.
Heart warming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adYbFQFXG0U
The long form of this video was just posted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhzCk6TLXTw&watch_response
.
Carolina Biological Imports Live Cats for Killing
.
March 14, 2005
From Montgomery Blair High School’s on line newspaper:
Dan James, vice president of business development at Carolina Biological Supply Company, which provides Blair with cats, says that efforts to stop dissection would not mean more cats are saved. "We get the cats from animal shelters in Mexico, already dead or the ones that they are going to put to sleep," says James. "It's not like any fewer animals are going to be killed if we stopped providing cats."
http://silverchips.mbhs.edu/inside.php?sid=5085
.
Carolina spokesperson Keither Barker lied to me last July 10 when he said all cat cadavers sold by Carolina Biological were received already euthanized approved animal shelters. He specifically denied they were received alive from Mexico or elsewhere and killed at Carolina Facilities for dissection.
March 14, 2005
From Montgomery Blair High School’s on line newspaper:
Dan James, vice president of business development at Carolina Biological Supply Company, which provides Blair with cats, says that efforts to stop dissection would not mean more cats are saved. "We get the cats from animal shelters in Mexico, already dead or the ones that they are going to put to sleep," says James. "It's not like any fewer animals are going to be killed if we stopped providing cats."
http://silverchips.mbhs.edu/inside.php?sid=5085
.
Carolina spokesperson Keither Barker lied to me last July 10 when he said all cat cadavers sold by Carolina Biological were received already euthanized approved animal shelters. He specifically denied they were received alive from Mexico or elsewhere and killed at Carolina Facilities for dissection.
No Answer From Pierce or Boks
.
On July 20 I submitted request for public records to Pierce and Boks regarding the Dancy case and investigation.
I have heard nothing from either party.
This is interesting. Why are they stonewalling.
I have Ed Boks complete mailing list containing numerous staff and all Council members. I also have a large list of Pierce faculty and staff.
If these two parties do not respond within a few more days, over 100 people are going to get emails about what looks like a cover up of campus/LAAS corruption.
.
On July 20 I submitted request for public records to Pierce and Boks regarding the Dancy case and investigation.
I have heard nothing from either party.
This is interesting. Why are they stonewalling.
I have Ed Boks complete mailing list containing numerous staff and all Council members. I also have a large list of Pierce faculty and staff.
If these two parties do not respond within a few more days, over 100 people are going to get emails about what looks like a cover up of campus/LAAS corruption.
.
THE TOTAL MASON CASE
Many have asked me for an overview of the Mason case. I provided such for a long time. But the inquiries keep coming. I now refer everyone to my blog which may have 80 or more entries about the Mason case.
Below are some of the key links to read.
The first several are just the initial posts about Mason and the raid and you need to start here to get a feel for the case. Later on, more and more information began to come out, such as Mason’s private vet before the raid was Cynthia Hockman, who apparently turned Mason in, because she became a Boks’ employee 2-3 weeks after the bust. Also, Ron was not provided the required post seizure hearing about the whereabouts of his cats. Later it was disclosed that the whole bust may have been related to an upcoming contract with Animal Planet to film the Animal Cruelty Task Force in action—the same ones that raided Mason, which produced the videotape we think was an audition tape. Then too, all the Mason evidence was “lost,” as the cover up began.
One of the key pieces of evidence in this case is the Video shot by City TV35 which shows the kind of person Mason is even when in handcuffs—a gentleman—vs. the uniformed “thugs” and Lt. Ortega’s and Social Worker’s psychobabble.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_kJ9nGiVis
.
Daily News Article:
.
.
Daily News Photo Slideshow:
.
.
The most important posts are below. This is about 1/4 of the total.
.
The most important posts are below. This is about 1/4 of the total.
.
.
Boks original response to criticism of the ACTF raid:
.
.
.
.
.
Pierce Coverup; Animal Neglect Now Underground
.
Rather than righting things at Pierce, after the alleged cover up of the Dancy cow business at Pierce, and the mouse and other lab killings at Pierce, faculty changed their policies.
New policies:
1. No cameras or tape recorders can be brought into any classes with animals--none!!
2. No students are allowed unaccompanied to see the farm animals, unless they are paid employees taking care of the animals.
3. If a student wants to see an animal, he can only do so if accompanied by a department faculty or staffer. However, in no case will cameras be allowed.
4. The sheep facility is closed to the public and cows are usually huddled in the middle of a pasture at least 100 yards from any access.
I wonder how one can get to see the animals and if they are being taken care of? Maybe I should ask Dick South if I can visit. Click image below to enlarge.
Notice how the Sheriff's campus detail is set to deal with students with cameras or even the public now. Security?
.
Dick South says anyone can contact him about the reasons for going underground. Why don't you contact him and Dean Rupert.
southrw@piercecollege.edu, rupertdw@piercecollege.edu
Rather than righting things at Pierce, after the alleged cover up of the Dancy cow business at Pierce, and the mouse and other lab killings at Pierce, faculty changed their policies.
New policies:
1. No cameras or tape recorders can be brought into any classes with animals--none!!
2. No students are allowed unaccompanied to see the farm animals, unless they are paid employees taking care of the animals.
3. If a student wants to see an animal, he can only do so if accompanied by a department faculty or staffer. However, in no case will cameras be allowed.
4. The sheep facility is closed to the public and cows are usually huddled in the middle of a pasture at least 100 yards from any access.
I wonder how one can get to see the animals and if they are being taken care of? Maybe I should ask Dick South if I can visit. Click image below to enlarge.
Notice how the Sheriff's campus detail is set to deal with students with cameras or even the public now. Security?
.
Dick South says anyone can contact him about the reasons for going underground. Why don't you contact him and Dean Rupert.
southrw@piercecollege.edu, rupertdw@piercecollege.edu
More About HSUS
.
HSUS's own financial accounting:
The HSUS by the Numbers (2007 Year-End Totals)
Here are two links (part one and part two) for their 2007 Annual report:
MEMBERS
10,571,955 Members and Constituents
1,020,000 HSUS Online Community Members
134,532 Humane Society International Online Members
438 Staff
FINANCES
$120,552,973 2007 Revenues
$112,827,228 2007 Expenses
$5,472,000 Amount Raised through Online Donations
OUTREACH
2,400,000 Advocacy Actions by Online Members
14,201 Attendance at HSUS Training Courses and Workshops
$6,801,762 Grants to Animal Care Partner Programs
438 Grant Awardees
275 HSUS Action in Cruelty Cases
15 Completed Covert Investigations
24,078 Animals Receiving Direct Care from The HSUS
27,973 Media Hits
4,900,000 Unique Visits to humanesociety.org
165 Videos Produced
1,336,000 Video Viewings on humanesociety.org
.
HSUS's own financial accounting:
The HSUS by the Numbers (2007 Year-End Totals)
Here are two links (part one and part two) for their 2007 Annual report:
10,571,955 Members and Constituents
1,020,000 HSUS Online Community Members
134,532 Humane Society International Online Members
438 Staff
FINANCES
$120,552,973 2007 Revenues
$112,827,228 2007 Expenses
$5,472,000 Amount Raised through Online Donations
OUTREACH
2,400,000 Advocacy Actions by Online Members
14,201 Attendance at HSUS Training Courses and Workshops
$6,801,762 Grants to Animal Care Partner Programs
438 Grant Awardees
275 HSUS Action in Cruelty Cases
15 Completed Covert Investigations
24,078 Animals Receiving Direct Care from The HSUS
27,973 Media Hits
4,900,000 Unique Visits to humanesociety.org
165 Videos Produced
1,336,000 Video Viewings on humanesociety.org
.
Nathan Goes After Pacelle Again
.
Carla Hall made it very clear that HSUS's Wayne Pacelle is a very political animal. She also made it clear he just tolerates animals. In fact, she also mentions that Wayne told her he just fell into animal work when he found out he could make a living at it.
This epiphany is exactly what led Boks into getting into animal shelter work: I can make a living in animal work.
I talked to Bob Hoover, president to the company that makes Chameleon software, about two years ago after Katrina. Bob had been there helping in some capacity.
He told me that HSUS was diverting a lot of the money given to them to rescue animals into organizing animal rescue and welfare groups across the country into a nationwide congress for social change. Sounds good, doesn't it.
However, recently one person has been feeding me a lot of info about HSUS and the phony methods they have for fundraising and then diverting that money away from rescue into organization building a political movement.
Here is one of many posts sent me:
Look at these figures!! $2 MILLION. $1.35 MILLION.
All those small individual contributions that roll in from John Q Public who "think" that the Humane Society of the United States is affiliated with their local shelters. Here is just one instance of $3.35 MILLION that has been "donated" to just one of the issues getting pushed by HSUS.
Tens of thousands of individuals that do not understand the goals of HSUS and their political warchest. HSUS uses "stock" photos of dogs and cats in their fundraising materials. They rush in following fires and floods to get those million-dollar photo opportunities that will generate more $$$ for them in the future.
HSUS is the wealthiest animal rights organization in the world. There is nothing "humane" about them. Whereas most local animal shelters are either financial struggling or under-funded, the HSUS is sitting fat and happy in the nation's Capitol.
In my next email, I will send "HSUS by the Numbers." It is an account of their 2007 Annual Review. They had 15 completed "covert" investigations and paid out less than SIX PERCENT (6%) in grant monies to Animal Care Partner Programs. Additionally, only 24,078 animals received direct care in 2007. But, hey, they did manage to produce 165 videos.
In addtion, Nathan posted another Pacelle hitpiece today on his blog:
Wayne Pacelle in a photo op with a dog belonging to someone else.
In an earlier blog, I discussed how Wayne Pacelle, the head of the Humane Society of the United States, is supposed to be a champion for the “winged” and the “furry,” but is, in many ways, an apologist for their killing. The question, of course, is why is that so? Why does he fail to embrace No Kill and to promote it as the head of the nation’s largest and most influential animal protection organization should? Why does he continue to pretend in statements to the media that No Kill communities do not exist and that the formula for ending the killing has not been discovered? Why does he allow HSUS representatives nationwide to misrepresent and deride No Kill and its supporters and to defend shelters with a poor record for lifesaving?
Time and time again, the positions he has taken regarding companion animals have vexed those of us who have dedicated ourselves to saving the lives of animals. But perhaps there is a simple, logical explanation. Perhaps Wayne Pacelle behaves as though he doesn’t care about animals because, by his own actions and admissions, he doesn’t.
When he was with the Fund For Animals, Pacelle was quoted as saying:
I don't have a hands-on fondness for animals. To this day I don't feel bonded to any non-human animal.
Admittedly, that was over a decade ago. But in this month’s Los Angeles Times feature, the reporter writes:
For years, Pacelle did not even have a pet. But when [his girlfriend] moved in with him, she brought along her cat, Libby."
He's interesting with animals… He doesn't want to bother them or invade their space. He's like 'Hello, Libby.'“ She imitated a formal, masculine voice, then laughed. “I just want to swoop her up and bury my head in her fur. He just lets her be. So, of course, she just crawls on the counters and he lets her crawl up and sit on his chest. If he needs to work, he'll ask me to remove her."
Despite the facile attempt to spin this into a positive, for those of us who have deep and meaningful relationships with animals, this description is disturbing. He doesn’t share his life with animals. He doesn’t feel compelled to rescue one from death row at any of the shelters he defends or promotes at his conferences. In fact, he has no real relationship with even his girlfriend’s cat who now lives in his home.
Don’t the five million animals facing certain and yet unnecessary deaths in our nation’s regressive shelters and pounds deserve to have a dedicated, passionate animal lover who is motivated by those very qualities overseeing the organization that has the greatest potential to bring that national tragedy to a speedy and final end?
Don’t donors to HSUS, who send that organization their hard earned dollars to the tune of over $100 million a year under the belief that their donations are going to be used to save animals, deserve to have an earnest individual who shares their values towards animals making decisions about how that organization's influence and capital can best be expended to further that cause?
In other words, shouldn’t a love for animals be a qualification for running HSUS since right now, it doesn’t appear to be? Is it any surprise then that HSUS under Pacelle continues to champion shelter policies which reflect a lack of caring for animals?
Perhaps he is thus unable to advocate for a nobler and just future for companion animals because he does not know what that future should look like. And he doesn’t know because he does not hurt at the thought of all the beings needlessly put to death. He fails to find it abhorrent. And he can’t even call it for what it is: a slaughter—something he has said is a “lamentable” choice of words when others have used it, because in his view, it is nothing more than “humane euthanasia.”
.
Carla Hall made it very clear that HSUS's Wayne Pacelle is a very political animal. She also made it clear he just tolerates animals. In fact, she also mentions that Wayne told her he just fell into animal work when he found out he could make a living at it.
This epiphany is exactly what led Boks into getting into animal shelter work: I can make a living in animal work.
I talked to Bob Hoover, president to the company that makes Chameleon software, about two years ago after Katrina. Bob had been there helping in some capacity.
He told me that HSUS was diverting a lot of the money given to them to rescue animals into organizing animal rescue and welfare groups across the country into a nationwide congress for social change. Sounds good, doesn't it.
However, recently one person has been feeding me a lot of info about HSUS and the phony methods they have for fundraising and then diverting that money away from rescue into organization building a political movement.
