.
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.
.
.
23 comments:
Duh!
So what are we supposed to do Ed. Go out in public and put guns to peoples heads. Tell them them they better adopt or else. Again you show how much of a fantasy you live in. Get real!
No. I am saying this sort of killing will always occur until management figures out how ti adopt more animals. Everyone assumes that the demand is fixed. That is nosense and defeatist thinking. Everyone in the animal community knows that demand is barely touched at this point and what you need is better marketing. No one at LAAS has that experience.
If you keep responding in such a sarcastic attacking style, you will get back the same in kind.
Have you ever seen a kid with half his scalp torn off by a dog? Or the pool of blood from a dead infant killed by two dogs that appeared friendly? The shelter gets dogs like these on a regular basis. The only option for these dogs is death. The children of the 60's need to get out of the LSD fantasyland. No kill is impossible. Face it.
Why on earth do you persist in saying everyone is stupid but you?
NO ONE IN NO KILL SAYS VICIOUS DOGS OR VERY SICK UNTREATABLE ANIMALS OF ANY SORT SHOULD NOT BE KILLED. NO ONE AT ALL. NO ONE. NOT WINOGRAD, NOT ANYONE.
Where on earth have you gotten any of your information about no kill? You show an alarmning lack of knowledge on the subject. No kill assumes about 9% of all dogs that come in are too vicisous or sick to be saved.
Jesus, you make these belittling, attacking pronouncements without any knowledge whatsoever. It is not us that needs to smell the coffee, but you who has to get your head out of your ass.
Don't speak for me or people I know in the "animal community" on the subject of how to adopt more animals. This is a horrible road to take when you don't include more and BETTER adoptions. No kill does put dangerous animals out there because it is against temperament testing in the shelters. If a dog is so stressed in the shelter, then it stands to reason that the dog will become stressed outside the shelter as well. Yet, no kill insists that this stress is only because of the confinement of the shelter and it is unfair to the animal to test it in shelter conditions. It is not unfair. What is unfair is not to test a dog, send it home, and it attacks a child. No kill also says there is no problem with too many pets. I mean, lets get real here. If there weren't too many, we would not need shelters and rescues yet they abound everywhere. Ed, you refer to experienced people as negative when all they are trying to do is let you know that "been there, done that, doesn't work". Why bother to go there again and waste time? Marketing is for selling shoes, not placing animals in good homes, homes where they are treated right, homes that will be there til the end. Marketing allows that the old shoe/pet is thrown away because it has lowered the value of the product with 2fur1 sales, etc. Not once have I seen your research on the rate of return to the shelters and that can tell a tale or two about this crazy marketing scheme for pets. No kill was and still is a marketing concept for close door shelters, it was designed to bring in donations. No kill doesn't care if the pets are thrown outside at the end of a chain or abandoned when the owner moves. All it cares about is moving them out of the shelters, not what they are going into or how miserable their lives will be. With the current failures of the muncipally owned no kill shelters, why aren't people learning that this is not the way to go. No kill has not worked yet and those of you who are in denial about it are wasting time that is desperately needed to solve the problem. And why do you always degrade anyone who disagrees with you rather than ask why they disagree? Have a discussion rather than belittle anyone who stands against no kill. This would be known as taking your head out of your ass where it has been for so long. You are the one with little experience and you don't want to listen to anything that is different from your opinions. What a tiny world you inhabit. Start discussions on this blog, get ideas from everyone, not just those who agree with you. Learn from those who have dedicated entire lifetimes to solving the problem rather than a few years such as yourself. No kill does not work in the public, open door shelters.
People that attack me with demeaning remarks expect to be responded to in a nice way.
To say get real or smell the coffee or wake up to reality is not a way to elicit grate conversation. It is pure put-down sarcasm.
I have heard the same critiques about No-Kill over, and over and over with no proof that No-kill does not work, just your self-proclaimed superiority of vast experience.
I know, I absolutely know you do not understand no-kill. You can't say what you do if you understand the concepts and statistics of no kill, like saying that stuff about killing a child because no kill lets vicious dogs be adopted.
It is insane that you believe this is what no kill is about. What you say it is, is a cartoon of no kill without a clue of what it really means.
Some day you will articulate what you think no kill is then we can talk.
Who says tempermetn testing is rejected by No-Kill? Who says that? No even ADL rejects it. But there is testing and testing.
Besides, whu did you thrown no kill into your comment at this point and attack us as being foolish or uneducated? Why did that come from?
I rarely talk about No-Kill. Only about 5% of the posts are aboput no kill.
