dictated by the California Veterinary Medical Practice Act. Dr. Jones shall also provide related veterinary services such as cursory pre-surgical physical examinations on all surgical candidates; Wellness Clinics (vaccine clinics); emergency medical treatments; micro-chipping all dogs, cats, and rabbits that are adopted from the Shelters if mutually agreed upon by Dr. Jones, the adopter, or requested by the Department; post-treatment care; and other services.
Notice, this long winded paragraph says nothing about provided exclusive no-cost services for LAAS animals. We are paying him $1,600,000 over 5 years for him to run his own private practice on the Cityْs dime. He gives LAAS a 7% discount. The City pays his utilities.
SIGNIFICANT AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
Prices of Services
Charges for spay/ neuter services are as set by the Board; prices of other services to the public shall be subject to Department disapproval, but are not to exceed prevailing market prices in the immediate area.
(That is, he can proved services to the public as a private practitioner.)
Equipment
The Department shall provide most major equipment required, such as surgical tables and sterilizers, and make them available for use by the contractor. Dr. Jones will be required to purchase all additional equipment and all medical supplies necessary to provide services.
Well, well, LAAS also provides the major equipment also.
Payments to City
In consideration for the use of City property and equipment, Dr. Jones shall reimburse the Cityْs Animal Sterilization Fund for its costs and expenses quarterly as follows: a seven percent (7%) discount below pre-set base prices on all spay/neuter services billed to the Department; a payment to the Department of fifty percent (50%) of net profits from Wellness (vaccine) clinics up to $15,000 per year; and a payment to the Department of ten percent (10%) of other proposed veterinary services to be provided to the public by this clinic.
What the City gets out of this contract:
A 7% discount on all spay/neuters for the City. 7%!!! He will also give $15,000 to the City out of shot clinic profits.
Cost of Operations
The cost of setting up, staffing, maintaining, and performing related services under the Agreement shall be the responsibility of Dr. Jones. No extra charges shall be paid by the Department or the pet owner for dog, cat, and rabbit spay, and neuter surgery beyond those stated in the Agreement.
Utilities
The City shall provide electricity, water, heating and air conditioning, and maintain the delivery systems thereof. Dr. Jones will be responsible for all additional utilities, including telephone service and data.
Dr. Jones has to pay for his own phone, but power, heating and water are paid for by the City.
Faithful Performance Bond
A Faithful Performance Bond shall be required of Dr. Jones prior to starting operations, for an amount of $36,600.00, to guarantee faithful performance of all work, within the time period prescribed, in a manner satisfactory to the City.
EVALUATION:
Dr. Jones exceeds the minimum experience in spay/neuter programs required in the RFP, having been practicing veterinary medicine for the past six years. He has provided such services within the City of Los Angeles, operating a veterinary clinic in Pacoima since 2002, during which time he provided spay/neuter services to the Department. As Dr. Jones proposed to move his staff and equipment from his current location to the South Los Angeles clinic, start-up operating costs will be minimized, which will allow him to focus his resources on continuing service levels and not on significant start-up costs.
Dr. Jones proposed a seven percent (7%) discount below pre-set base prices on all spay/neuter services billed to the Department; a payment to the Department of fifty percent (50%) of net profits from Wellness (vaccine) clinics up to $15,000 per year; and a payment to the Department of ten percent (10%) of other proposed veterinary services to be provided by this clinic to the public.
The City gets 10% of Jones net profit of services offered to the public OUT OF CITY FACILITIES!! He is bringing his private practice from Pacoima.
The review of Jonesْ proposal, his interview, and confirmation of his credentials indicated sufficient qualifications and experience to operate the clinic as proposed. The evaluation of his proposal did not lend itself to use of a point system as there were no other competing proposals received in response to the RFP.
It is hard to believe that with this cushy agreement, there were no other bids.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no impact to the General Fund. Funds will be used from Fund 543, Spay and Neuter Trust Fund; Fund 842, Animal Sterilization Trust Fund; and Fund 841, Veterinary Medical Trust Fund, in accordance with trust fund limitations and as they would be paid to an outside veterinarian. Due to savings of 7% on sterilizations, funds will be available to accomplish more surgeries. Revenue from work for the public will also supplement the funding for additional spay and neutering.
That is, what the City gets ouit of all this is a 7% discount on spay/neuter for LAAS animals, and 10% of his net private practice income.
What this particular announcement does not say is that the City is also paying him $320,000 per year for a 7% discount on LAAS spay/neuters.