Here is one of many posts sent me:
Look at these figures!! $2 MILLION. $1.35 MILLION.
All those small individual contributions that roll in from John Q Public who "think" that the Humane Society of the United States is affiliated with their local shelters. Here is just one instance of $3.35 MILLION that has been "donated" to just one of the issues getting pushed by HSUS.
Tens of thousands of individuals that do not understand the goals of HSUS and their political warchest. HSUS uses "stock" photos of dogs and cats in their fundraising materials. They rush in following fires and floods to get those million-dollar photo opportunities that will generate more $$$ for them in the future.
HSUS is the wealthiest animal rights organization in the world. There is nothing "humane" about them. Whereas most local animal shelters are either financial struggling or under-funded, the HSUS is sitting fat and happy in the nation's Capitol.
In my next email, I will send "HSUS by the Numbers." It is an account of their 2007 Annual Review. They had 15 completed "covert" investigations and paid out less than SIX PERCENT (6%) in grant monies to Animal Care Partner Programs. Additionally, only 24,078 animals received direct care in 2007. But, hey, they did manage to produce 165 videos.
In addtion, Nathan posted another Pacelle hitpiece today on his blog:
Wayne Pacelle in a photo op with a dog belonging to someone else.
In an earlier blog, I discussed how Wayne Pacelle, the head of the Humane Society of the United States, is supposed to be a champion for the “winged” and the “furry,” but is, in many ways, an apologist for their killing. The question, of course, is why is that so? Why does he fail to embrace No Kill and to promote it as the head of the nation’s largest and most influential animal protection organization should? Why does he continue to pretend in statements to the media that No Kill communities do not exist and that the formula for ending the killing has not been discovered? Why does he allow HSUS representatives nationwide to misrepresent and deride No Kill and its supporters and to defend shelters with a poor record for lifesaving?
Time and time again, the positions he has taken regarding companion animals have vexed those of us who have dedicated ourselves to saving the lives of animals. But perhaps there is a simple, logical explanation. Perhaps Wayne Pacelle behaves as though he doesn’t care about animals because, by his own actions and admissions, he doesn’t.
When he was with the Fund For Animals, Pacelle was quoted as saying:
I don't have a hands-on fondness for animals. To this day I don't feel bonded to any non-human animal.
Admittedly, that was over a decade ago. But in this month’s Los Angeles Times feature, the reporter writes:
For years, Pacelle did not even have a pet. But when [his girlfriend] moved in with him, she brought along her cat, Libby."
He's interesting with animals… He doesn't want to bother them or invade their space. He's like 'Hello, Libby.'“ She imitated a formal, masculine voice, then laughed. “I just want to swoop her up and bury my head in her fur. He just lets her be. So, of course, she just crawls on the counters and he lets her crawl up and sit on his chest. If he needs to work, he'll ask me to remove her."
Despite the facile attempt to spin this into a positive, for those of us who have deep and meaningful relationships with animals, this description is disturbing. He doesn’t share his life with animals. He doesn’t feel compelled to rescue one from death row at any of the shelters he defends or promotes at his conferences. In fact, he has no real relationship with even his girlfriend’s cat who now lives in his home.
Don’t the five million animals facing certain and yet unnecessary deaths in our nation’s regressive shelters and pounds deserve to have a dedicated, passionate animal lover who is motivated by those very qualities overseeing the organization that has the greatest potential to bring that national tragedy to a speedy and final end?
Don’t donors to HSUS, who send that organization their hard earned dollars to the tune of over $100 million a year under the belief that their donations are going to be used to save animals, deserve to have an earnest individual who shares their values towards animals making decisions about how that organization's influence and capital can best be expended to further that cause?
In other words, shouldn’t a love for animals be a qualification for running HSUS since right now, it doesn’t appear to be? Is it any surprise then that HSUS under Pacelle continues to champion shelter policies which reflect a lack of caring for animals?
Perhaps he is thus unable to advocate for a nobler and just future for companion animals because he does not know what that future should look like. And he doesn’t know because he does not hurt at the thought of all the beings needlessly put to death. He fails to find it abhorrent. And he can’t even call it for what it is: a slaughter—something he has said is a “lamentable” choice of words when others have used it, because in his view, it is nothing more than “humane euthanasia.”
.
Ed, Why Aren't There Cameras in the Shelters--Looking at Employees?
.
Boks response to Winograd's blog videos of alleged animal abuse at LAAS:
New Day in LA Animal Services Challenges a blast from the past...
Recent blog posts by Nathan Winograd of No Kill Solutions are accompanied by videos depicting the unacceptable actions of two former LA Animal Services employees. One employee depicted has not worked for the department since September 2004. Another left more than a year ago.
LA Animal Services has policies in place today to prevent the kind of behavior and activity depicted in Mr. Winograd's blog and the LA Animal Services team is committed to completely eliminating these kinds of errors and abuses.
Improper treatment of animals in our Animal Care Centers is neither condoned nor tolerated. It is our belief that the kind of incidents that are the subject of Mr. Winograd's allegations do not occur in today's LA Animal Services. If they ever do, and there is demonstrable proof of it, the perpetrators will be disciplined appropriately.
Today’s LA Animal Services values the integrity of each employee, volunteer and partner contributing to the professional delivery of excellent customer service and the humane treatment of animals, in an atmosphere of open, honest communication, predicated on our trust in and respect for each other.
Anyone with any evidence of inappropriate or abusive conduct towards our customers, partners, or the animals in our care is encouraged to forward that evidence to the Department so appropriate action can be taken immediately.
Posted by Ed Boks
My own response is:
What would you consider " demonstrable proof?" A handwritten confession of abuse, or maybe a video.
Ed, how do you expect the public to get videos of neglect or abuse at the shelters? Public access is rather limited and anyone would be a fool to abuse an animal or a visitor in plain sight.
Therefore, I ask you, why has LAAS resisted all efforts to place video cameras into the shelters to monitor the day to day activities of staff with regard to animals?
If there are allegations of abuse, either of the public or animals by employees, why not have video cameras installed? Other public shelters do it. I don't know about LA, but police patrol cars in other jurisdictions have cameras in case of allegations of police wrongdoing; the truth will be told by the cameras.
Why are you and your shelters hiding from cameras?
Why not be as transparent with operations as you are with statistics?
Without video proof, you have no demonstrable proof of innocence.
.
Boks response to Winograd's blog videos of alleged animal abuse at LAAS:
New Day in LA Animal Services Challenges a blast from the past...
Recent blog posts by Nathan Winograd of No Kill Solutions are accompanied by videos depicting the unacceptable actions of two former LA Animal Services employees. One employee depicted has not worked for the department since September 2004. Another left more than a year ago.
LA Animal Services has policies in place today to prevent the kind of behavior and activity depicted in Mr. Winograd's blog and the LA Animal Services team is committed to completely eliminating these kinds of errors and abuses.
Improper treatment of animals in our Animal Care Centers is neither condoned nor tolerated. It is our belief that the kind of incidents that are the subject of Mr. Winograd's allegations do not occur in today's LA Animal Services. If they ever do, and there is demonstrable proof of it, the perpetrators will be disciplined appropriately.
Today’s LA Animal Services values the integrity of each employee, volunteer and partner contributing to the professional delivery of excellent customer service and the humane treatment of animals, in an atmosphere of open, honest communication, predicated on our trust in and respect for each other.
Anyone with any evidence of inappropriate or abusive conduct towards our customers, partners, or the animals in our care is encouraged to forward that evidence to the Department so appropriate action can be taken immediately.
Posted by Ed Boks
My own response is:
What would you consider " demonstrable proof?" A handwritten confession of abuse, or maybe a video.
Ed, how do you expect the public to get videos of neglect or abuse at the shelters? Public access is rather limited and anyone would be a fool to abuse an animal or a visitor in plain sight.
Therefore, I ask you, why has LAAS resisted all efforts to place video cameras into the shelters to monitor the day to day activities of staff with regard to animals?
If there are allegations of abuse, either of the public or animals by employees, why not have video cameras installed? Other public shelters do it. I don't know about LA, but police patrol cars in other jurisdictions have cameras in case of allegations of police wrongdoing; the truth will be told by the cameras.
Why are you and your shelters hiding from cameras?
Why not be as transparent with operations as you are with statistics?
Without video proof, you have no demonstrable proof of innocence.
.
Rancho Cucamonga Statistics
.
One commenter said Winograd's Rancho consult was a disaster. Someone sent the Rancho and County stats. They sounded really good for Rancho, a vindication of Nathan, even though he never claimed Rancho a success.
Then Brad Jensen posted the comment below that 1,000 animals were missing from their stats! That is 20%.
Therefore, any Rancho stats are worthless and they don't prove anything one way or another.
I'll leave the comments below.
Sorry.
Strangeky, looking at the rabies reports submitted to the state by LAAS and their published stats, they are thousands apart also.
One commenter said Winograd's Rancho consult was a disaster. Someone sent the Rancho and County stats. They sounded really good for Rancho, a vindication of Nathan, even though he never claimed Rancho a success.
Then Brad Jensen posted the comment below that 1,000 animals were missing from their stats! That is 20%.
Therefore, any Rancho stats are worthless and they don't prove anything one way or another.
I'll leave the comments below.
Sorry.
Strangeky, looking at the rabies reports submitted to the state by LAAS and their published stats, they are thousands apart also.
Winograd Detractors-Updated
.
Winograd has polarized the animal welfare and rescue communities across the country. Some love him, some hate him. Some love the idea of no kill, others find it only a marketing tool.
Neither community presents much in terms of proof, although Winograd can point to shelter published statistics.
The naysayers present their observations and hearsay about what others have told them. One repeatedly cites Rancho Cucamonga and only tells of its failure and really does not provide any dates or names with contact numbers.
The pro-Winograd people generally supply statistics to prove improvement. The naysayers say these people are liars and are in it for donations. They also say that these shelters do not supply independent statistics. My comment would be they do provide something while the naysayers do not except acrimony.
If the naysayers want to be believed, they need to supply credible proof other than just hearsay about what others told them.
I am just blown away by how easily the animal community accepts the most ridiculous assertions as fact and get outraged--on any side of any issue.
For example, with regard to my Pierce allegations, I present documents and printed articles. Many have photos.
One cannot claim to know anything for certain without providing proof that their observations are accurate. No one in any scientific community, from physics to sociology to demographics, would ever accept as proof the statement, "Trust me, I know everything." In fact, such an attitude would be laughed at because so many fraudulent claims made without proof or suport.
Foremost among the frauds is Clifton Merritt whose claim to authority is his claim to authority--40 years in the field of animal statistics. He really never provides any proof and when asked, says "Look at my body of work and. "Everyone who is anyone, says I am terrific."
For the Cucamonga claim, you'd need to have statistics as to the shelters' statistics before 2005, during 2005, and after 2005 when Winograd's "plan" was being implemented.
I have seen no facts, only claims by Naysayers, or observations by Naysayer's friends and acquaintances.
On the other side, one commonly accepted belief in the animal rescue community is that manditory spay/neuter is the answer. Yet, during the past three years LAAS has made a dramatic improvement in spay/neuter efforts (36,000 to 44,000 plus 2 city-owned opened spay/neuter clinics, with no real reduction in impounds during those years. Indeed, during the last 8-9 months there has been a dramatic increase in impounds. The spay/neuter people do not explain this.
They hold onto spay/neuter solutions with extraordinary disregard for statistics that go against their viewpoint as lies for donations. They don't even touch recent stats here but talk about failures in some distant town and maybe refer to a news article about success or failure there.
As to the claim that after a shelter is announced no-kill, impounds dramatically increase along with kill rates, this "common sense" point of view is contradicted in LA, and Reno and Philly.
LA's impound numbers have been steady for the last three years and almost totally plateaued for six years (except for the last 8 months) despite the fact of Boks' repeated contentions that LA is close to no-kill. Impounds have not increased at all except during the past eight months and Ed blames that on foreclosures.
According to Naysayers, impound rates should have dramatically increased since May of 2006 when he published his fantastic decrease in killing during his first 6 months, saying LA was rapidly approaching no-kill. It didn't.
It should have dramatically increased in April of 2007 when he announced March was LA's first No-Kill month. It didn't.
In addition, the adoption rate has dramatically increased in LA during the past 2-1/2 years, by a little over 30%, meaning demand has increased. Actually it does not mean demand has increased, it means supply has been made more readily available through increased adoption efforts, new shelters and more outreach. Demand may have been increased a little through PR.
The same with Philly. According to their statistics, which Naysayer denies because she thinks they lie, as does anyone with a different viewpoint or experience lies.
She bases almost all of her observations on her experience with Rancho Cucamonga. She has not seen the Philly, Reno, Charlottesville or San Francisco shelters in the last 2 years. She refuses to accept their numbers calling them all liars because they want to appear to be no-kill to get more donations.
According to the Philly stats, impounds have decreased every year since the Winograd consult while adoptions have increased and eithanasia decreased.
Naysays will send me articles of claimed failures in Philly or Rancho, but these are only claimed, ad hoc, observations of failure. I talked to the reporter who wrote the article that Naysayer sent me, and he said though there were claims of failure of the shelter, even by Winograd, the statistics did not worsen, but only failed to improve with the rapidity they did before. I am sure Naysays did not call and talk to the reporter.