Take a look at the past 300 posts. They are about: Pirece, Mason, Shapiro, Carolina Biological, County, Mayeda, LA and County kill rates, LAAS budget cuts, cut food rations for LAAS, skinned cats, mistreated shelter cats and dogs, China, Korea, Ed Boks, ACTF, and Mason.
It seems like every now and then you want to yank my chain and get me to respond to you.
One quick thing they could do is make landlords allow responsible pet owners to have pets. The Mayor and city council could do this. People rae dumping because they moved out of house into apartment and apartment doesn't allow pets. Make them take them if owners are responsible, i.e. animals neutered, vaccinated, potty trained, don't scratch.
I'll tell you like you tell everyone who disagrees with you, you are the one who makes stupid comments. You are the one lacking in experience in this field. You are the one without the true knowledge of what no kill truly does. If one person tells you something you don't have to listen but if more than one, and there are more than one on this blog, are telling you the same thing, then you need to pay attention. You have closed your mind to anything other than the no kill movement and keep harping on it. You brought the subject up to begin with. Yes, I have read your other rantings about Pierce but you are still failing to get the message you are putting out. THERE ARE TOO MANY DAMN CATS AND THAT IS WHY THEY ARE BEING KILLED. If the supply is not there, they can't be killed. What is so difficult about understanding that? Why continue to beat a dead horse with the nonsense that we can save them all? Plan for the future and stop living in the present, it stinks. Put your efforts in a direction that has already proven itself worthy, spay/neuter. Do you think the numbers over the years have gone down because of "no kill"? Absolutely not, the number of impounds in our shelters has been reduced by spay/neuter. The answers have always been staring you in the face and you have turned your head. Stop harping on adoptions that push animals out the door, on management that can't force people to adopt, that there is no overpopulation, and start working for something that has already proven itself, spay/neuter. Your credentials are not strong enough with experience for you to be placing yourself up there as an expert. You don't even know enough to define an expert. Stop condemning people who have more knowledge than you and learn lessons from them. We have better things to do than worry about yanking your chain. We are out there working for spay/neuter. You would better serve if you would do the same. When was the last time you offered to pay for a spay/neuter for a pet that needed it but belonged to someone else, even a stranger? When was the last time you picked up a neighbor's pet and took your time to have it spay/neutered because the neighbor was too lazy to do it? Just what do you do to make it better, Ed? Actions speak much louder than words and I want to know what you do that makes you think you know it all?????????
Outlaw the sale of animals in pet shops, actually crack down on the backyard breeders (easy to find them with ads, etc.), spay/neuter, spay/neuter, spay/neuter, offer REAL help to people that have problems with behavior, vet bills, etc. so that they are able to keep their animals. Like someone said, persuade more landlords to allow animals. We know Nathan's story about creating a fund offering money to landlords to cover damage done from animals above the amount of the deposit, and they never had to pay a dime from that fund(it's a fact that most animal guardians stay longer, are more responsible, know what's going on in the area and kind of keep an eye out because they're out walking every day, etc. We're just better tenants in general). Those are just for starters.
We do have the resources. We just need the department as a whole to WANT it. Even ACTs that I have thought cared about the animals respond to no-kill by saying how much more work that would be for them. If at all possible, we need passionate people that are WILLING and HAPPY to do the work because they CARE (like the volunteers that do what they do with love for FREE because they CARE). Not the ones that desensitize themselves to the killing, and keep a distance from the animals as to not get emotionally attached.
I was astonished to read the above commenter talk about no-kill as if it's a person. I can't imagine those that don't believe healthy, "adoptable" animals should be killed don't care if an animal is chained and/or abandoned in a back yard.
It's just a close-mindedness about the term "no-kill" that I can't understand. If you were a homeless animal, you sure as hell would see something wrong with someone putting you behind bars and then ultimately killing you. I hope in our lifetime we can say that we can't believe we used to kill healthy, adoptable animals.
I have been managing colonies since 1992, in Santa Monica and in LA.
I have trapped maybe 40 cats during that time and had them speutered. I have work with feral cat organizations to trap and spay.
Animal Birth Control was practically a hang out of mine.
I have helped pay for four or five speuters as well as helping a few people with vet bills.
I have been involved with lots and lots of rescuers in Santa Monica and a few since I came to LA.
I have spent a lot of time weekends at adoption events.
I worked for a vet off and on several months in hands on experience with shots, drawing blood, etc.
This is me. Who are you. Publish your name so that you can be held accountable for what you say. Who are you? Does anyone know you? Do we just accept your word you know everything?
If you bothered to read anything about no kill, NK puts extraordinary emphasis on spay/neuter. Boks does, he is trying to make it part of a city-wide TNR policy. Winograd pushes it. Why don't you crazies read what no kill is about before spouting out your wrong opinion about what it is about.