The Eric Jones, DVM Boondoggle
.
No one has explained to me how the $1.6 million dollar, five year contract to Eric Jones, DVM to start a spay/neuter clinic on City property is of any benefit to the city.
I may be wrong, but from what I've read in the past of the proposal, the City supplies free office space, and probably utilities as I don't think that have separate utility metering for his clinic, and also pays him $1.8 million to do spay/neuter; yet, LAAS receives only a 15% discount over the prevailing spay/neuter fee for LAAS animals. Did I miss something?
Then, when the clinic is free and clear of debt, it begins paying 50% of the net proceeds to the City for rent.
Jones does provide all the clinic's equipment, but notning else except his overpriced labor.
Jones is free to provide as many private practice spay/neuters as he wants.
Can I buy shares into this boondoggle?
No one has explained to me how the $1.6 million dollar, five year contract to Eric Jones, DVM to start a spay/neuter clinic on City property is of any benefit to the city.
I may be wrong, but from what I've read in the past of the proposal, the City supplies free office space, and probably utilities as I don't think that have separate utility metering for his clinic, and also pays him $1.8 million to do spay/neuter; yet, LAAS receives only a 15% discount over the prevailing spay/neuter fee for LAAS animals. Did I miss something?
Then, when the clinic is free and clear of debt, it begins paying 50% of the net proceeds to the City for rent.
Jones does provide all the clinic's equipment, but notning else except his overpriced labor.
Jones is free to provide as many private practice spay/neuters as he wants.
Can I buy shares into this boondoggle?
Feedback on 2 for 1 from Philadelphia
.
In comments below, a critic opined that there was a 1/3 return rates on 2 for 1 sales of cats. The critic said this was hearsay from a volunteer, and the numbers could not be verified.
As I also stated below, the critics of these life-saving programs never have any hard evidence to back their speculations. They state their opinions are based on their own experience, and therefore true for everyone, everywhere, always.
Therefore I was delighted to receive the comment sent in by the CEO of the Philly shelter, Susan Cosby, who does provide statistical evidence to support the life-saving impact of 2 for 1's.
Susan Cosby said...
I am the Chief Operating Officer of the Philadelphia shelter mentioned and I would like to expand on this topic by noting that our "adopt one, get a second friend for free" program runs 365 days a year for cats and kittens of all ages. It is particularly beneficial for young, playful kittens who can expend energy playing with each other or adult cats who arrived together from a home and have a better chance of leaving together. Additionally, although it does not count cats who may have been adopted then surrendered to other shelters, our return rate averages less than 4%.
Go Susan!!!
In comments below, a critic opined that there was a 1/3 return rates on 2 for 1 sales of cats. The critic said this was hearsay from a volunteer, and the numbers could not be verified.
As I also stated below, the critics of these life-saving programs never have any hard evidence to back their speculations. They state their opinions are based on their own experience, and therefore true for everyone, everywhere, always.
Therefore I was delighted to receive the comment sent in by the CEO of the Philly shelter, Susan Cosby, who does provide statistical evidence to support the life-saving impact of 2 for 1's.
Susan Cosby said...
I am the Chief Operating Officer of the Philadelphia shelter mentioned and I would like to expand on this topic by noting that our "adopt one, get a second friend for free" program runs 365 days a year for cats and kittens of all ages. It is particularly beneficial for young, playful kittens who can expend energy playing with each other or adult cats who arrived together from a home and have a better chance of leaving together. Additionally, although it does not count cats who may have been adopted then surrendered to other shelters, our return rate averages less than 4%.
Go Susan!!!
Critics Continue to Attack the Seniors and 2 for 1 Sales
.
As below, one says in her experience, many seniors cannot take care of their cats and some develop horrendous medical conditions.
Another says 2 for 1 sales are followed by a 1/3 return rate.
Neither can present proof, especially about the seniors program; these critics never do. They say “In my experience,” as if that ended all discussion and argument.
One says she opts for quality of life over duration. She is also opting for exterminating life because the cat might fare poorly. Perhaps she will expand that argument to humans too. If a child is born into filthy conditions or in extreme poverty, they should be killed to save them from suffering.
My response to both criticisms is the same: so?
Do we deny a senior, or anyone, a cat based on income? Is the LAAS staff going to do an income evaluation on all potential adopters, senior or otherwise?
Is a 1/3 return rate, if true, a valid argument for killing kittens rather than adopting them out?