I have given this person a free run to express her opinion. I am sure she will say what I am saying now is denegrating her once again. This is not true. I am constanttly appalled by her lack of facts and how strongly she opposes No-Kill and Winograd without proof, or proof based on hearsay about Rancho Cuvamonga.
She states she has not hatred of Winograd yet complains that Nathan has threaten to sue her twice. Winograd repudiates her opinion and she attacks him. She attacked me by calling me uninformed or not listening to her even though she knows better because she has spayed/neuter 100 times as many cats, or she "laughs" at my inexperience. Only she should be believed.
Experience does not trump science.
.
Winograd has polarized the animal welfare and rescue communities across the country. Some love him, some hate him. Some love the idea of no kill, others find it only a marketing tool.
Neither community presents much in terms of proof, although Winograd can point to shelter published statistics.
The naysayers present their observations and hearsay about what others have told them. One repeatedly cites Rancho Cucamonga and only tells of its failure and really does not provide any dates or names with contact numbers.
The pro-Winograd people generally supply statistics to prove improvement. The naysayers say these people are liars and are in it for donations. They also say that these shelters do not supply independent statistics. My comment would be they do provide something while the naysayers do not except acrimony.
If the naysayers want to be believed, they need to supply credible proof other than just hearsay about what others told them.
I am just blown away by how easily the animal community accepts the most ridiculous assertions as fact and get outraged--on any side of any issue.
For example, with regard to my Pierce allegations, I present documents and printed articles. Many have photos.
One cannot claim to know anything for certain without providing proof that their observations are accurate. No one in any scientific community, from physics to sociology to demographics, would ever accept as proof the statement, "Trust me, I know everything." In fact, such an attitude would be laughed at because so many fraudulent claims made without proof or suport.
Foremost among the frauds is Clifton Merritt whose claim to authority is his claim to authority--40 years in the field of animal statistics. He really never provides any proof and when asked, says "Look at my body of work and. "Everyone who is anyone, says I am terrific."
For the Cucamonga claim, you'd need to have statistics as to the shelters' statistics before 2005, during 2005, and after 2005 when Winograd's "plan" was being implemented.
I have seen no facts, only claims by Naysayers, or observations by Naysayer's friends and acquaintances.
On the other side, one commonly accepted belief in the animal rescue community is that manditory spay/neuter is the answer. Yet, during the past three years LAAS has made a dramatic improvement in spay/neuter efforts (36,000 to 44,000 plus 2 city-owned opened spay/neuter clinics, with no real reduction in impounds during those years. Indeed, during the last 8-9 months there has been a dramatic increase in impounds. The spay/neuter people do not explain this.
They hold onto spay/neuter solutions with extraordinary disregard for statistics that go against their viewpoint as lies for donations. They don't even touch recent stats here but talk about failures in some distant town and maybe refer to a news article about success or failure there.
As to the claim that after a shelter is announced no-kill, impounds dramatically increase along with kill rates, this "common sense" point of view is contradicted in LA, and Reno and Philly.
LA's impound numbers have been steady for the last three years and almost totally plateaued for six years (except for the last 8 months) despite the fact of Boks' repeated contentions that LA is close to no-kill. Impounds have not increased at all except during the past eight months and Ed blames that on foreclosures.
According to Naysayers, impound rates should have dramatically increased since May of 2006 when he published his fantastic decrease in killing during his first 6 months, saying LA was rapidly approaching no-kill. It didn't.
It should have dramatically increased in April of 2007 when he announced March was LA's first No-Kill month. It didn't.
In addition, the adoption rate has dramatically increased in LA during the past 2-1/2 years, by a little over 30%, meaning demand has increased. Actually it does not mean demand has increased, it means supply has been made more readily available through increased adoption efforts, new shelters and more outreach. Demand may have been increased a little through PR.
The same with Philly. According to their statistics, which Naysayer denies because she thinks they lie, as does anyone with a different viewpoint or experience lies.
She bases almost all of her observations on her experience with Rancho Cucamonga. She has not seen the Philly, Reno, Charlottesville or San Francisco shelters in the last 2 years. She refuses to accept their numbers calling them all liars because they want to appear to be no-kill to get more donations.
According to the Philly stats, impounds have decreased every year since the Winograd consult while adoptions have increased and eithanasia decreased.
Naysays will send me articles of claimed failures in Philly or Rancho, but these are only claimed, ad hoc, observations of failure. I talked to the reporter who wrote the article that Naysayer sent me, and he said though there were claims of failure of the shelter, even by Winograd, the statistics did not worsen, but only failed to improve with the rapidity they did before. I am sure Naysays did not call and talk to the reporter.
I have given this person a free run to express her opinion. I am sure she will say what I am saying now is denegrating her once again. This is not true. I am constanttly appalled by her lack of facts and how strongly she opposes No-Kill and Winograd without proof, or proof based on hearsay about Rancho Cuvamonga.
She states she has not hatred of Winograd yet complains that Nathan has threaten to sue her twice. Winograd repudiates her opinion and she attacks him. She attacked me by calling me uninformed or not listening to her even though she knows better because she has spayed/neuter 100 times as many cats, or she "laughs" at my inexperience. Only she should be believed.
Experience does not trump science.
.
Want a Baby Goat or Lamb for Dinner? Get one at Pierce for $75
.
I am appalled that it is so easy to purchase a baby goat or a 10 month old lamb for consumption for a lousy $70 if you buy two. You can slaughter them yourself if kept out of sight, or take them somewhere do be slaughtered in a USDA "approved" way.
Below is a list of prices for baby and adult animals, sheep and goats only.
The cost of life is so cheap.
I am appalled that it is so easy to purchase a baby goat or a 10 month old lamb for consumption for a lousy $70 if you buy two. You can slaughter them yourself if kept out of sight, or take them somewhere do be slaughtered in a USDA "approved" way.
Below is a list of prices for baby and adult animals, sheep and goats only.
The cost of life is so cheap.
Click on image to enlarge
PETA ALSO INVESTIGATING PIERCE
.
What on earth is going on at Pierce? Skinned cat, farm animal abuse and now torture, abuse and killing of lab animals.
What is wrong there? What are the ethics of those in charge, from low grade faculty like Crista Slattery, on up to Leland Shapiro and Dick South, on up to Dean Rupert? Is there no oversight by anyone at Pierce?
Mr. Boks, we need you to investigate all of the complaints of animal cruelty, neglect, mismanagement, illegal collusion between LAAS employees, obstruction of justice, etc., involving Pierce faculty, staff and LAAS and ACTF employees. This is a cesspool and you need to clean it up.
All these complaints of animal harm is happening on your watch now, about animals in Los Angeles on a state community college campus. Mr. Boks, you must mount a credible investigation and present the findings, not in months, but within days of this notice.
As I posted before, you make promises to Council to do studies, but you don't do them and people forget that you ever promised anything. Act now Mr. Boks. Investigate Pierce.
The four URLs below refer to various PETA posts and petitions.
http://blog.peta.org/archives/pierce_college
http://getactive.peta.org/campaign/pierce_petition
http://www.stopanimaltests.com/index.aspx
http://blog.peta.org/archives/2008/06/abuse_suffering.php
Story #1
Prompted by a complaint from PETA, federal officials are investigating allegations that animals are being abused and killed in Pierce College's veterinary technology program—in violation of federal animal welfare regulations—by an instructor and her students. According to a student who blew the whistle on the abuse, faculty member Christa Slattery, who is also an animal resources supervisor in the Division of Laboratory Animal Medicine at the University of California Los Angeles, is operating a classroom laboratory without adhering to legally required guidelines for the treatment of animals. This has apparently caused unnecessary suffering and death.
The following are just some of the alleged abuses:
Slattery seems unqualified to show veterinary technician procedures on animals. She used just one rabbit to teach all the students in a class to withdraw blood.
The rabbit's ears were stuck with a needle 12 times in a single blood-collection session, far exceeding the commonly accepted maximum of four punctures.
Slattery permitted an untrained student to attempt to trim a rat's teeth, which resulted in a severe laceration and profuse bleeding from the rat's tongue.
Slattery forced a large mouse into a restraint tube and even suggested that the tube was too small. The severely restrained animal died within minutes. When students complained, Slattery reportedly told them, "I'd appreciate it if you guys are discreet."
Given no direction, a student who attempted to restrain a mouse in a piece of cloth wrapped the mouse so tightly that the animal suffered a seizure.
Christa Slattery's dismissive attitude toward animals' pain and distress, her apparent failure to provide adequate instruction to and careful supervision of students who attempt to perform procedures on animals, and her overall incompetence leave animals vulnerable to neglect, mistreatment, and abuse.
PETA is calling on Pierce College to fully investigate these claims and should they prove true to fire Christa Slattery and implement guidelines to ensure that animals do not continue to suffer.
Story #2
Abuse, Suffering, and Death in Pierce College Classrooms
OK, here's the thing: You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand the handful of regulations that govern the treatment of animals in laboratories.
What's required of folks who use animals in laboratories is so embarrassingly obvious—animals who are sick or injured need veterinary care, animals who are too ill to be treated should be euthanized, dogs should be exercised, cages should be cleaned, and so on. And yet, vivisectors in labs across the country violate federal law every single day.
Take this situation at Pierce College: A whistleblower has informed PETA that animals are being abused and killed in classroom laboratories by an instructor (Christa Slattery) and her students, in apparent violation of federal animal welfare regulations.
The whistleblower told us that Slattery operates her classes like a "free for all," allowing students to poke, prod, bleed, and inject animals with minimum guidance or instruction. And reportedly, when Slattery gets to the animals, it seems that she barely knows what she's doing!
The whistleblower told PETA that Slattery tried to push a large mouse into a small tube to restrain the mouse; she wondered whether the tube was too small but just shrugged her shoulders and continued to force the mouse into the tube. Minutes later, the mouse was dead.
Here's what the whistleblower had to say about the matter:
Ms. Slattery's failure to provide detailed guidance in the form of thorough instruction, science-based guidelines, and careful supervision deprives the students in her class of an opportunity to receive adequate training in animal care procedures and leaves the animals used in demonstrations open to neglect, mistreatment, and abuse.
And here's what PETA's director of laboratory investigations told the media today:
Pierce College's veterinary technician program appears to be teaching students that animals' lives don't matter. Slattery's laboratory is apparently in violation of a host of federal regulations, and we're urging the USDA to investigate and force Pierce to comply with animal protection regulations.
Posted by Grace Freidan, Researcher
What on earth is going on at Pierce? Skinned cat, farm animal abuse and now torture, abuse and killing of lab animals.
What is wrong there? What are the ethics of those in charge, from low grade faculty like Crista Slattery, on up to Leland Shapiro and Dick South, on up to Dean Rupert? Is there no oversight by anyone at Pierce?
Mr. Boks, we need you to investigate all of the complaints of animal cruelty, neglect, mismanagement, illegal collusion between LAAS employees, obstruction of justice, etc., involving Pierce faculty, staff and LAAS and ACTF employees. This is a cesspool and you need to clean it up.
All these complaints of animal harm is happening on your watch now, about animals in Los Angeles on a state community college campus. Mr. Boks, you must mount a credible investigation and present the findings, not in months, but within days of this notice.
As I posted before, you make promises to Council to do studies, but you don't do them and people forget that you ever promised anything. Act now Mr. Boks. Investigate Pierce.
The four URLs below refer to various PETA posts and petitions.
http://blog.peta.org/archives/pierce_college
http://getactive.peta.org/campaign/pierce_petition
http://www.stopanimaltests.com/index.aspx
http://blog.peta.org/archives/2008/06/abuse_suffering.php
Story #1
Prompted by a complaint from PETA, federal officials are investigating allegations that animals are being abused and killed in Pierce College's veterinary technology program—in violation of federal animal welfare regulations—by an instructor and her students. According to a student who blew the whistle on the abuse, faculty member Christa Slattery, who is also an animal resources supervisor in the Division of Laboratory Animal Medicine at the University of California Los Angeles, is operating a classroom laboratory without adhering to legally required guidelines for the treatment of animals. This has apparently caused unnecessary suffering and death.
The following are just some of the alleged abuses:
Slattery seems unqualified to show veterinary technician procedures on animals. She used just one rabbit to teach all the students in a class to withdraw blood.
The rabbit's ears were stuck with a needle 12 times in a single blood-collection session, far exceeding the commonly accepted maximum of four punctures.
Slattery permitted an untrained student to attempt to trim a rat's teeth, which resulted in a severe laceration and profuse bleeding from the rat's tongue.
Slattery forced a large mouse into a restraint tube and even suggested that the tube was too small. The severely restrained animal died within minutes. When students complained, Slattery reportedly told them, "I'd appreciate it if you guys are discreet."
Given no direction, a student who attempted to restrain a mouse in a piece of cloth wrapped the mouse so tightly that the animal suffered a seizure.
Christa Slattery's dismissive attitude toward animals' pain and distress, her apparent failure to provide adequate instruction to and careful supervision of students who attempt to perform procedures on animals, and her overall incompetence leave animals vulnerable to neglect, mistreatment, and abuse.
