Ed Boks has blamed foreclosures as the cause of the huge increase in impounds this year that has led to an even larger increase in euthanasia.
I pointed out that NYC, which impounds about as many animals as LA, has only had a 4% increase in impounds and an actual 4% DECREASE in euthanasia.
People have tried to explain that away by saying there are more apartments in NYC.
That may well be, but NYC still impounds as many animals as LA (usually), which means those animals were staying in apartments, owned or not, and single family dwellings, yet impounds have not gone up and killing is actually down.
Now, a study is coming out showing there has been little or no increase in impounds in two other cities, further destroying Boks claim that increased impounds are due to foreclosures, or is he saying foreclosures are only affecting LA?
In fact, the largest increase in LA impounds is neonatal kittens. Foreclosures would tend to affect adult cats and adult dogs-especially large dogs more than kittens. Think about it.
Several of us have opined that the real cause of the increased impounds is that Boks had an unofficial policy of refusing neonatal cats, meaning more unaltered adult cats not , meaning more kittens.
Ed's policy of refusal dramatically decreased his impound and kill rate last year between May and October. Now his policy is coming around to bite him. maybe he thought he'd be somewhere else, some other city by now, and he thought the next GM would have to explain why impounds and killing were up.
I agreed with his policy then as it saved lives then, but I didn't see that coming huge increase in impounds as a result. Those saved kittens were never altered.