Perhaps that argument should be used for all adoptions. If generally there is a 25% return rate, we should stop adopting animals out and just kill them as soon as they come in.
The same with seniors. Unless they have a disposable income after rent of $1,000 a month or more, they should not get a cat, because in the evaluator’s estimation, such cats do poorly.
Generalizing the logic of these critics, no animal should ever be adopted out unless the adopter passes a thorough background check and also loves the cat enough to take care of it.
.
As below, one says in her experience, many seniors cannot take care of their cats and some develop horrendous medical conditions.
Another says 2 for 1 sales are followed by a 1/3 return rate.
Neither can present proof, especially about the seniors program; these critics never do. They say “In my experience,” as if that ended all discussion and argument.
One says she opts for quality of life over duration. She is also opting for exterminating life because the cat might fare poorly. Perhaps she will expand that argument to humans too. If a child is born into filthy conditions or in extreme poverty, they should be killed to save them from suffering.
My response to both criticisms is the same: so?
Do we deny a senior, or anyone, a cat based on income? Is the LAAS staff going to do an income evaluation on all potential adopters, senior or otherwise?
Is a 1/3 return rate, if true, a valid argument for killing kittens rather than adopting them out?
Perhaps that argument should be used for all adoptions. If generally there is a 25% return rate, we should stop adopting animals out and just kill them as soon as they come in.
The same with seniors. Unless they have a disposable income after rent of $1,000 a month or more, they should not get a cat, because in the evaluator’s estimation, such cats do poorly.
Generalizing the logic of these critics, no animal should ever be adopted out unless the adopter passes a thorough background check and also loves the cat enough to take care of it.
.
The Two For One Sale
.
Everyone is roundly criticizing Boks, mostly because he exaggerates, lies, doesn't keep promises, always proclaims himself faultless, and that he is close to walking on water. Oh, I forgot, he hasn't been saving many lives either--at least until now.
But I think his recent programs, the seniors and the 2 for 1 sale, are good, whether or not they succeed, and they probably won't knowing the history of Ed's new programs.
But the 2 for 1's sale. Think the idea an abomination?
Well Tara Derby and others trained by Winograd in Philadelphia are promoting a 2 for 1 program right now. From the Phillypaws.org website:
Cat "Dollar Days," July 18-Aug. 1
PAWS announces the return of its summer cat adoption promotion: "Dollar Days." Between July 18 and August 1, the adoption fee for a cat will be only $1.
The two-week event, during these summer months when literally hundreds of animals come into the shelter each day, is one way PAWS is working to save the lives of Philadelphia's homeless animals.
When you adopt a cat, you will be able to adopt a second one at no additional charge. Owning two cats involves little more expense or trouble than owning just one. In addition, it provides each with a companion, saves two lives rather than one, and provides space in the shelter for two more animals waiting for a home.
If you have been considering adopting a new best friend, we urge you to come in and meet the cats just waiting for a chance at life. By opening your home to a PAWS cat (or cats), you will truly be saving a life that may not have a chance without your kindness.
Especially now, during the height of "cat season," there is simply not enough room or resources at the shelter to accommodate all of the animals who come in. Those who are not adopted or placed in foster care are often euthanized. With your help, though, we can put an end to the killing of animals simply because they don't have a home.
During last year's "Cat Sale," 576 cats found forever homes. This year, the event will last a full two weeks in an effort to save even more lives. Please join us!
.
Now Philadelphia has a much smaller shelter than LA, taking in a less than 1/2 of LA. Yet, last year placed 576 kittens in one week. That is equivalent to LAAS placing 1,350 kittens in a week.
Now I know LAAS will never be able to perform at the success rate of Philadelphia, though I do want to see how close they come to Philly's success. I also know that there is a strong possibility some will be fed to dogs for fun, or end up being tortured by a mean hearted 6 year old, but that is the breaks. This is what every human being and animal has to face in life: the luck of the draw. When you are overwhelmed with animals needing homes, and the choice is between them dying or taking their chances of finding a "good-enough" home, I think they would choose an opportunity to live.
.
What some of the critics do not realize, is that it is not just the cost, it is also the publicity and marketing value of of the program. It is a sale. Everyone likes a sale. many people will come for a discount cat that when they hear about it. Remember, we can never expect a "loving home," all that they need is a good-enough home.
.