PETA is calling on Pierce College to fully investigate these claims and should they prove true to fire Christa Slattery and implement guidelines to ensure that animals do not continue to suffer.
Story #2
Abuse, Suffering, and Death in Pierce College Classrooms
OK, here's the thing: You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand the handful of regulations that govern the treatment of animals in laboratories.
What's required of folks who use animals in laboratories is so embarrassingly obvious—animals who are sick or injured need veterinary care, animals who are too ill to be treated should be euthanized, dogs should be exercised, cages should be cleaned, and so on. And yet, vivisectors in labs across the country violate federal law every single day.
Take this situation at Pierce College: A whistleblower has informed PETA that animals are being abused and killed in classroom laboratories by an instructor (Christa Slattery) and her students, in apparent violation of federal animal welfare regulations.
The whistleblower told us that Slattery operates her classes like a "free for all," allowing students to poke, prod, bleed, and inject animals with minimum guidance or instruction. And reportedly, when Slattery gets to the animals, it seems that she barely knows what she's doing!
The whistleblower told PETA that Slattery tried to push a large mouse into a small tube to restrain the mouse; she wondered whether the tube was too small but just shrugged her shoulders and continued to force the mouse into the tube. Minutes later, the mouse was dead.
Here's what the whistleblower had to say about the matter:
Ms. Slattery's failure to provide detailed guidance in the form of thorough instruction, science-based guidelines, and careful supervision deprives the students in her class of an opportunity to receive adequate training in animal care procedures and leaves the animals used in demonstrations open to neglect, mistreatment, and abuse.
And here's what PETA's director of laboratory investigations told the media today:
Pierce College's veterinary technician program appears to be teaching students that animals' lives don't matter. Slattery's laboratory is apparently in violation of a host of federal regulations, and we're urging the USDA to investigate and force Pierce to comply with animal protection regulations.
Posted by Grace Freidan, Researcher
Comment from a Winograd Critic
.
For almost 2 years I've been having a "fight" with a Winograd critic. Neither of us really heard each other. She uses his Rancho consult as one example of his failure to be "great" leader of No-Kill.
Recently Charlottesville has fallen out of the No-Kill category and Philly's efforts were roundly criticized by Nathan when one Tara Derby was his pride and joy, getting his shelter director of the year award.
Of course, it appears shelters all over the country are failing even compared with previous years--or so I am told by some; I have not seen statistics to prove it other than at LAAS.
If the failures are truly beyond the shelter's coping ability, then is is difficult to say Rancho's current failure, or Charlottesville's, is do to Winograd's failed consults.
If anyone has actual statistics to offer re impounds, cat and dog, Southern California and beyond, please send them to me.
Here is the post:
Thank you for opening discussion and not degrading this time. Rancho was overcrowded, disease ridden, and turning away owner surrenders within the first three months of implementing Winograd's program. They have poured money into the shelter to do everything he recommended to no avail.
Numbers can be manipulated just by telling the ACO's to not pick up animals and turning away owners. How do we know owners were turned away - they were going to the other shelters in San Bernardino trying to surrender. One interesting note is that the county shelter had an increase in adoptions because people were so put off at the Rancho shelter.
I saw first hand, cats and dogs in the hallways in crates and carriers, beside each other, almost no room to walk. The staff could not keep up with medicating and new animals just re-infected anyway. Rancho citizens went to public forum before the City Council to describe how they had seen horrible fights and even death in the dog kennels from overcrowding.
Yes, the City Clerk knows me quite well from my public records request. Now things are so bad that they are starting to ignore requests not only from myself but others as well.
Rancho claims to have over 400 volunteers but these "volunteers" have to have their parents with them while at the shelter. I have witnessed first hand the rudeness of the present staff because they are so frustrated at the whole thing. And Rancho even stopped canvassing for dog licenses for a great while they were so committed to this program.
I witnessed the lines awaiting the opening of the shelter in the mornings of owners surrendering their pets when the shelter declared no kill. Never saw this before. As far as I know Rancho has done everything recommended by Winograd, I know his report almost by heart.He did have input on the new director.
I don't "hate" Winograd, I hate the ignorance of his program and his statements. Actually I feel sorry for him in many ways but I hate the damage he is doing with his ignorance and inexperience.
I, too, want to believe. I will not do so at the expense of the animals in the shelters however. A truly great leader would have gone into Philly to see where his program went wrong and offer to solve the problem. I can't respect someone who only sits and condemns.
Does he only care to get his money or does he truly care about helping the animals? He's done nothing to convince me he cares for anything other than his own greed by failing to look at the reasons for the failures. It is so easy to say that "they were not committed enough".
I didn't misunderstand his statement on overpopulation and neither did the breeding industry. Have you looked at their web site lately? Breeders are recommending his book for use to fight laws against breeding. It was used to defeat the one thing that will stop the influx into the shelters, AB1634. If you want to insist I misunderstood, then all those others misunderstood too and it resulted in stopping the one thing that can make a difference.
Right now I am more concerned about how we will fare with this lousy economy. Realtors are reporting dead and dying animals they are finding in foreclosed homes. Horses are being abandoned in the desert in record numbers. Livestock keeping in our shelters is more of a drain on the shelters than dogs and cats.
The shelters cannot turn away these people who are losing their homes or their animals will be dumped. Most people try to place their pets with rescues prior to taking them to the shelter, the shelter is the last resort.
We are looking at one of the hardest times ever as far as animals go. Budgets will be cut, more animals will be dumped and surrendered, and shelters will be hurting more than ever. Adoptions will decrease because of the uncertainly of having a home to take them to.
Now with the loss of donated food from Petco, many rescues will not be able to pull from the shelters any more. Many rescues will fail as well without that donation. Caregivers will drop like flies and feral cat colonies will be abandoned. Almost every rescue I know gets food from Petco to some extent. And in hard economic times, their donations will fall compounding the problem.
.
For almost 2 years I've been having a "fight" with a Winograd critic. Neither of us really heard each other. She uses his Rancho consult as one example of his failure to be "great" leader of No-Kill.
Recently Charlottesville has fallen out of the No-Kill category and Philly's efforts were roundly criticized by Nathan when one Tara Derby was his pride and joy, getting his shelter director of the year award.
Of course, it appears shelters all over the country are failing even compared with previous years--or so I am told by some; I have not seen statistics to prove it other than at LAAS.
If the failures are truly beyond the shelter's coping ability, then is is difficult to say Rancho's current failure, or Charlottesville's, is do to Winograd's failed consults.
If anyone has actual statistics to offer re impounds, cat and dog, Southern California and beyond, please send them to me.
Here is the post:
Thank you for opening discussion and not degrading this time. Rancho was overcrowded, disease ridden, and turning away owner surrenders within the first three months of implementing Winograd's program. They have poured money into the shelter to do everything he recommended to no avail.
Numbers can be manipulated just by telling the ACO's to not pick up animals and turning away owners. How do we know owners were turned away - they were going to the other shelters in San Bernardino trying to surrender. One interesting note is that the county shelter had an increase in adoptions because people were so put off at the Rancho shelter.
I saw first hand, cats and dogs in the hallways in crates and carriers, beside each other, almost no room to walk. The staff could not keep up with medicating and new animals just re-infected anyway. Rancho citizens went to public forum before the City Council to describe how they had seen horrible fights and even death in the dog kennels from overcrowding.
Yes, the City Clerk knows me quite well from my public records request. Now things are so bad that they are starting to ignore requests not only from myself but others as well.
Rancho claims to have over 400 volunteers but these "volunteers" have to have their parents with them while at the shelter. I have witnessed first hand the rudeness of the present staff because they are so frustrated at the whole thing. And Rancho even stopped canvassing for dog licenses for a great while they were so committed to this program.
I witnessed the lines awaiting the opening of the shelter in the mornings of owners surrendering their pets when the shelter declared no kill. Never saw this before. As far as I know Rancho has done everything recommended by Winograd, I know his report almost by heart.He did have input on the new director.
I don't "hate" Winograd, I hate the ignorance of his program and his statements. Actually I feel sorry for him in many ways but I hate the damage he is doing with his ignorance and inexperience.
I, too, want to believe. I will not do so at the expense of the animals in the shelters however. A truly great leader would have gone into Philly to see where his program went wrong and offer to solve the problem. I can't respect someone who only sits and condemns.
Does he only care to get his money or does he truly care about helping the animals? He's done nothing to convince me he cares for anything other than his own greed by failing to look at the reasons for the failures. It is so easy to say that "they were not committed enough".
I didn't misunderstand his statement on overpopulation and neither did the breeding industry. Have you looked at their web site lately? Breeders are recommending his book for use to fight laws against breeding. It was used to defeat the one thing that will stop the influx into the shelters, AB1634. If you want to insist I misunderstood, then all those others misunderstood too and it resulted in stopping the one thing that can make a difference.
Right now I am more concerned about how we will fare with this lousy economy. Realtors are reporting dead and dying animals they are finding in foreclosed homes. Horses are being abandoned in the desert in record numbers. Livestock keeping in our shelters is more of a drain on the shelters than dogs and cats.
The shelters cannot turn away these people who are losing their homes or their animals will be dumped. Most people try to place their pets with rescues prior to taking them to the shelter, the shelter is the last resort.
We are looking at one of the hardest times ever as far as animals go. Budgets will be cut, more animals will be dumped and surrendered, and shelters will be hurting more than ever. Adoptions will decrease because of the uncertainly of having a home to take them to.
Now with the loss of donated food from Petco, many rescues will not be able to pull from the shelters any more. Many rescues will fail as well without that donation. Caregivers will drop like flies and feral cat colonies will be abandoned. Almost every rescue I know gets food from Petco to some extent. And in hard economic times, their donations will fall compounding the problem.
.
Request For Public Records to Ed Boks
.
To:
Ed Boks,
Ross Pool
Dear Ed and Ross,
I am interested in any LAAS/ACTF records, statements, complaints or reports regarding allegations of animal neglect on the Pierce Campus, including all records and emails pertaining to the subsequent investigation by LAAS/ACTF regarding these complaints.
Of special interest are the investigations of animal neglect complaints occurring during 2004, 2005 and 2006. Also of special interest are inspection reports of farm animals during these years, photographs taken, or veterinary inspection reports, as well as written records dated October 2005 to January 2006 regarding results of the closed investigation of the neglect complaints.
This request is being made subject to the California Public Records Act: Government Code §6250-6268. Under this statute you have 10 calendar days from the date of receipt of this request to respond as to whether you will release the records requested as detailed below. It is preferred your response be made in writing to either the street address or email above.
Information Requested
1. Copies of all complaints, or notations of complaints received by LAAS/ACTF regarding neglect or abuse of any farm animal on the Pierce Campus during 2004 and 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.
2.Any email or written records, including complaints, notes, citations or investigation results from any of the following officers, Bowers, Boswell, Navattette, Selder, Frias, Botta, Dancy or Frias regarding the investigation by LAAS or the LA ACTF conducted between March 1, 2005 and May 1, 2006 concerning alleged neglect of farm animals on the Pierce campus addressed to Guerdon Stuckey, Ed Boks, Richard South, Dean Dorthy Rupert, Dean Paul Whalen, Elizebeth South, Dr. Yates, or Scott Henderson.
3. Written results of the 2005-06 investigation, which apparently was closed by testimony of Captain Bowers because the animals were not there when the inspection was made, which would include dates when the camplaints were first received, the dates of the inspections, and the date the investigation closed.
4. Records of animal neglect complaints and investigations of Pierce in 2004, 2007 and 2008.
Form of Information Requested
The requested information should be provided as any standard wordprocessing file, PDF file, Tiff file, JPEG file, or other file type that can be electronically transferred to the email address shown below. Should there be file size limitations on what you are permitted to send outside of your internal network, please contact me so that other arrangements for data transfer can be made. In lieu of electronic conveyance, please supply a hardcopy of the requested documents.
Denial and Redaction
Should you choose to deny this request, as required by law, please indicate the exact reason for denial and the person and title of the person who made such decision. Should information be redacted from the files, statute requires that you list for EACH record the reason for redaction and type of information redacted.
Fees
I am willing to pay reasonable copying fees, as defined under law, not to exceed $25.00. Should fees run higher, please contact me.
Should you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me immediately.
Sincerely,
Edward Muzika, Ph.D.
.
To:
Ed Boks,
Ross Pool
Dear Ed and Ross,
I am interested in any LAAS/ACTF records, statements, complaints or reports regarding allegations of animal neglect on the Pierce Campus, including all records and emails pertaining to the subsequent investigation by LAAS/ACTF regarding these complaints.
Of special interest are the investigations of animal neglect complaints occurring during 2004, 2005 and 2006. Also of special interest are inspection reports of farm animals during these years, photographs taken, or veterinary inspection reports, as well as written records dated October 2005 to January 2006 regarding results of the closed investigation of the neglect complaints.
This request is being made subject to the California Public Records Act: Government Code §6250-6268. Under this statute you have 10 calendar days from the date of receipt of this request to respond as to whether you will release the records requested as detailed below. It is preferred your response be made in writing to either the street address or email above.
Information Requested
1. Copies of all complaints, or notations of complaints received by LAAS/ACTF regarding neglect or abuse of any farm animal on the Pierce Campus during 2004 and 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.
