### 20 Cents a Day for Food for Each Animal--AMMENDED

.
AMMENDED--NEW INFORMATION

In yesterday's response to the "anonymous attack" email, Boks said with respect to the 20% cut in food budget to \$400,000, "The food budget was over budgeted in the past and we never spent the entire line budget allocated for food."

So I wondered, how many meals does the \$400,000 pay for.

I looked at the total number of animals up for adoption at the six shelters and found 2,025 dogs and cats, and 199 "other animals," which would include rabbits.

I estimated another 225 animals at the Annex, which may be a little high.

In addition, there would be evidence animals that are not listed as up for adoption and all animals held less than 4 days waiting for their owners according to Hayden. I don't know whether feral cats or behavioral problem animals are listed as up for adoption.

But it is fair to say there are at least 2,500 animals in the shelters now.

Given that the shelters are nearly filled all year long now, but summer is still busiest, I think it safe to assume a year round average of at least 2,100 animals a day, figuring it would be a rare day to get below 1,700.

Now 2,100 animals year around, means 1,533,000 meals assuming twice a day, mostly for cats and dogs, from kittens to pit bulls and German Shepherds.

Given a budget of \$400,000, that means each meal is budgeted for 26 cents, or 52 cents for each animal per day. Now since there are far more dogs than cats in the kennels, this makes one ask is 52 cents a day adequate?

NEW INFORMATION:

I just looked at the department's food budget found in the annual report found at:
The most Boks ever spent on food was about \$140,000 in 2007. That means the 1.5 million meals cost about 9 cents each!
What are they feeding animals?

Animal Food
2004=05 \$83,847
2005-06 \$116,099
2006-07 (half year) \$70,533

Anonymous said...

There you go with those confusing stats again Ed ;-)

Wouldn't the food budget, costs that Boks says exceeded the actuals, be a projected cost based on increases in kennel capacity due to shelter expansions?

And if so... if these increases in kennel capacity became operational at a time other than what was projected, shouldn't the food budget have been re-forecast? (which is typically what industry at 2nd and 3rd quarter anyway).

It's the fiscally responsible thing to do and especially in the current climate of escalating costs.

All I'm trying to say is that while LAAS may have originally over shot the cost of food originally, if they reduce the food budget NOW while actual costs are uncertain (but seemingly increasing), wouldn't this short change the animals needing food? I can see in the future a massive effort by LAAS asking for food donations due to this short-sightedness.

Cypress, CA

.

Ed Muzika said...

Yes, you are right. If the shelter system expands to hold more animals, and inflation is increasing costs, why reduce the budget that was adequate 2 years ago?

I was told that Boks went WAY over budget on food in previous years and that info is in an eralier annual report.

If that is true, we have yet another documented proof of Boks lying.

Anonymous said...

What if that vivid imagination could be put to some good use?

Ed Muzika said...

Basic math from published documents and online body counts are a little too hard for you to follow?

It is really simple if you go slowly. Just read the blog post five or six times and come up with your own numbers.

I thought they taught this stuff by at least the 5th grade. Or, did you flunk it? Or, are you deliberately trying to appear stupid, like some slack-jawed junior high punk who thinks it is cool to post moronic comments?

If you are math, statistics or logic challeneged, it will be hard to follow what is said on this site, but oh so easy to display what a punk you are. Maybe you are a cop?

Anonymous said...

"Vivid imagination out to some good use."

Estimates are necessary when the total number of animals statistics are not made available along the lines of Maddies accounting with a beginning and ending inventory.

Boks is not providing such more complete statistics without a RPD, and even then they are very, very slow to respond.

If anything, Muzika's calculations look conservative.

I think his "imagination" is put to good use pointing out flaws in animal care at LAAS, and signs of definite neglect.

I think Muzika's description, slack-jawed moron fits you perfectly.

Anonymous said...

Most animals coming in are neonate kittens. They eat nothing. Employees have no time to nurse them. Very sick or injured animals also eat nothing because they're too sick. Some animals too frightened to eat. Factor those animals out of the equation.

Ed Muzika said...

True to an extent.

In June over 5000animals impounded and 859 were neonatals, 17%

This is true maybe April through September. The other months maybe 100/month or 3-4%. Averaging, I will subtract 11% for that factor. Good call.

Regarding sick and injured, again, a good call. But do they not eat for 3-4 days and after that they are euthed, or do eventually they start eating? Is this another 10%, 15%, 20%? Remember, if they start eating after day five, they still eat 50 meals a month.

Even if you assume 50% should be taken off the 2,200 estimated, that is still 900,00 meals with \$140,000 which is 16 cents per meal, including more dogs than cats.

If a cat or dog is not eating, do they stop feeding for 3 days and then try again after 4 days without food? That is, do they continue to put out new food for the scared animals or do they leave the old stuff out until eaten, no matter how many days?

Ed Muzika said...

Oops! I forgot.

Neonatals would not constitute 17% of the food load.

Neonatals averaged about 1,000/moth during spring and summer and maybe 200 Oct-March.

Neonatals are executes after a day or so, so even if 1,000 we impounded each month, on any day the would be only 40-50 alive, not 100 or the 1,000 impounded that month.

That means neonatals would be at most 2-3% of the 2,00estimated population during the summer and far less the rest of the year.

Therefore, factoring out 17% is unnecessary. Neonatals are not significant and they would not much affect the 9cents per meal cost.