Everyone is roundly criticizing Boks, mostly because he exaggerates, lies, doesn't keep promises, always proclaims himself faultless, and that he is close to walking on water. Oh, I forgot, he hasn't been saving many lives either--at least until now.
But I think his recent programs, the seniors and the 2 for 1 sale, are good, whether or not they succeed, and they probably won't knowing the history of Ed's new programs.
But the 2 for 1's sale. Think the idea an abomination?
Well Tara Derby and others trained by Winograd in Philadelphia are promoting a 2 for 1 program right now. From the Phillypaws.org website:
Cat "Dollar Days," July 18-Aug. 1
PAWS announces the return of its summer cat adoption promotion: "Dollar Days." Between July 18 and August 1, the adoption fee for a cat will be only $1.
The two-week event, during these summer months when literally hundreds of animals come into the shelter each day, is one way PAWS is working to save the lives of Philadelphia's homeless animals.
When you adopt a cat, you will be able to adopt a second one at no additional charge. Owning two cats involves little more expense or trouble than owning just one. In addition, it provides each with a companion, saves two lives rather than one, and provides space in the shelter for two more animals waiting for a home.
If you have been considering adopting a new best friend, we urge you to come in and meet the cats just waiting for a chance at life. By opening your home to a PAWS cat (or cats), you will truly be saving a life that may not have a chance without your kindness.
Especially now, during the height of "cat season," there is simply not enough room or resources at the shelter to accommodate all of the animals who come in. Those who are not adopted or placed in foster care are often euthanized. With your help, though, we can put an end to the killing of animals simply because they don't have a home.
During last year's "Cat Sale," 576 cats found forever homes. This year, the event will last a full two weeks in an effort to save even more lives. Please join us!
.
Now Philadelphia has a much smaller shelter than LA, taking in a less than 1/2 of LA. Yet, last year placed 576 kittens in one week. That is equivalent to LAAS placing 1,350 kittens in a week.
Now I know LAAS will never be able to perform at the success rate of Philadelphia, though I do want to see how close they come to Philly's success. I also know that there is a strong possibility some will be fed to dogs for fun, or end up being tortured by a mean hearted 6 year old, but that is the breaks. This is what every human being and animal has to face in life: the luck of the draw. When you are overwhelmed with animals needing homes, and the choice is between them dying or taking their chances of finding a "good-enough" home, I think they would choose an opportunity to live.
.
What some of the critics do not realize, is that it is not just the cost, it is also the publicity and marketing value of of the program. It is a sale. Everyone likes a sale. many people will come for a discount cat that when they hear about it. Remember, we can never expect a "loving home," all that they need is a good-enough home.
.
The Seniors for Seniors Program
.
There are two comments below criticizing the seniors for seniors program. I disagree with their criticisms. They only address negative what ifs, such as unmanageable vet expenses for low income seniors and how the animals may eventually be dumped.
These criticisms may all be well-founded and accurate. My senior guys have cost me a fortune. I am treating a cancer kitty to the tune of $4,000 so far. Many people would have dumped this sort of kitty already. A senior with no money would have to let the kitty die or rob a bank. But isn't this a situation that confronts many older or poor people throughout our wretchedly self-centered society?
Contrast this with dying immediately in the shelter by being euthanized. Which solution is better? Overwhelming a low-income senior with expenses? The senior taking the cat to a vet to be euthanized because they cannot afford treatment? A senior taking the animal to a shelter to be euthanized? Or a senior living in deep companionship with the animal until one or the other dies? The critics forget this part.
Are not these the outcomes a every human faces? Taking care of aged parents, bankrupting either the aged person or their families, or turning them over to convalescent homes?
The critics do not see that both the senior and the animal benefit from the longer or shorter companionship they may have with each other. Do we deny them that happiness and companionship because it does not last 15 years as with a kitten or puppy?
There is far more to the human/animal bond than the expense involved or what happens to the animals, or the senior, a year or four years down the line.
Let them both have happiness for however long it lasts.
I think the program is a good one.
I adopted what appeared to be a geriatric cat to a woman in her late 70s or older who did not want to adopt a younger animal, worrying about its care after she died. She wanted the cat to die first, or if she died, he had the same chance to life as any other aged cat. I was able to follow the two of them for three years before I moved away from Santa Monica. Both were very happy together.
The blame should not be put on LAAS for this program for possibly negative results, but on increasingly greedy and arrogant vets who need a comeuppance.
I really appreciate someone like Steve Feldman who leaves private practice, takes a large pay cut and devotes himself to trying to better take care of thousands of animals.