2.Any email or written records, including complaints, notes, citations or investigation results from any of the following officers, Bowers, Boswell, Navattette, Selder, Frias, Botta, Dancy or Frias regarding the investigation by LAAS or the LA ACTF conducted between March 1, 2005 and May 1, 2006 concerning alleged neglect of farm animals on the Pierce campus addressed to Guerdon Stuckey, Ed Boks, Richard South, Dean Dorthy Rupert, Dean Paul Whalen, Elizebeth South, Dr. Yates, or Scott Henderson.
3. Written results of the 2005-06 investigation, which apparently was closed by testimony of Captain Bowers because the animals were not there when the inspection was made, which would include dates when the camplaints were first received, the dates of the inspections, and the date the investigation closed.
4. Records of animal neglect complaints and investigations of Pierce in 2004, 2007 and 2008.
Form of Information Requested
The requested information should be provided as any standard wordprocessing file, PDF file, Tiff file, JPEG file, or other file type that can be electronically transferred to the email address shown below. Should there be file size limitations on what you are permitted to send outside of your internal network, please contact me so that other arrangements for data transfer can be made. In lieu of electronic conveyance, please supply a hardcopy of the requested documents.
Denial and Redaction
Should you choose to deny this request, as required by law, please indicate the exact reason for denial and the person and title of the person who made such decision. Should information be redacted from the files, statute requires that you list for EACH record the reason for redaction and type of information redacted.
Fees
I am willing to pay reasonable copying fees, as defined under law, not to exceed $25.00. Should fees run higher, please contact me.
Should you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me immediately.
Sincerely,
Edward Muzika, Ph.D.
.
Request for Public Records Re Animal Neglect at Pierce
.
The below request for punci records we emailed to various faculty and deans at Pierce regarding the 2005-06 investigation by LAAS of animal neglect on the Pierce campus, as well as similar complaints of animal neglect in 2004.
A similar request will be sent to Ed Boks and others at LAAS.
To:
Richard South
Dean Dorthy Rupert,
Dean Paul Whalen,
Elizebeth South,
Dr. Yates
Scott Henderson
Dear Above Mentioned,
This request is being made subject to the California Public Records Act: Government Code §6250-6268. Under this statute you have 10 calendar days from the date of receipt of this request to respond as to whether you will release the records requested as detailed below. It is preferred your response be made in writing to either the street address or email above.
Information Requested
Monthly Pierce College Farm Statements of balance sheets for farm projects or sales from January 1, 2001 to date.
Veterinary records for all student project animals since January 1, 2003.
Copies of all complaints received by any department, division, veterinarian or Dean, regarding treatment of project animals in 2004 and 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.
Any email from any of the above to Officers Bowers, Boswell, Navattette, Selder, Frias, Botta, Dancy or Frias regarding the investigation by LAAS or the LA ACTF conducted between March 1, 2005 and May 1, 2006 concerning alleged neglect of farm animals on the Pierce campus,.
Bill of sale or disposition data regarding animals mentioned as neglected on the website www.piercefarmwatch.com, including Bandit, Papa Billy, and Thomas, including date of sale.
Enrollment records for Ag 181 and AG 596 for 2002, and from 2005-to date.
Form of Information Requested
The requested information should be provided as an standard wordprocessing file, PDF file, Tiff file, JPEG file, and can be electronically transferred to the email address shown below. Should there be file size limitations on what you are permitted to send outside of your internal network, please contact me so that other arrangements for data transfer can be made. In lieu of electronic conveyance, please supply a hardcopy of the requested documents.
Denial and Redaction
Should you choose to deny this request, as required by law, please indicate the exact reason for denial and the person and title of the person who made such decision. Should information be redacted from the files, statute requires that you list for EACH record the reason for redaction and type of information redacted.
Fees
I am willing to pay reasonable copying fees, as defined under law, not to exceed $25.00. Should fees run higher, please contact me.
Should you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me immediately.
Sincerely,
Edward Muzika, Ph.D.
The below request for punci records we emailed to various faculty and deans at Pierce regarding the 2005-06 investigation by LAAS of animal neglect on the Pierce campus, as well as similar complaints of animal neglect in 2004.
A similar request will be sent to Ed Boks and others at LAAS.
To:
Richard South
Dean Dorthy Rupert,
Dean Paul Whalen,
Elizebeth South,
Dr. Yates
Scott Henderson
Dear Above Mentioned,
This request is being made subject to the California Public Records Act: Government Code §6250-6268. Under this statute you have 10 calendar days from the date of receipt of this request to respond as to whether you will release the records requested as detailed below. It is preferred your response be made in writing to either the street address or email above.
Information Requested
Monthly Pierce College Farm Statements of balance sheets for farm projects or sales from January 1, 2001 to date.
Veterinary records for all student project animals since January 1, 2003.
Copies of all complaints received by any department, division, veterinarian or Dean, regarding treatment of project animals in 2004 and 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.
Any email from any of the above to Officers Bowers, Boswell, Navattette, Selder, Frias, Botta, Dancy or Frias regarding the investigation by LAAS or the LA ACTF conducted between March 1, 2005 and May 1, 2006 concerning alleged neglect of farm animals on the Pierce campus,.
Bill of sale or disposition data regarding animals mentioned as neglected on the website www.piercefarmwatch.com, including Bandit, Papa Billy, and Thomas, including date of sale.
Enrollment records for Ag 181 and AG 596 for 2002, and from 2005-to date.
Form of Information Requested
The requested information should be provided as an standard wordprocessing file, PDF file, Tiff file, JPEG file, and can be electronically transferred to the email address shown below. Should there be file size limitations on what you are permitted to send outside of your internal network, please contact me so that other arrangements for data transfer can be made. In lieu of electronic conveyance, please supply a hardcopy of the requested documents.
Denial and Redaction
Should you choose to deny this request, as required by law, please indicate the exact reason for denial and the person and title of the person who made such decision. Should information be redacted from the files, statute requires that you list for EACH record the reason for redaction and type of information redacted.
Fees
I am willing to pay reasonable copying fees, as defined under law, not to exceed $25.00. Should fees run higher, please contact me.
Should you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me immediately.
Sincerely,
Edward Muzika, Ph.D.
Nathan is Wrong
.
In a post below, I linked to Winograd's blogpost where he claimed LAAS ACO were seizing or forcing owners to relinquish dogs.
I thought that not credible, that is, Ed would issue an enforcement of an order that would increase impounds. Since Ed goes out his way not to increase impounds, I know he would not enforce this one.
Yet, Nathan made the claim. I sent Boks a request for a rebuttal.
In my understanding the law had not gone into effect yet as the grace period ends on October 1 of this year. I can only think Winograd has relied on very poor information from activists in our own animals community, OR, the shelters themselves have been enforcing the ordinance even when it is not in effect and contrary to Boks orders not to impound.
http://nathanwinograd.blogspot.com/2008/07/ding-dong-witch-is-dead-or-is-she.html
In any event, Nathan should have been more cautious in his accusations.
.
In a post below, I linked to Winograd's blogpost where he claimed LAAS ACO were seizing or forcing owners to relinquish dogs.
I thought that not credible, that is, Ed would issue an enforcement of an order that would increase impounds. Since Ed goes out his way not to increase impounds, I know he would not enforce this one.
Yet, Nathan made the claim. I sent Boks a request for a rebuttal.
In my understanding the law had not gone into effect yet as the grace period ends on October 1 of this year. I can only think Winograd has relied on very poor information from activists in our own animals community, OR, the shelters themselves have been enforcing the ordinance even when it is not in effect and contrary to Boks orders not to impound.
http://nathanwinograd.blogspot.com/2008/07/ding-dong-witch-is-dead-or-is-she.html
In any event, Nathan should have been more cautious in his accusations.
.
Carla Hall and Pacelle vs. Winograd
Carla Hall, who writes animal brown-nose fluff pieces for the LA Times wrote a suck-up of Wayne Pacelle today. In it he is quoted as saying animal shelter managers should not be attacked because they have high kill rates, that it is a community problem.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pacelle19-2008jul19,0,4840426.story
Nathan Winograd responded hours later on his blog:
http://nathanwinograd.blogspot.com/2008/07/real-wayne-pacelle-legacy.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pacelle19-2008jul19,0,4840426.story
Nathan Winograd responded hours later on his blog:
http://nathanwinograd.blogspot.com/2008/07/real-wayne-pacelle-legacy.html
Winograd's blog
.
Look at Winograd's blog which includes attacks on LAAS and Mayeda's County shelters with videos:
http://nathanwinograd.blogspot.com/2008/07/ding-dong-witch-is-dead-or-is-she.html
I really don't buy Nathan's charge that the increased death rate for dogs is because Animal Services is seizing dogs for not being speutered. This is too hard to believe. Besides, the ordinance was just signed by Villaraigosa and certainly has not been in effect for the past 7 months that dog impounds have been rising.
.
Look at Winograd's blog which includes attacks on LAAS and Mayeda's County shelters with videos:
http://nathanwinograd.blogspot.com/2008/07/ding-dong-witch-is-dead-or-is-she.html
I really don't buy Nathan's charge that the increased death rate for dogs is because Animal Services is seizing dogs for not being speutered. This is too hard to believe. Besides, the ordinance was just signed by Villaraigosa and certainly has not been in effect for the past 7 months that dog impounds have been rising.
.
.
From Nathan Winograd's blog:
California’s proposed mandatory spay/neuter law is all but dead. This is not news to anyone who has been following it. But it is good news for the animals. The question is: for how long? As proponents shift focus from the state to the local level, AB 1634 will continue to rear its ugly head.
And in light of the fact that there has been the first increase in the kill rate of animals in over a decade since its passage in the City of Los Angeles, animal lovers have much to be concerned about. Especially since shelter killing has not only increased, it has skyrocketed.
While leadership of Los Angeles Animal Services tries desperately to blame home foreclosures for the increased killing, the numbers—as usual—do not add up. According to the people in the trenches, an increase in impounds and killing is largely the result of officers telling people that “if you give me your dog, we won't write you a ticket” [for the sterilization law violation].
These animals enter death row at Los Angeles Animal Services, and then these individuals go out and get another animal (and not from a shelter). The law harms animals on two fronts:
increased impound and killing, and an increase in the market for backyard bred animals.
As seen time and time again, mandatory sterilization laws are largely a distraction, increasing the power of animal control to impound and kill yet more animals, while they divert resources from programs that do work so that agencies can hire yet more officers to write yet more tickets—or threaten to do so—to no avail. While proponents seek to punish the public, they only end up hurting the animals.
I’ve said this before: in a democracy, animal lovers are free to believe whatever they want. But believing something doesn’t make it so, and never will. Meanwhile, animals continue to be killed in appalling numbers and reform efforts are squandered on an agenda that has no hope of achieving success. Moreover, the animals are paying the ultimate price for the false beliefs of animal activists. They are the ones being slaughtered en masse because of it. With animals being killed every day in shelters because shelter leadership has not embraced the programs and services of the No Kill Equation or a culture of caring and accountability, activists must move beyond the empty hope that mandatory sterilization will ever be anything but a failure.
Look at what the animals in the Los Angeles city and county shelter system must endure.
(City of Los Angeles Animal Services) Take a look at a dog being violently handled on a control pole. Click here.
(City of Los Angeles Animal Services) Take a look at the callousness by which a dog is killed and then heaped into a trash bin. Click here.
(Los Angeles County Animal Control) Take a look at a puppy slowly dying while staff socializes. Click here.
(Los Angeles County Animal Control) Take a look at a rabbit desperately trying to drink from an empty water bowl, forgotten in a back room. Click here.
(Los Angeles County Animal Control) Take a look at cages deliberately kept empty to reduce the amount of work staff has to do, while animals are executed as a result. Click here.
(Los Angeles County Animal Control) And then take a look at a puppy, a young, friendly puppy who entered healthy, was made sick, and then was left to die; while shelter staff are oblivious to or unmoved by his plight. Click healthy, made sick, left to die.
This is not unique to Los Angeles. Look at the green algae covered water bowls that dogs have to drink from at a shelter in San Bernardino County. Click here.
Look into the eyes of a kitten scheduled to be executed simply because he came in a feral trap and without review or handling was classified as “unadoptable.” Click here.
Look at the puppies, huddled in a corner, the only “clean” spot left in the kennel; puppies who will be killed for parvo-virus because shelter staff are sloppy in their cleaning and handling, and because shelter leadership refuses to vaccinate. Click here.
This is your shelter system.
This is what your tax dollars are supporting.
This is where the animals in violation of your laws go to die.
And that is what we should all be fighting to end.
From Nathan Winograd's blog:
California’s proposed mandatory spay/neuter law is all but dead. This is not news to anyone who has been following it. But it is good news for the animals. The question is: for how long? As proponents shift focus from the state to the local level, AB 1634 will continue to rear its ugly head.
And in light of the fact that there has been the first increase in the kill rate of animals in over a decade since its passage in the City of Los Angeles, animal lovers have much to be concerned about. Especially since shelter killing has not only increased, it has skyrocketed.