If you think adoptions cannot be increased, you are wrong.
LAAS has a much larget adoption rate that the County, and Reno and San Francisco have a much higher rate than LA.
You just don't know what you are talking about.
Who are you? You might have more credibility if you identified yourself.
In any event, like I said, there are other issues that I cover now.
>>>Outlaw the sale of animals in pet shops, actually crack down on the backyard breeders<<<
Finally a constructive suggestion! Pet shops and breeders kill shelter animals chances of being adopted. You want funds for shelter animals? You want resources for no kill shelters? Fine the living daylights out of the breeders who contribute to the problem with every litter. Make the sale and resale of animals illegal. The 4 month spay/neuter requirement isn't enough. This is a simple equation of supply and demand and shelter animals pay the price because some moron that should be wearing a pointy white hood wants to brag about having a purebred. The whole idea is perverse and needs to be stopped.
I agree with all these recommendations. Outlaw breeding and selling in shops. Unfortunately that requires changing the law and breeders are actively blocking exactly these kinds of laws such as mandatory spay/neuter.
The same with requiring landlords not to discriminate. This would take a major law change.
These kind of efforts are going on, including lifting the 3 cat 3 dog limit rule.
I would enforce the leash law on cats. Owners would be required to have them indoors or in a fenced in area they could not leave.
This though raises problems with feral colonies as caretakers may legally be considered owners becasue they feed them, and thus required to get them all off the street or surrendered to LAAS.
All of these require changes in the law and these do not come easily as so many groups and Councilmembers oppose them.
>>>All of these require changes in the law and these do not come easily as so many groups and Councilmembers oppose them.<<<
I'm not sure which is more difficult. Changing the laws or getting corrupt agencies to enforce and abide by the laws that already exist. After I finish caring for my numerous adopted and fostered animals, I think I'll just make a donation to the ALF and the ADL. At least they do someting about it. After reading the posts on this blog, I don't think I'm going to lose any sleep over another LAAS employee becoming a target.
I wanted to follow up.
In his book Redemption, Wingrad makes high volume, low cost, accessible spay/neuter the second command, right behind TNR. TNR in San Francisco resulted in a 70% decline in cat killing in less than a decade.
The year before Boks came, 38,000 spay/neuter certificates were handed out by LAAS. Last fiscal year I think it was 44,000. In addition, LAAS has openned one spay/neuter clinc and has requests for proposals out for others. We are talking about 50,000 spay/neuter surgeries. So anyone who says No-Kill means not spay/neutering has never read Nathan's book or followed LAAS and Ed Boks' efforts.
Even though spay/neuter efforst have increased over the years, the numbe rof animals, especially cats has not dipped at all.
Impounds for cats have been stuck at 20,000 per year for the last four years and it was 21,000 a year for the two years before that. That is, impounds have remained steady over the past six years even as spay/neuter efforts have dramatically increased. This goes against intuition, but the stats are there on the LAAS site.
Also, the over all animal impounds have slightly declined or remained steady over the past four years, but after the last year, the the greatest spay/neuter efforst ever, impounds have returned to the 2003 level of 50,000.
You can't depend on your experience. You have to look at the stats and experience of others.
Who would have thought impounds would be going up even while spay neuter efforts were ever greater than before?
Before you say anything more about no kill, read Winograd's book on it, and read Boks' blog on no kill.
But I know you consider everyone who does not agree with you a liar or stupid, and you will never, ever read Nathan's book or closely at what Boks says in his blog.
To the donation person--Right on!
"This though raises problems with feral colonies as caretakers may legally be considered owners becasue they feed them, and thus required to get them all off the street or surrendered to LAAS."
No Way; LAAS doesn't want the cats. There is no way LAAS is going to make feral cat colony caretakers to round up their cats just so that they can unload them at the shelter. No way. LAAS will tell you to turn around and dump 'em off where you found them.
They might suggest you use a spay and neuter voucher, but they shore 'n hell ain't gonna take 'em, especially if they're already speutered. Defeats the whole purpose of TNR and the vouchers and that's what they're gonna tell you if you try to bring 'em in.
You might be told to stop feeding and watering them, but they will NEVER tell you to round them up and take them into the shelter.
Try it yourself as a spoof. They won't take a feral cat from you.
Take one w/ a cropped ear; They'll make you turn back w/ the cat in your hands; and, if you don't know what to do with the cat and you don't want to take it back where you found it, you might throw it out the window from your moving vehicle and onto the freeway.
You know--- like the three kittens on the news a couple of weeks ago.
Happens all the time. People don't know what to do with their animals; onto the freeway they go. Splat!
Assholes should be tortured to death.