.
There are two comments below criticizing the seniors for seniors program. I disagree with their criticisms. They only address negative what ifs, such as unmanageable vet expenses for low income seniors and how the animals may eventually be dumped.
These criticisms may all be well-founded and accurate. My senior guys have cost me a fortune. I am treating a cancer kitty to the tune of $4,000 so far. Many people would have dumped this sort of kitty already. A senior with no money would have to let the kitty die or rob a bank. But isn't this a situation that confronts many older or poor people throughout our wretchedly self-centered society?
Contrast this with dying immediately in the shelter by being euthanized. Which solution is better? Overwhelming a low-income senior with expenses? The senior taking the cat to a vet to be euthanized because they cannot afford treatment? A senior taking the animal to a shelter to be euthanized? Or a senior living in deep companionship with the animal until one or the other dies? The critics forget this part.
Are not these the outcomes a every human faces? Taking care of aged parents, bankrupting either the aged person or their families, or turning them over to convalescent homes?
The critics do not see that both the senior and the animal benefit from the longer or shorter companionship they may have with each other. Do we deny them that happiness and companionship because it does not last 15 years as with a kitten or puppy?
There is far more to the human/animal bond than the expense involved or what happens to the animals, or the senior, a year or four years down the line.
Let them both have happiness for however long it lasts.
I think the program is a good one.
I adopted what appeared to be a geriatric cat to a woman in her late 70s or older who did not want to adopt a younger animal, worrying about its care after she died. She wanted the cat to die first, or if she died, he had the same chance to life as any other aged cat. I was able to follow the two of them for three years before I moved away from Santa Monica. Both were very happy together.
The blame should not be put on LAAS for this program for possibly negative results, but on increasingly greedy and arrogant vets who need a comeuppance.
I really appreciate someone like Steve Feldman who leaves private practice, takes a large pay cut and devotes himself to trying to better take care of thousands of animals.
.
Wonderful New LAAS Adoption Program--Ammended
.
A second hearing of a plan to increase adoption of pets will be heard this Friday before Council. Generally second hearings do not allow public comment, but you can call councilmembers to express your enthusiastic support.
The program involves for the adoption of a second animal with chipping and spay/neuter fees waived, after adopting the first with full fees.
Going before Council is the program as below:
http://cityclerk.lacity.org/CFI/DisplayOnlineDocument.cfm?SRT=D1&cfnum=07-1561
The plan would be effective August 14.
Boks has had to include a revenue impact statement, but even if the entire $47,000 lost revenue were never recaptured, you must help make Council adopt it.
Recently, despite the bizarre numbers Ed has generated for April-June, adoptions actually "appear" to be up by several hundred, and fosters are up from a handful to over 100. That, combined with LAAS (Boks-denied) turning away animals from impound, is saving lives.
Several people have argued that selling animals so cheaply means they may not get good homes or will be used in research or to train attack dogs. All these are VERY REAL possibilities, but I think the benefits MAY outweigh the risks. No one really knows, they just speculate.
Their argument that paying hefty fees increases the likelihood they will be better cared for is a speculation in itself. Both sides of that issue speculate and believe their speculations to be truth, but no one can prove anything.
In any event, we will not see a stunning increase in the number of animals adopted, maybe 2-300, so it is only that number at risk. You have to weigh that against 50% kill rate we would see in summer, and it is a worthwhile risk.
As to Boks making it clear it is not a 2 for 1 sale, who is kidding whom? Anyone can claim animals came from the same litter or were best buddies in the shelter. Remember, it is staff talking to you; that in itself that should cause disbelief.
I wouldn't be surprised if every animal in the shelter won't have 10 or 20 best buddies as of August 14, but so what?
However, due to the overcrowding, more animals are dying from fighting, and more employees are getting mauled.
One rescuer told me, “Employees are being mauled; I've seen it. They had to pay two employees tons of money for being mauled by pits. They even had a class for volunteers on handling fighting and taking dogs in and out of the kennels.
The class was pretty lame. They bought all this expensive dog handling equipment but no one uses it. They still just hose down fighting dogs but it does nothing to the pits. Captain Dedeaux did the class. An employee who'd been bitten many times asked him to go into the kennels and show her how to use the equipment on the dogs, how to get them in and out of their kennels... He wouldn't do it. This woman really wanted to learn how to not get bitten. She'd been bitten 8 times already
.