While leadership of Los Angeles Animal Services tries desperately to blame home foreclosures for the increased killing, the numbers—as usual—do not add up. According to the people in the trenches, an increase in impounds and killing is largely the result of officers telling people that “if you give me your dog, we won't write you a ticket” [for the sterilization law violation].
These animals enter death row at Los Angeles Animal Services, and then these individuals go out and get another animal (and not from a shelter). The law harms animals on two fronts:
increased impound and killing, and an increase in the market for backyard bred animals.
As seen time and time again, mandatory sterilization laws are largely a distraction, increasing the power of animal control to impound and kill yet more animals, while they divert resources from programs that do work so that agencies can hire yet more officers to write yet more tickets—or threaten to do so—to no avail. While proponents seek to punish the public, they only end up hurting the animals.
I’ve said this before: in a democracy, animal lovers are free to believe whatever they want. But believing something doesn’t make it so, and never will. Meanwhile, animals continue to be killed in appalling numbers and reform efforts are squandered on an agenda that has no hope of achieving success. Moreover, the animals are paying the ultimate price for the false beliefs of animal activists. They are the ones being slaughtered en masse because of it. With animals being killed every day in shelters because shelter leadership has not embraced the programs and services of the No Kill Equation or a culture of caring and accountability, activists must move beyond the empty hope that mandatory sterilization will ever be anything but a failure.
Look at what the animals in the Los Angeles city and county shelter system must endure.
(City of Los Angeles Animal Services) Take a look at a dog being violently handled on a control pole. Click here.
(City of Los Angeles Animal Services) Take a look at the callousness by which a dog is killed and then heaped into a trash bin. Click here.
(Los Angeles County Animal Control) Take a look at a puppy slowly dying while staff socializes. Click here.
(Los Angeles County Animal Control) Take a look at a rabbit desperately trying to drink from an empty water bowl, forgotten in a back room. Click here.
(Los Angeles County Animal Control) Take a look at cages deliberately kept empty to reduce the amount of work staff has to do, while animals are executed as a result. Click here.
(Los Angeles County Animal Control) And then take a look at a puppy, a young, friendly puppy who entered healthy, was made sick, and then was left to die; while shelter staff are oblivious to or unmoved by his plight. Click healthy, made sick, left to die.
This is not unique to Los Angeles. Look at the green algae covered water bowls that dogs have to drink from at a shelter in San Bernardino County. Click here.
Look into the eyes of a kitten scheduled to be executed simply because he came in a feral trap and without review or handling was classified as “unadoptable.” Click here.
Look at the puppies, huddled in a corner, the only “clean” spot left in the kennel; puppies who will be killed for parvo-virus because shelter staff are sloppy in their cleaning and handling, and because shelter leadership refuses to vaccinate. Click here.
This is your shelter system.
This is what your tax dollars are supporting.
This is where the animals in violation of your laws go to die.
And that is what we should all be fighting to end.
Photos of the Pierce Farm Animals
To access the full sized photos of the Pierce farm injured and diseased animals, go to the www.piercefarmwatch.com site. On the left side near the top is a button called "blog." Go to the blog. (www.piercefarmwatch.blogspot.com) On the right side there is a button called "flickr." Clicking on this brings up 350 full sized photos of the sick and injured animals.
Below that is the YouTube button which has five videos of injured Pierce animals.
.
Below that is the YouTube button which has five videos of injured Pierce animals.
.
ACO Dancy's Cow Business With Pierce
It was alleged that in 2005, the then West Valley ACO, Stacy Dancy, gave Pierce College a heads up about animal neglect complaints involving Pierce farm animals. Purportedly this resulted in the sale to slaughter of the animals in question the day before there was to be an inspection by the LA Animal Cruelty Task Force.
The story is that Dancy, even while a student at Pierce, was running a for-profit farm business on the campus, involving her cows and may still continue.
Therefore, it appears that an Animal Services employee was moonlighting with her own private business on a community college campus, i.e., a state agency, and while so doing, gave Pierce faculty knowledge of animal neglect complaints against the College, and allegedly also informed them there was to be an inspection by the LA Animal Cruelty Task Force.
This sounds like a straightforward obstruction of justice problem as well as a tricky legal problem of an allegedly moonlighting employee using a state agency's premises to conduct a for-profit business called a "student animal project."
This letter was sent to me. It was written by Dick South, head of Pierce's Agricultural program and directed to Dean Rupert.
It states there was now a moratorium on "Student Animal Projects," which does appear to be a euphemism for private, for-profit animal businesses. Notice, the letter states that Stacy's and Sam's "projects" would not be affected by the moratorium.
That is, Dancy was allegedly running a for-profit business at Pierce even before 2003. Does this business arrangement continue even today? Has she been a "student" at a community collge for six or more years?
Click on letter to enlarge
Dick South cites the reason for the moratorium is complaints that the animals were being neglected; that is, no one was paying any attention to them, which is exactly what the http://www.piercefarmwatch.com/ website alleges continues today.
Has nothing changed? Can we expect the ACTF to bust another "hoarder" rather than conduct a surprise inspection at Pierce? Of course, it really wouldn't be a surprise, would it?
The story sent to me by commenters and included in several posts below, is that many, many LAAS and ACTF employees were aware of the complaints of neglect of the animals and of a planned ACTF that came 9 days late with the full knowledge of those employees.
Click to enlarge
The second document is an accounting statement dated May 31, 2005, two years and three months after South's moratorium letter, which states apparently $5,600 worth of cows were sold (although it does not say cow sales), and that the college received $1,980 during the first five months of 2005 for boarding cows. Is this still Stacy?
All of these legal issues are interesting, enough so that the whole story was run before an attorney at the City Attorney's Office. We'll see what happens. I was told by this person I should ask Boks directly if he intends to run an investigation.
Well, Ed, are you?
.
The story is that Dancy, even while a student at Pierce, was running a for-profit farm business on the campus, involving her cows and may still continue.
Therefore, it appears that an Animal Services employee was moonlighting with her own private business on a community college campus, i.e., a state agency, and while so doing, gave Pierce faculty knowledge of animal neglect complaints against the College, and allegedly also informed them there was to be an inspection by the LA Animal Cruelty Task Force.
This sounds like a straightforward obstruction of justice problem as well as a tricky legal problem of an allegedly moonlighting employee using a state agency's premises to conduct a for-profit business called a "student animal project."
This letter was sent to me. It was written by Dick South, head of Pierce's Agricultural program and directed to Dean Rupert.
It states there was now a moratorium on "Student Animal Projects," which does appear to be a euphemism for private, for-profit animal businesses. Notice, the letter states that Stacy's and Sam's "projects" would not be affected by the moratorium.
That is, Dancy was allegedly running a for-profit business at Pierce even before 2003. Does this business arrangement continue even today? Has she been a "student" at a community collge for six or more years?
Click on letter to enlarge
Dick South cites the reason for the moratorium is complaints that the animals were being neglected; that is, no one was paying any attention to them, which is exactly what the http://www.piercefarmwatch.com/ website alleges continues today.
Has nothing changed? Can we expect the ACTF to bust another "hoarder" rather than conduct a surprise inspection at Pierce? Of course, it really wouldn't be a surprise, would it?
The story sent to me by commenters and included in several posts below, is that many, many LAAS and ACTF employees were aware of the complaints of neglect of the animals and of a planned ACTF that came 9 days late with the full knowledge of those employees.
Click to enlarge
The second document is an accounting statement dated May 31, 2005, two years and three months after South's moratorium letter, which states apparently $5,600 worth of cows were sold (although it does not say cow sales), and that the college received $1,980 during the first five months of 2005 for boarding cows. Is this still Stacy?
All of these legal issues are interesting, enough so that the whole story was run before an attorney at the City Attorney's Office. We'll see what happens. I was told by this person I should ask Boks directly if he intends to run an investigation.
Well, Ed, are you?
.
Boks Fails Animal Emergency Preparedness
.
Two years and five months ago, Council charged Ed Boks with establishing an emergency preparedness program and animal database to aid in rescue, fostering, owner reclamation or rehoming of displaced animals.
Yesterday, because Boks brought exactly nothing to Council or the AS Commission, it died.
The Motion was:
.
File Number
06-0351
Last Changed Date
07/16/2008
Title
DISASTER-RESCUE OPERATION FOR animal RESIDENTS
Initiated by
Cardenas Mover 2006 / Padilla / Parks
Motion - In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, many serious and tragic issues arose regarding the rescue, care, veterinary attention, evacuation, short- and long-term of fostering and/or re-homing of animals in the geographic areas affected by the disaster. Many owners were not able to take their pets with them because there was no preparation for evacuating them in the event of a catastrophic emergency. Louisiana city officials were criticized by both emergency response experts and the media for failing to have an effective evacuation plan in place. There are many issues involved in attempting to evacuate animals, including handling, transporting, sanitation, communicable and zoonotic diseases and other factors which can affect both animals and humans.
The City of Los Angeles could experience a major earthquake, terrorist or bio-chemical attack or numerous other unexpected and unpredictable disasters that would affect millions of humans and animals. Any of these situations could warrant immediate evacuation of City residents. It is necessary to have an animal Emergency Preparedness Plan which includes governmental agencies, surrounding shelters, and partnerships with volunteer humane/rescue groups. An integral part of such a plan would be data relating to the number and types of animals within City boundaries. The City of Los Angeles must take advantage of the opportunity to put preemptive measures in place to assure that we do not repeat the recent tragedies of other cities.
THEREFORE MOVE that the Department of animal Services report back to the Public Safety Committee within 30 days on the creation of a disaster-rescue operation for our animal residents. The department is also instructed to study methods developed by other jurisdictions throughout the state and country to determine what mutual-aid partnerships would be available to the City for emergency animal rescue during a disaster.
FURTHER MOVE that the Department of animal Services report on the feasibility and resources needed to complete an animal census for both companion and farm animals maintained in the City of Los Angeles, with such statistics to be updated at least biannually and maintained by LAAS and other emergency-response departments and/or agencies that would be involved in disaster-rescue operations of our human and animal residents.
Date Received
02/15/2006
File History
2-15-06 - This day's Council session
2-15-06 - Ref to Public Safety Committee
2-15-06 - File to Public Safety Committee Clerk
7-16-08 - Communication from the City Clerk, dated July 11, 2008, relative to the expiration of Council File 06-0351, inasmuch as the file has not been placed on a Council or Committee agenda for consideration for a period of two years or more and, pursuant to Council policy, the file is deemed received and filed.
7-16-08 - File in files
Well, we do know that some Pierce students/LAAS employees may already have a farm animal preparedness plan worked out as part of a "student project." By the way, I do have more information on Pierce "Student Projects" that I'll post in a while, including boarding fees.
.
.
Two years and five months ago, Council charged Ed Boks with establishing an emergency preparedness program and animal database to aid in rescue, fostering, owner reclamation or rehoming of displaced animals.
Yesterday, because Boks brought exactly nothing to Council or the AS Commission, it died.
The Motion was:
.
File Number
06-0351
Last Changed Date
07/16/2008
Title
DISASTER-RESCUE OPERATION FOR animal RESIDENTS
Initiated by
Cardenas Mover 2006 / Padilla / Parks
Motion - In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, many serious and tragic issues arose regarding the rescue, care, veterinary attention, evacuation, short- and long-term of fostering and/or re-homing of animals in the geographic areas affected by the disaster. Many owners were not able to take their pets with them because there was no preparation for evacuating them in the event of a catastrophic emergency. Louisiana city officials were criticized by both emergency response experts and the media for failing to have an effective evacuation plan in place. There are many issues involved in attempting to evacuate animals, including handling, transporting, sanitation, communicable and zoonotic diseases and other factors which can affect both animals and humans.
The City of Los Angeles could experience a major earthquake, terrorist or bio-chemical attack or numerous other unexpected and unpredictable disasters that would affect millions of humans and animals. Any of these situations could warrant immediate evacuation of City residents. It is necessary to have an animal Emergency Preparedness Plan which includes governmental agencies, surrounding shelters, and partnerships with volunteer humane/rescue groups. An integral part of such a plan would be data relating to the number and types of animals within City boundaries. The City of Los Angeles must take advantage of the opportunity to put preemptive measures in place to assure that we do not repeat the recent tragedies of other cities.
THEREFORE MOVE that the Department of animal Services report back to the Public Safety Committee within 30 days on the creation of a disaster-rescue operation for our animal residents. The department is also instructed to study methods developed by other jurisdictions throughout the state and country to determine what mutual-aid partnerships would be available to the City for emergency animal rescue during a disaster.
FURTHER MOVE that the Department of animal Services report on the feasibility and resources needed to complete an animal census for both companion and farm animals maintained in the City of Los Angeles, with such statistics to be updated at least biannually and maintained by LAAS and other emergency-response departments and/or agencies that would be involved in disaster-rescue operations of our human and animal residents.
Date Received
02/15/2006
File History
2-15-06 - This day's Council session
2-15-06 - Ref to Public Safety Committee
2-15-06 - File to Public Safety Committee Clerk
7-16-08 - Communication from the City Clerk, dated July 11, 2008, relative to the expiration of Council File 06-0351, inasmuch as the file has not been placed on a Council or Committee agenda for consideration for a period of two years or more and, pursuant to Council policy, the file is deemed received and filed.