I laughed at your "bio". Since 1992 you've only spay/neutered about 45 cats, or did I misunderstand? I do more than that a week but you still insist on degrading me whenever I disagree with you. I have thousands under my belt. Only 16 years of doing a little something for the cause? Try 40-50 years and then see if you think the same as you do now. I spend close to $20,000 a year helping senior citizens retain their pet companions by helping with their medical vet needs. Don't ask about the cost of the spay/neuters. Therefore my opinions are qualified and I will say that we cannot adopt ourselves out of this.
This is a quote from this comment section by you:
"I agree with all these recommendations. Outlaw breeding and selling in shops. Unfortunately that requires changing the law and breeders are actively blocking exactly these kinds of laws such as mandatory spay/neuter."
Yet you continue to support the very person responsible for the gutting of AB 1634 with his book. PetPac loves Winograd, they will use him to undermine everything even closely related to breeding laws from now on. Pet stores and breeding will now be even more so since they have their new hero, Winograd. He was exactly what they needed and they are loving it.
It is a lie that there is no pet overpopulation and that comes from one inexperienced and closed mind. This statement alone has destroyed the wonderful work of thousands of true humane workers. It is bad enough to mislead the public with the term "no kill" but to deliberately destroy good work from dedicated people by saying there is no problem with overpopulation is unbelievable. I will predict that you will one day see the errors of your loyalty to the scam of no kill and will feel ashame. Then hopefully you will turn a corner and become a contributor to the solution instead of supporting the problem with blind loyalty.
I “degrade” you because you claim 50 years of experience yet decline to state who you are. If you have been doing all this for 50 years, spending as much as you claim, S/N 50 animals a week, giving $20,000 to seniors, etc., everyone in the humane world must know of you. If you want me or anyone else to take your posts seriously, you would identify yourself. As it is, we have only your claims to be so knowledgeable and experienced.
How can anyone take you seriously? Why do you hide? I believe it is because your posts would be met with lots of other degrading remarks from others who know about you.
Also, if you think I “degrade” you, just look at what you say and how you say it, about me or others in the humane movement, then wonder why people do not accept your “advice” with open arms. You degrade anyone else—and very shrilly—who do not take you at your anonymous word.
Sorry but due to threats I will not disclose my name. I campaign actively against no kill as presented. Yes, many people know me and the more people I know the more money it costs me. You know me, Ed, and you don't like me. I'm not hiding, I'm very much out in the open. But since you are such a supporter of Winograd, I cannot reveal my name because he has threatened me twice for speaking against him. And I was in Southern California but felt it necessary to move because of a fear of my pets being harmed because people know where I live. So I have taken my time, efforts, and money to an area that has already turned winograd away and are much more appreciative than the people in LA.
O.k., I understand.
But you have to realize I am not a Winogard Brown noser. Just take a look at me last few posts. I state he went off half-cocked about impounding animals, that Charlottesvile had fallen out of the no-kill group.
However, I supported Nathan when it came to his criticism of HSUS.
I also criticized Nathan for the way he attacks a lot of people he formerly supported, such a Tara Derby in Philadelphia.
However, No-Kill really has no recognized mouthpiece except Nathan. No one else has credibility. By default he is the leader of the No-Koll movement.
You misread him when you misinterpret his statement that there is no overpopulation problem or no adoption program.
He is quite clear that the problem is poor shelter management, and if they were managed properly, only about 10% would die.
He further states that if all shelters were no kill, there would not be a lot more people turning in animals.
Boks has been saying for two years here and years before in NYC and Pheonix that his shelters are almost no-kill, but that has not caused an increaed number of turn-ins while he was there.
Owner turn ins have aceraged about 40% of the impounds, the rest are strays, evidence animals or whatever.
It is only during the past 8 months or so that LAAS dog and cat impounds increased. Therefore, you cannot blame the increase on using the word no-kill.
The vats increase in cat impound and killing is from a huge kitten impound increae vs. last year. However, that increase brings it to about the same level of kitten impounds during Boks first year and the year before he came.
You really hate Nathan and maybe rightfully so. I don't know. But you constantly point to Ranco Cucamunga as a failure. If Nathan consulted there for 4-6 months, why should he bear the blame that Rancho never achieved no kill?
Were al his recommendations implemented? I doubt it.
Was his choice of GM selected to run the program?
Have you done a RPR to find out Ranco's true statistics?
To me, one or two failures of his consulting 2-3 years after he consulted, but with success immediately after his consult would indicate the people he chose did not sustain improvement.
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 oveer 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 surrending 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.
Now isn't this much better than name calling??
Yes, it is, but notice how much softer and "listenable" are your words in this comment compared to before?
Post a Comment