A second hearing of a plan to increase adoption of pets will be heard this Friday before Council. Generally second hearings do not allow public comment, but you can call councilmembers to express your enthusiastic support.
The program involves for the adoption of a second animal with chipping and spay/neuter fees waived, after adopting the first with full fees.
Going before Council is the program as below:
http://cityclerk.lacity.org/CFI/DisplayOnlineDocument.cfm?SRT=D1&cfnum=07-1561
The plan would be effective August 14.
Boks has had to include a revenue impact statement, but even if the entire $47,000 lost revenue were never recaptured, you must help make Council adopt it.
Recently, despite the bizarre numbers Ed has generated for April-June, adoptions actually "appear" to be up by several hundred, and fosters are up from a handful to over 100. That, combined with LAAS (Boks-denied) turning away animals from impound, is saving lives.
Several people have argued that selling animals so cheaply means they may not get good homes or will be used in research or to train attack dogs. All these are VERY REAL possibilities, but I think the benefits MAY outweigh the risks. No one really knows, they just speculate.
Their argument that paying hefty fees increases the likelihood they will be better cared for is a speculation in itself. Both sides of that issue speculate and believe their speculations to be truth, but no one can prove anything.
In any event, we will not see a stunning increase in the number of animals adopted, maybe 2-300, so it is only that number at risk. You have to weigh that against 50% kill rate we would see in summer, and it is a worthwhile risk.
As to Boks making it clear it is not a 2 for 1 sale, who is kidding whom? Anyone can claim animals came from the same litter or were best buddies in the shelter. Remember, it is staff talking to you; that in itself that should cause disbelief.
I wouldn't be surprised if every animal in the shelter won't have 10 or 20 best buddies as of August 14, but so what?
However, due to the overcrowding, more animals are dying from fighting, and more employees are getting mauled.
One rescuer told me, “Employees are being mauled; I've seen it. They had to pay two employees tons of money for being mauled by pits. They even had a class for volunteers on handling fighting and taking dogs in and out of the kennels.
The class was pretty lame. They bought all this expensive dog handling equipment but no one uses it. They still just hose down fighting dogs but it does nothing to the pits. Captain Dedeaux did the class. An employee who'd been bitten many times asked him to go into the kennels and show her how to use the equipment on the dogs, how to get them in and out of their kennels... He wouldn't do it. This woman really wanted to learn how to not get bitten. She'd been bitten 8 times already
.
Employees
.
I mentioned Ed's frequent "clarifications" and the most recent, which contradicts what the shelter sign says, not because I disagree with his policy of limiting owner impounds, but because it points out that you can't trust him. You don't know if he will keep a promise; you don't know when he is telling the truth; you don't know what he is saying about you behind your back.
I agree with his policy. This is the wrong time of the year to drop any animal off. I think there may be a higher survival rate on the streets or left with an uncaring neighbor.
The previous comentor is right. I should talk about the screw up employees. Tell me about them with specifics if you want. Most of you can't say anything because you won't be able to work with them again.
.
I mentioned Ed's frequent "clarifications" and the most recent, which contradicts what the shelter sign says, not because I disagree with his policy of limiting owner impounds, but because it points out that you can't trust him. You don't know if he will keep a promise; you don't know when he is telling the truth; you don't know what he is saying about you behind your back.
I agree with his policy. This is the wrong time of the year to drop any animal off. I think there may be a higher survival rate on the streets or left with an uncaring neighbor.
The previous comentor is right. I should talk about the screw up employees. Tell me about them with specifics if you want. Most of you can't say anything because you won't be able to work with them again.
.
Boks Revokes His Numerous Policy Change Clarifications
.
Just a week after declaring a hard-line policy that would have limited the hours, Boks said he only had intended to educate the public."It has been issued as a restriction," Boks said. "But internally, it has always been our intention to never refuse an animal. Just educate."
"We wanted to be crystal clear," Boks said. "We will never turn an animal away. We don't want to put any animal in harm's way."brandon.lowrey@dailynews.com
Remember when Boks told the Daily News writer Brandon Lowery he never intended to enforce a rule that would have sharply limited the hours for people to turn in unwanted pets at city shelters? He turned out three "clarifications" that essentially reversed the restricted hours for accepting animals.
Lowery writes:
Just a week after declaring a hard-line policy that would have limited the hours, Boks said he only had intended to educate the public."It has been issued as a restriction," Boks said. "But internally, it has always been our intention to never refuse an animal. Just educate."