7-16-08 - File in files
Well, we do know that some Pierce students/LAAS employees may already have a farm animal preparedness plan worked out as part of a "student project." By the way, I do have more information on Pierce "Student Projects" that I'll post in a while, including boarding fees.
.
.
Shelter Refuses Dog Food Donations
.
A friend of mine tried to donate dog food to one of the shelters due to the 20% cut in the food budget--imaging that. I still can't get over it.
The reason given is that they feed only one type of food and mixing with another type will/might cause diarrhea.
Possibly, but they ought to ask their vets about that. I know Feldman had introduced special diets and added higher quality food.
In any event, ask the shelters what kinds of food do they feed the dogs and cats and donate that kind of food.
.
A friend of mine tried to donate dog food to one of the shelters due to the 20% cut in the food budget--imaging that. I still can't get over it.
The reason given is that they feed only one type of food and mixing with another type will/might cause diarrhea.
Possibly, but they ought to ask their vets about that. I know Feldman had introduced special diets and added higher quality food.
In any event, ask the shelters what kinds of food do they feed the dogs and cats and donate that kind of food.
.
Charlottesville SPCA Falls Off No-Kill Standard
.
A few months ago I asked Susan Kogut, Director of the Charlottesville SPCA, who was appointed Shelter Director of the year by Nathan Winogard, what her current statistics were. Her only response was to a Maddies Inventory sheet for 1996. She refused further discussion--pointedly. I states so on this blog and for a few weeks was getting several hits a day from the Charlottesville area.
The 2007 statistics are now up. Charlottsvile SPCA has now fallen short of the 10% kill definition. They now kill about 15.5% compared to less than 10% the year before.
http://www.caspca.org/Statistics.htm
There is no explanation as to the reasons for the increase and Kogut certainly has not responded.
However, a kill rate of 15.5% is still 300% better than LAAS and maybe 450% better than Mayeda's County.
Bickhart would say that Charlottsville is a boutique shelter and dismiss its success, but the real measure of success is not just the save rate but the comparative resources of each shelter system.
Their budget is minuscule compared to LAAS or County.
The Charlottsville SPCA has a wonderful, positive blog. Maybe LAAS could have something similar:
http://caspca.blogspot.com/
.
A few months ago I asked Susan Kogut, Director of the Charlottesville SPCA, who was appointed Shelter Director of the year by Nathan Winogard, what her current statistics were. Her only response was to a Maddies Inventory sheet for 1996. She refused further discussion--pointedly. I states so on this blog and for a few weeks was getting several hits a day from the Charlottesville area.
The 2007 statistics are now up. Charlottsvile SPCA has now fallen short of the 10% kill definition. They now kill about 15.5% compared to less than 10% the year before.
http://www.caspca.org/Statistics.htm
There is no explanation as to the reasons for the increase and Kogut certainly has not responded.
However, a kill rate of 15.5% is still 300% better than LAAS and maybe 450% better than Mayeda's County.
Bickhart would say that Charlottsville is a boutique shelter and dismiss its success, but the real measure of success is not just the save rate but the comparative resources of each shelter system.
Their budget is minuscule compared to LAAS or County.
The Charlottsville SPCA has a wonderful, positive blog. Maybe LAAS could have something similar:
http://caspca.blogspot.com/
.
Mayeda Caught Obstructing Justice in DEA Investigation
.
From my sister blog http://lacdacc.blogspot.com/:
The below email was sent by Marcia Mayeda to some of her staff instructing them to obstruct justice by not leaving a “paper trail” by deleting emails while under investigation by the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency regarding the Department’s non-compliance with state and federal euthanasia record keeping requirements and for not obtaining proper licenses.
US Code Title 18 § 1519 states:
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Marcia Mayeda not only violated Board of Supervisor Policy and Procedure, but she also violated federal law. You have continued to defend Marcia Mayeda through her lies over and over again and you can no longer continue to do so. If you do not fire her over this and seek criminal charges against her, you are just as guilty and liable as she is.
When I met with William Fujioka on 6/27/2008, I showed him this email. This was witnessed by Chief Deputy Sharon Harper, Deputy CEO Lari Sheehan, and three members of the public. As Mr. Fujioka was reading the email, he was asked by Sharon Harper if it really was an obstruction of justice email and he replied, “Yes” with a worried look on his face.
This appeared to be the first time Mr. Fujioka was made aware of this email. That was two weeks ago. If he has hid this email from you or not initiated any disciplinary action against Marcia Mayeda, he is just as guilty and liable as she is.
I’m blasting this email far and wide so the entire world can see how corrupt the Department of Animal Care and Control is and how the County of Los Angeles continues to keep employed and waste tax payers money on employees who continually and routinely break the law.
Regards,
Ryan Olshan
THE EMAIL:
From: Marcia Mayeda
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 10:20 AM
To: Josie Zabala; Michelle Roache; Derek Brown; David Nelson
Cc: Marcia Mayeda
Subject: RE: DEA Crisis
Josie, thanks for your comments - i agree that everyone did an outstanding job on this matter! However, we do not need a paper trail on this. Everyone, please delete these emails from your computers and empty the trash files.
Thanks!
----Original Message----
From: "Josie Zabala"
To: "Michelle Roache"; "Derek Brown" ; "David Nelson"
Cc: "Marcia Mayeda"
Sent: 10/4/2007 9:51 AM
Subject: DEA Crisis
Thank you for coming to the rescue.
Michelle, thanks for those contacts and we need to thank them some way. Please let me know.
Derek, thanks for calling the inspector. With your help, we can put this department in full compliance no matter how difficult it will be. I believe we will also educate the inspectors on shelter compliance.
David, thanks for staying calm and being the professional you are. Relaying my answers and explaining those "whys" and "how come", I am sure was hard under the situation.
.
From my sister blog http://lacdacc.blogspot.com/:
The below email was sent by Marcia Mayeda to some of her staff instructing them to obstruct justice by not leaving a “paper trail” by deleting emails while under investigation by the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency regarding the Department’s non-compliance with state and federal euthanasia record keeping requirements and for not obtaining proper licenses.
US Code Title 18 § 1519 states:
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Marcia Mayeda not only violated Board of Supervisor Policy and Procedure, but she also violated federal law. You have continued to defend Marcia Mayeda through her lies over and over again and you can no longer continue to do so. If you do not fire her over this and seek criminal charges against her, you are just as guilty and liable as she is.
When I met with William Fujioka on 6/27/2008, I showed him this email. This was witnessed by Chief Deputy Sharon Harper, Deputy CEO Lari Sheehan, and three members of the public. As Mr. Fujioka was reading the email, he was asked by Sharon Harper if it really was an obstruction of justice email and he replied, “Yes” with a worried look on his face.
This appeared to be the first time Mr. Fujioka was made aware of this email. That was two weeks ago. If he has hid this email from you or not initiated any disciplinary action against Marcia Mayeda, he is just as guilty and liable as she is.
I’m blasting this email far and wide so the entire world can see how corrupt the Department of Animal Care and Control is and how the County of Los Angeles continues to keep employed and waste tax payers money on employees who continually and routinely break the law.
Regards,
Ryan Olshan
THE EMAIL:
From: Marcia Mayeda
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 10:20 AM
To: Josie Zabala; Michelle Roache; Derek Brown; David Nelson
Cc: Marcia Mayeda
Subject: RE: DEA Crisis
Josie, thanks for your comments - i agree that everyone did an outstanding job on this matter! However, we do not need a paper trail on this. Everyone, please delete these emails from your computers and empty the trash files.
Thanks!
----Original Message----
From: "Josie Zabala"
To: "Michelle Roache"
Cc: "Marcia Mayeda"
Sent: 10/4/2007 9:51 AM
Subject: DEA Crisis
Thank you for coming to the rescue.
Michelle, thanks for those contacts and we need to thank them some way. Please let me know.
Derek, thanks for calling the inspector. With your help, we can put this department in full compliance no matter how difficult it will be. I believe we will also educate the inspectors on shelter compliance.
David, thanks for staying calm and being the professional you are. Relaying my answers and explaining those "whys" and "how come", I am sure was hard under the situation.
.
Latest Rumor
.
Rumor is that Boks is going to up the killing of dogs because of complaints of warehousing. I have been told dogs with minor injuries or diseases will be deemed sick or perhaps even irremediably suffering for all I know.
In any event, we will know when this months stats come out next month. Likely it is true. There is supposed to be a quota of 80 animals per day.
Although I am sure killing will be going up because it is mid summer and impounds are increasing, it will be because of overcrowding, not warehousing. Warehousing is when you keep an animal in for a long time for whatever reason. The reason for the killing now is overcrowding. The animals kept too long will be destroyed.
Not enough are being adopted out. It is not the new, adoptable dogs that will be killed first, it is the ones who have been there for a month unadopted, like many pit bulls. Of course, killing for minor illnesses is something LAAS has always been accused of.
This is what hapens when you don't have good adoption programs, outreach, fosters, or a good GM.
Until you organize, get after Tony, get after Boks, become active, this will happen ALL OF THE TIME.
.
.
Rumor is that Boks is going to up the killing of dogs because of complaints of warehousing. I have been told dogs with minor injuries or diseases will be deemed sick or perhaps even irremediably suffering for all I know.
In any event, we will know when this months stats come out next month. Likely it is true. There is supposed to be a quota of 80 animals per day.
Although I am sure killing will be going up because it is mid summer and impounds are increasing, it will be because of overcrowding, not warehousing. Warehousing is when you keep an animal in for a long time for whatever reason. The reason for the killing now is overcrowding. The animals kept too long will be destroyed.
Not enough are being adopted out. It is not the new, adoptable dogs that will be killed first, it is the ones who have been there for a month unadopted, like many pit bulls. Of course, killing for minor illnesses is something LAAS has always been accused of.
This is what hapens when you don't have good adoption programs, outreach, fosters, or a good GM.
Until you organize, get after Tony, get after Boks, become active, this will happen ALL OF THE TIME.
.
.
This Is a Mirror
.
I suddenly realized what this blog is about.
It is not about attacking Boks, Animal Services, County, Pierce, Carolina Biological, or defending Mason, or ADL or ALF or anyone else.
This blog is a mirror. I am showing us ourselves. I am showing what “they” are doing to animals and they are also doing it to themselves, for the brutality they commit on them is within them as much as directed outwards.
I am also showing us, and how impotent and cowardly we are, mostly for fear of them in uniforms hurting our animals. We think if we are a raised nail, we will get pounded down.
We have been cowardly, divided and fearful. This is what we are.
I have hoped by showing the horror of what is happening to our animals and the animals, that we might grow united despite our fears, and make positive change.
ALF might take up arms against the animal destroyers and ADL picket Boks, and some political types work behind the scenes trying to get things done, but we all know that change is not happening fast enough. At this rate it will be hundreds of years that killing animals will be viewed as o.k.
Are you willing to allow this to continue?
Who are the real “enemies?” Animal Services and a GM that can’t get to no kill? Mayeda who hasn’t a clue? Cruel shelter workers? Huntington Laboratories, Carolina Biological, Villaraigosa?
Of course the real enemy is the absence of heart, or a living connection between people with each other and animals. This cannot be legislated or taught, in fact culture teaches us against it, and the ugliness of everyday life detroys it.
But bad actions can be legislated against, bad politicians fired, cruel shelter workers jailed, incompetent managers shown the door.
This is a matter of heart and the LA animal community needs to get its act together.
I appeal to you to organize.
Don’t leave it to me, just meet with others groups even though you have no time or energy left because you are tending after your own and you fear for your own.
Remember, unless we get together now, “they” will come after us one by one, just as Mason was attacked. Also, there are really evil people out there that Animal Services, the ACTF, ASPCLA really do protect us from. Boks is not evil, just narcissistic and wants to be admired. At times he does a lot for animals such as going over budget in areas where it matters and getting five new veterinarians for Animal Services. Mayeda, on the other hand, is a complete fraud.
I don’t think it so much there are evil corporations or agencies, but there are evil and corrupt people who use organizations for their own ends, or average people that sometimes do evil things.
We have to expose evil and have the public and each other vomit seeing the horror and not just sink into apathy or depression. It is everywhere. Corruption is everywhere. Inhumanity is everywhere and exposing it is a beginning.
It is time to wake up. It is time to feel the pain again of perceiving that inhumanity and cruelty and doing something about it. Don’t run from the pain. Don’t run out of fear for your animals. You can still act, just be clever about it.
Help others with animals that need help. If you see someone with too many cats, take part of that burden on yourself. Don’t just lecture, help. The same with Animal Services; do good, do no harm. There was no reason to come down on Mason instead of helping him.
I suddenly realized what this blog is about.
It is not about attacking Boks, Animal Services, County, Pierce, Carolina Biological, or defending Mason, or ADL or ALF or anyone else.
This blog is a mirror. I am showing us ourselves. I am showing what “they” are doing to animals and they are also doing it to themselves, for the brutality they commit on them is within them as much as directed outwards.
I am also showing us, and how impotent and cowardly we are, mostly for fear of them in uniforms hurting our animals. We think if we are a raised nail, we will get pounded down.
We have been cowardly, divided and fearful. This is what we are.
I have hoped by showing the horror of what is happening to our animals and the animals, that we might grow united despite our fears, and make positive change.
