.
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.
.
3 comments:
There may be more to the increased euthanasia of dogs than just the Mandatory Spay/Neuter Law. Nothing ever works (or doesn't in this case) in a vaccuum. However, the numbers are pretty telling.
The ordinance went into effect essentially in September, 2007. It went into effect in June, but owners were givin 90 days to comply, so Sept. 1 would be the first day of "enforcement".
In the 57 months January 2003 and September, 2007, the number of dogs euthanized declined vs the year prior in 55 of those months. So twice, in a 57 month time frame, the euth rate was higher than the month prior. In the 9 months Sept 2007 - June 2008, the number of times the euth rates were higher than the month prior was 7.
And we didn't exactly ease into the increase. March 2007 had a 34% decrease. April, 32% decrease. May 25% decrease, June 30% decrease, July, 28% decrease, August 8% decrease, September -- Flat, October -- the increases begin.
I'm sure there may be some economy driven factors here, but there is very little denying that the day the ordinance took effect it was like a switch went on to the increased in killing. To decide it is a complete coincidence is probably irresponsible. Meanwhile, I know other shelters are seeing an increase in euthanasia due to the economy right now, but I've never seen anyone even close to the 31% increase in dog euthanasia that LAAS is seeing.
Brent,
The law went into effect in April of 2008, not 2007, and the grace period ends on October 1, 2008.
http://www.laanimalservices.com/PDF/faq/SN%20ordinance%20basic%20info%20feb%202008.pdf
My bad on this one. The article I read on the ordinance was actually in reference to LA County, not LA -- and wasn't terribly clear...
Post a Comment