”Boks had said the plan to cut the department's 24-hour, seven-day policy of accepting pets - to just 14 hours over four weekdays - was designed to avoid killing more animals to make room in shelters during a busy time of year.
"We wanted to be crystal clear," Boks said. "We will never turn an animal away. We don't want to put any animal in harm's way."brandon.lowrey@dailynews.com
Well, surprise, surprise, Ed is lying again. I guess he has "clarified" once more, and reversed his reversal. Look at the sign posted on the door of the North Central Shelter:
Philly/Winograd Looking for a Chief Operating Officer
.
Philadelphia, the fifth largest city and city (vs. County) shelter system in the country, is looking for what is equivalent to the operations AGM position--at LAAS. Of course the commitment is to become the first large, No-Kill city shelter in the country.
The job search is being coordinated by Winograd.
http://phillypaws.org/pdfs/PACCAOps.pdf
I hope someone of us locally applies and gets it.
.
Philadelphia, the fifth largest city and city (vs. County) shelter system in the country, is looking for what is equivalent to the operations AGM position--at LAAS. Of course the commitment is to become the first large, No-Kill city shelter in the country.
The job search is being coordinated by Winograd.
http://phillypaws.org/pdfs/PACCAOps.pdf
I hope someone of us locally applies and gets it.
.
Re-opening Allegations of Hayden Act Violations
.
In February I posted that LAAS may have violated the Hayden Act by killing 1,155 healthy animals within the first four days of holding, which was prohibited by the Hayden Act.
Boks responded in Rumor vs. Truth # 3, that of the 809 cats listed as healthy and killed within 4 days, 453 were either sick or suffering and were killed that first day or in the next four days. With dogs, 276 of the 346 healthy dogs killed, were relisted as sick or suffering and then killed. That is, over 60% of healthy cats and dogs were killed because their status changed within the day of impound or soon after. Most of the others killed were neonates.
The charge came in today that Boks was having NYC personnel go in and change the condition of animals when Boks was in NY, then euthanizing them.
I think someone should take a close look at the total records of the 1,145 animals listed as healthy on intake to see how, when and why they went from being healthy, to unhealthy or suffering. Boks says there are photographs of the treatment records that would validate that the animals were sick (Some with an infectious disease) or suffering. I am not sure, but it appears he said there also were photos of the animals.
The allegation today:
“Boks did the exact same thing in NY.
The animal would come in and they'd give it a health rating, 1-5. I think "1" was healthy.
Anyway the animal would get sick in the shelter. Boks wanted the techs to change the initial rating of "healthy" to "unhealthy" so he could say all the animals he killed were sick and came in sick.
I can't believe he said "very few healthy animals are killed." So 38% of all animals that come into the shelter are unhealthy? Bullshit.”
ACTUALLY, THE NUMBER IS 56% FOR CATS AND 79% FOR DOGS.!!
From Rumor vs. Truth #3:
RECORDS OF CATS
For the period of January 1, 2006, through December 1, 2006, records for 809 cats had the Intake condition as Apparently Healthy, but were shown as Euthanized within four or less days.
Summary of Findings
10 Euthanized by Private Vet After Exam Strays sent on AFE same or next day
2 Behavior - Biting –
Owner Surrendered and Requested Euthanasia Euthanized same day 23
Feral, Euthanized on fourth day, i.e. after third day, as permitted by law (see below)
Most were strays, some were Owner Surrender
103 Irremediably suffering (Selection of Apparently Healthy was done with only superficial visual check.)
353 Medical condition (many due to infectious nature of illness)
Selection of Apparently Healthy was done with only superficial visual check 1 Shown in Subtype as Time/Space reasons, but examination of the Medical Treatment form (confirmed by photo) showed sick, (or) unweaned kitten.
Evident error in completion of Euthanasia portion of kennel record
317 Unweaned Majority show multiple number series (2-5 sequential numbers) and came in between April and July
809 TOTAL
As an observation, after reviewing several hundred kennel records, there is a pattern in regard to cats as coming in cages and boxes, and often photographed that way, which render it believable that in passing an animal could be deemed apparently healthy, but found sick when the Veterinary Technician tries to pull the animal out of the box or cage.
Unweaned kittens were often shown as Apparently Healthy, which is likely the case, but were recorded as unweaned in other classification fields. Without sufficient rescues or foster volunteers, unweaned simply cannot be sustained, and it is inhumane to allow them to fail through lack of nursing.