ALF might take up arms against the animal destroyers and ADL picket Boks, and some political types work behind the scenes trying to get things done, but we all know that change is not happening fast enough. At this rate it will be hundreds of years that killing animals will be viewed as o.k.
Are you willing to allow this to continue?
Who are the real “enemies?” Animal Services and a GM that can’t get to no kill? Mayeda who hasn’t a clue? Cruel shelter workers? Huntington Laboratories, Carolina Biological, Villaraigosa?
Of course the real enemy is the absence of heart, or a living connection between people with each other and animals. This cannot be legislated or taught, in fact culture teaches us against it, and the ugliness of everyday life detroys it.
But bad actions can be legislated against, bad politicians fired, cruel shelter workers jailed, incompetent managers shown the door.
This is a matter of heart and the LA animal community needs to get its act together.
I appeal to you to organize.
Don’t leave it to me, just meet with others groups even though you have no time or energy left because you are tending after your own and you fear for your own.
Remember, unless we get together now, “they” will come after us one by one, just as Mason was attacked. Also, there are really evil people out there that Animal Services, the ACTF, ASPCLA really do protect us from. Boks is not evil, just narcissistic and wants to be admired. At times he does a lot for animals such as going over budget in areas where it matters and getting five new veterinarians for Animal Services. Mayeda, on the other hand, is a complete fraud.
I don’t think it so much there are evil corporations or agencies, but there are evil and corrupt people who use organizations for their own ends, or average people that sometimes do evil things.
We have to expose evil and have the public and each other vomit seeing the horror and not just sink into apathy or depression. It is everywhere. Corruption is everywhere. Inhumanity is everywhere and exposing it is a beginning.
It is time to wake up. It is time to feel the pain again of perceiving that inhumanity and cruelty and doing something about it. Don’t run from the pain. Don’t run out of fear for your animals. You can still act, just be clever about it.
Help others with animals that need help. If you see someone with too many cats, take part of that burden on yourself. Don’t just lecture, help. The same with Animal Services; do good, do no harm. There was no reason to come down on Mason instead of helping him.
Boswell never helped, they only demanded that he do things beyond his capability. They never helped. Ed needed a PR event and he failed Mason and exposed who he was. Briefly we all saw that he was and he knew we all saw what he was.
Go to Charlotte Laws' events, Sorentino’s events, see Nathan when he comes here, organize against Villaraigosa, see if Hertzberg wants to run against Tony. Just begin to act in a larger way beyonf feeding, speutering and giving care to animals. Face the horror, face the huge need for chnage, and begin acting.
This is what this blog is about.
See too my sister blogs, especially http://lacdacc.blogspot.com. They are serving as another mirror. This is bigger than just a war; evil, cruelty and war are symptoms of something deeper and this needs to be exposed—all of it, from LAAS, to County, to Pierce, Carolina Biological, Huntington Labs, all of it. And we need to see in ourselves why we abide with this and do nothing.
.
Cat Registration Fee-Monday Commission Meeting.
.
Next Monday, Boks will bring up an item for Commission vote, which, if approved, is the first step towards cat licensing.
If passed, all adopted or redeemed cats will be assessed a new $5 fee and the cat will be "registered" with the owner and will be given a tag to be attached to a collar.
This new fee is added onto the already markedly increased adoption fee, which, of course, will reduce the number of cats adopted. The new collar I.D. tag will be in addition to the mandatory microchip. Perhaps next they will require a GPS unit for satellite tracking (I like that idea).
This is the first step towards cat licensing. If we get cat licensing, adoptions will decrease further because a lot of people will not want to get a fourth or fifth cat.
Also, if license registration becomes law, rescuers and fosters may be put in a bad position.
Also, a lot of people do not want to be on any government's lists.
Naturally, as the cost of cat licensing goes up, adoptions will go down.
Personally I am for licensing even if the rest of the animal community is not, but I think any registration should be part of the adoption process where all the information is gathered anyway.
You decide and go vote.
Boks is trying to sneak this by by having a Monday vote when many are away in Sacramento lobbying.
Also, the actual proposal and report cannot be accessed on the Internet clicking on the report URL.
Below is the meeting agenda. Look at item 3 on page 2.
http://laanimalservices.org/PDF/commission/2008/071408-agd.pdf
Yet, if you try to click on the Cat Registration Fee report, it does not come up.
http://laanimalservices.org/about_commission.htm
In my opinion the fee and the preceding adoption fee increases are very bad policy. Boks was pushed into doing these very stupid fee increases by Council, led by that idiot Councilmember Rosendahl.
Ed has always gone overbudget on food, medication and vet care, as well as fee forgiveness for rescuers and the general public. I applaud Boks for this and see Council and the Mayor's Office being penny wise and pound foolish here.
We need to get rid of Villaraigosa in the worst way. Hopefully Obama will send him to Washington to be a lackey there. I plan on running for Mayor as I am at least as incompetent as Tony, therefore am highly qualified to lead LA's increasingly corrupt government.
Next Monday, Boks will bring up an item for Commission vote, which, if approved, is the first step towards cat licensing.
If passed, all adopted or redeemed cats will be assessed a new $5 fee and the cat will be "registered" with the owner and will be given a tag to be attached to a collar.
This new fee is added onto the already markedly increased adoption fee, which, of course, will reduce the number of cats adopted. The new collar I.D. tag will be in addition to the mandatory microchip. Perhaps next they will require a GPS unit for satellite tracking (I like that idea).
This is the first step towards cat licensing. If we get cat licensing, adoptions will decrease further because a lot of people will not want to get a fourth or fifth cat.
Also, if license registration becomes law, rescuers and fosters may be put in a bad position.
Also, a lot of people do not want to be on any government's lists.
Naturally, as the cost of cat licensing goes up, adoptions will go down.
Personally I am for licensing even if the rest of the animal community is not, but I think any registration should be part of the adoption process where all the information is gathered anyway.
You decide and go vote.
Boks is trying to sneak this by by having a Monday vote when many are away in Sacramento lobbying.
Also, the actual proposal and report cannot be accessed on the Internet clicking on the report URL.
Below is the meeting agenda. Look at item 3 on page 2.
http://laanimalservices.org/PDF/commission/2008/071408-agd.pdf
Yet, if you try to click on the Cat Registration Fee report, it does not come up.
http://laanimalservices.org/about_commission.htm
In my opinion the fee and the preceding adoption fee increases are very bad policy. Boks was pushed into doing these very stupid fee increases by Council, led by that idiot Councilmember Rosendahl.
Ed has always gone overbudget on food, medication and vet care, as well as fee forgiveness for rescuers and the general public. I applaud Boks for this and see Council and the Mayor's Office being penny wise and pound foolish here.
We need to get rid of Villaraigosa in the worst way. Hopefully Obama will send him to Washington to be a lackey there. I plan on running for Mayor as I am at least as incompetent as Tony, therefore am highly qualified to lead LA's increasingly corrupt government.
Carolina Biological Refuses to Provide Any Information About the Source for Thousands of Skinned Cats
.
This morning I received a phone call from Keith Barker from Carolina Biological. He was the spokesperson I was told would respond to my request for information about thousands of skinned cats they supply to schools across the country.
I told him about the various charges leveled against Carolina that hey obtained the cats from Mexico.
He repeated that the country is awash with cats killed in shelters and that is where Carolina gets theirs. He said he had no reason to lie.
I then asked, o.k., if you have no reason to lie, which shelters do you get the cats from? Can you give me a contact person or phone number to verify his claim?
He stated that was proprietary information and he was not going to give me that information. We ran around this bush for awhile going nowhere on either side.
He repeatedly asked me who I was and who I was associated with. I told him I was a private citizen conducting an investigation.
He stated there was no reason for him to provide any information about the source of the cats to someone without a connection to some large organization.
I asked if he would be willing to talk to someone from the Daily News or LA Times. At this point, he went silent and stated he just was not going to provide this information.
Now we are talking about several hundred thousand of healthy cats a year supplied to schools across the country. I don't know how many are supplied by Carolina Biological, but they supposedly are the largest supplier.
Barker said the cadavers were of healthy cats killed in shelters.
To supply the 250,000 cats sold to schools across the country, would require at least 600,000 (very conservative) killed by shelter cats, including kittens and ill or very aged cats.
Actually, the number of dead cats would have to be much higher, as most shelters dispose of their dead cats through rendering companies and perhaps landfills as he alleges. I doubt if more than 20% of the healthy cats killed are sold to Carolina Biological or other vendors.
We are now talking about a couple of million killed shelter cats to be able to supply 250,000 cat cadavers to Carolina and other vendors.
Later I was talking to Tim from Ward's Scientific, who also sells skinned and unskinned cats and may be the #2 supplier, because other companies, such as Sergent-Welsh, another cadaver vendor gets their cats from Wards. Tim told me they get their killed cats from shelters too.
But Carolina Biological prides themselves in supplying cats that have never been frozen because freezing changes cadaver coloring and texture. This means Carolina must get their cats close by, unless they have someone standing outside of dozens of shelters waiting for kill day, grab the cats, put them in a cooler and truck them a 1,000 miles to Greensboro N.C. That is, procuring the cats from remote shelters without freezing is implausible.
No totality of shelters within a thousand miles of their North Carolina location kill that many animals a year in a way they are not frozen.
I talked to Jennifer at Sargent Welch in Western N.Y., who stated they get their cats from Wards.
I called Wards Scientific located in Rochester N.Y., and talked to Tim. Tim stated their cats are often frozen because the shelters they get their cats from mostly do freeze them before being sent to Wards where they are preserved in formaldehyde. he also stated the usual, that that also get cats from licensed USDA dealers. Of course where the dealers get their cadavers from is any one's guess, and most people guess from breeders or "bunchers."
This morning I received a phone call from Keith Barker from Carolina Biological. He was the spokesperson I was told would respond to my request for information about thousands of skinned cats they supply to schools across the country.
I told him about the various charges leveled against Carolina that hey obtained the cats from Mexico.
He repeated that the country is awash with cats killed in shelters and that is where Carolina gets theirs. He said he had no reason to lie.
I then asked, o.k., if you have no reason to lie, which shelters do you get the cats from? Can you give me a contact person or phone number to verify his claim?
He stated that was proprietary information and he was not going to give me that information. We ran around this bush for awhile going nowhere on either side.
He repeatedly asked me who I was and who I was associated with. I told him I was a private citizen conducting an investigation.
He stated there was no reason for him to provide any information about the source of the cats to someone without a connection to some large organization.
I asked if he would be willing to talk to someone from the Daily News or LA Times. At this point, he went silent and stated he just was not going to provide this information.
Now we are talking about several hundred thousand of healthy cats a year supplied to schools across the country. I don't know how many are supplied by Carolina Biological, but they supposedly are the largest supplier.
Barker said the cadavers were of healthy cats killed in shelters.
To supply the 250,000 cats sold to schools across the country, would require at least 600,000 (very conservative) killed by shelter cats, including kittens and ill or very aged cats.
Actually, the number of dead cats would have to be much higher, as most shelters dispose of their dead cats through rendering companies and perhaps landfills as he alleges. I doubt if more than 20% of the healthy cats killed are sold to Carolina Biological or other vendors.
We are now talking about a couple of million killed shelter cats to be able to supply 250,000 cat cadavers to Carolina and other vendors.
Later I was talking to Tim from Ward's Scientific, who also sells skinned and unskinned cats and may be the #2 supplier, because other companies, such as Sergent-Welsh, another cadaver vendor gets their cats from Wards. Tim told me they get their killed cats from shelters too.
But Carolina Biological prides themselves in supplying cats that have never been frozen because freezing changes cadaver coloring and texture. This means Carolina must get their cats close by, unless they have someone standing outside of dozens of shelters waiting for kill day, grab the cats, put them in a cooler and truck them a 1,000 miles to Greensboro N.C. That is, procuring the cats from remote shelters without freezing is implausible.
No totality of shelters within a thousand miles of their North Carolina location kill that many animals a year in a way they are not frozen.
I talked to Jennifer at Sargent Welch in Western N.Y., who stated they get their cats from Wards.
I called Wards Scientific located in Rochester N.Y., and talked to Tim. Tim stated their cats are often frozen because the shelters they get their cats from mostly do freeze them before being sent to Wards where they are preserved in formaldehyde. he also stated the usual, that that also get cats from licensed USDA dealers. Of course where the dealers get their cadavers from is any one's guess, and most people guess from breeders or "bunchers."
Tim seemed credible compared to Barker at Carolina. Tim said cats are a sticky issue at campuses across the country and they offer other preserved animal cadavers, such as fetal pigs or rabbits.
For the life of me, I cannot see how anyone does not see this whole situation as both a moral issue and an ethical issue. Shapiro has written a whole textbook and teaches classes defending animal dissection and animal vivisection and research. Apparently he sees it as neither. It is even more remarkable that he likens vegetarians to be like Hitler and the Nazis.
I want to make a statement here. After all is said and done, it is groups like PETA, the ADL and ALF that strongly investigate biological houses, vivisectors and poorly performing shelters. I think they see the big picture and though wrapped up in specifics, also see the larger picture. It is PETA that exposed Carolina Biological 15 years ago with video showing live embalming of cats.
.