Well, Boks said there are photographs of the medical treatment records, that confirm that hundreds of healthy animals were not and were then killed.
Let us see the records and the photos!
In February I posted that LAAS may have violated the Hayden Act by killing 1,155 healthy animals within the first four days of holding, which was prohibited by the Hayden Act.
Boks responded in Rumor vs. Truth # 3, that of the 809 cats listed as healthy and killed within 4 days, 453 were either sick or suffering and were killed that first day or in the next four days. With dogs, 276 of the 346 healthy dogs killed, were relisted as sick or suffering and then killed. That is, over 60% of healthy cats and dogs were killed because their status changed within the day of impound or soon after. Most of the others killed were neonates.
The charge came in today that Boks was having NYC personnel go in and change the condition of animals when Boks was in NY, then euthanizing them.
I think someone should take a close look at the total records of the 1,145 animals listed as healthy on intake to see how, when and why they went from being healthy, to unhealthy or suffering. Boks says there are photographs of the treatment records that would validate that the animals were sick (Some with an infectious disease) or suffering. I am not sure, but it appears he said there also were photos of the animals.
The allegation today:
“Boks did the exact same thing in NY.
The animal would come in and they'd give it a health rating, 1-5. I think "1" was healthy.
Anyway the animal would get sick in the shelter. Boks wanted the techs to change the initial rating of "healthy" to "unhealthy" so he could say all the animals he killed were sick and came in sick.
I can't believe he said "very few healthy animals are killed." So 38% of all animals that come into the shelter are unhealthy? Bullshit.”
ACTUALLY, THE NUMBER IS 56% FOR CATS AND 79% FOR DOGS.!!
From Rumor vs. Truth #3:
RECORDS OF CATS
For the period of January 1, 2006, through December 1, 2006, records for 809 cats had the Intake condition as Apparently Healthy, but were shown as Euthanized within four or less days.
Summary of Findings
10 Euthanized by Private Vet After Exam Strays sent on AFE same or next day
2 Behavior - Biting –
Owner Surrendered and Requested Euthanasia Euthanized same day 23
Feral, Euthanized on fourth day, i.e. after third day, as permitted by law (see below)
Most were strays, some were Owner Surrender
103 Irremediably suffering (Selection of Apparently Healthy was done with only superficial visual check.)
353 Medical condition (many due to infectious nature of illness)
Selection of Apparently Healthy was done with only superficial visual check 1 Shown in Subtype as Time/Space reasons, but examination of the Medical Treatment form (confirmed by photo) showed sick, (or) unweaned kitten.
Evident error in completion of Euthanasia portion of kennel record
317 Unweaned Majority show multiple number series (2-5 sequential numbers) and came in between April and July
809 TOTAL
As an observation, after reviewing several hundred kennel records, there is a pattern in regard to cats as coming in cages and boxes, and often photographed that way, which render it believable that in passing an animal could be deemed apparently healthy, but found sick when the Veterinary Technician tries to pull the animal out of the box or cage.
Unweaned kittens were often shown as Apparently Healthy, which is likely the case, but were recorded as unweaned in other classification fields. Without sufficient rescues or foster volunteers, unweaned simply cannot be sustained, and it is inhumane to allow them to fail through lack of nursing.
Well, Boks said there are photographs of the medical treatment records, that confirm that hundreds of healthy animals were not and were then killed.
Let us see the records and the photos!
Prediction--Boks will subtract Medical Euthanasia from All Euthanasia
.
In order to get his kill numbers down I predict Boks will soon subtract medical euthanasia from all euthanasia as a new categry. This would apply to owner turn-ins with terminal illnesses or injuries, and animals coming in ill, or animals that get sick and injured in the shelters.
As soon as this is the case, since died in the shelter and illness have been skyrocketing, non-medical euthanasia will plummet. Maybe all intakes will be considered ill after the category is created.
Then, retroactively, he will have made LAAS no-kill as of the day he started as GM.
In order to get his kill numbers down I predict Boks will soon subtract medical euthanasia from all euthanasia as a new categry. This would apply to owner turn-ins with terminal illnesses or injuries, and animals coming in ill, or animals that get sick and injured in the shelters.
As soon as this is the case, since died in the shelter and illness have been skyrocketing, non-medical euthanasia will plummet. Maybe all intakes will be considered ill after the category is created.
Then, retroactively, he will have made LAAS no-kill as of the day he started as GM.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)