Public is Getting Fed Up With VCA Prices

A stock analyst says VCA's price increases are driving people elsewhere, and both its growth and income are not sustainable. After a recent $780 bill for one of my rescues, including $425 for a pelvic ultrasound, I know of what he speaks.

This recession is the time for some established clinic to decide to drop prices and grab an increased market share and hold onto it when the economy picks up. They could cut into the customer base of VCA and the other high priced corporate practices. But I don't see this happening. The good clinics of the past are being rapidly bought out by VCA and other corporations. Too bad VCA can't turn a few of their many clinics into budget clinics and see what happens.

Here is the article (partial. Getting the whole article requires a $130 subscription fee):

VCA Antech Losing Its Bite

By JUSTIN FERAYORNI

About this article:
Yesterday evening, VCA Antech reported its March quarter. Revenue of $316 million missed consensus by nearly 5%, while very tight expense control produced an earnings per share beat of 1 cent. The company's veterinary hospital revenue was up over 5% year over year to $238 million, but that was driven by continued price increases and acquisitions. I estimate that organic order growth in the hospital business was down mid-to-high single digits, given "same-store" sales down 2.7%. I believe that VCA's continued price increases are unsustainable in this economic environment, as customers on the margin will choose to take their business elsewhere. I believe this is showing up partially in the organic growth figures. The company's lab business performed slightly better -- up 1.7% organically, to $77.5 million. The company's operating margins continued to suffer this quarter, falling 60 basis points to 18.8%. This continues the descent...

Mayeda is Next!

We all know that the County shelter system under Mayeda is far worse than Ed Boks City shelters. With Boks down, this blog has two jobs: make sure the City does a good job getting a replacement for Boks, and getting rid of Mayeda.

Coming soon will be some extraordinary bad news for Mayeda and the County shelter system.

Keep watch on this blog.

Winograd on Finding a New General Manager

I've been thinking a lot about the situation in Los Angeles since receiving your e-mail. The resignation of Ed Boks offers the Mayor an opportunity to move in a new direction, as the single biggest factor for lifesaving success or failure is who runs the shelters in any given community. Despite taking in over three times the number of animals per capita than the City of Los Angeles, Washoe County NV is now saving 90% of dogs and 86% of all cats. This followed the hiring of new directors passionate about saving lives and committed to implementing the programs and services which make it possible. In fact, a new director at Washoe CountyRegional Animal Services has heralded an unprecedented level of cooperation in the No Kill initiative and is working with community stakeholders to increase their already impressive 60% redemption rate for stray dogs and 7% for stray cats.

For that level of success to come to Los Angeles, the job description must be as inclusive as possible. Rather than prior experience running a shelter, the job description should list skills which can be transferred to the shelter environment. Too often, prior experience running a shelter means a history of killing.

Second, the job announcement/description must put saving lives on at least equal footing with public health. If Los Angeles wants a new General Manager who is compassionate, dedicated to improving animal care, and committed to reducing killing, it must demand those characteristics in its recruitment.

Third, the Mayor must remember that while he is the elected steward, the shelters do not belong to him. Municipal shelters are doing what they are doing in our name: they are doing it with our taxes, with our donations, as agencies representing us, and they are even blaming us (and our neighbors) for doing it by claiming they have no choice because of the public’s irresponsibility. In short, they belong to the people. It is therefore incumbent on the Mayor to convene a committee of animal welfare advocates in the city to interview and help select the next candidate. The Committee must include a broad—not hand-picked by the Mayor—cross section of the animal protection community to interview candidates and recommend the next General Manager. When I was hired in Tompkins County, I was not just interviewed by those in power. I was also interviewed by volunteers, by rescue groups, by critics of the shelter. And that is what Los Angeles requires as well.

Fourth, although we are picking up the tab and these shelters are supposed to (but often fail) to reflect our values, we are not paying the ultimate price. That is being paid by the animals who are unfortunate enough to enter U.S. shelters and lose their lives as a result. And so any job description must include a commitment to the No Kill philosophy and a commitment to implementing the programs and services which make it possible.

Fifth, the Mayor must give the General Manager the authority to renegotiate a union contract that makes it incredibly difficult to fire those who harm animals and consistently underperform. No longer should the City Attorney have sole authority to negotiate (read: rubber stamp) union contracts for animal services, which are deemed less important than for those of other city services.

Finally, I’ve said this before but it bears repeating until someone in the community champions it. In order to achieve and sustain No Kill, we must move past a system where the lives of animals are subject to the discretion and whims of shelter leaders or government bureaucrats. Currently, No Kill is succeeding in those communities with individual shelter leaders who are committed to achieving it and to running shelters consistent with the programs and services which make it possible. Unfortunately, such leaders are still few and far between. And when that leader leaves, the vision can quickly be doomed.

For No Kill success to be widespread and long lasting, we must move past the personalities and focus on institutionalizing No Kill by giving shelter animals the rights and protections afforded by law. Every successful social movement results in legal protections that codify expected conduct and provide protection against future conduct that violates normative values. We need to regulate shelters in the same way we regulate hospitals and other agencies which hold the power over life and death. The answer lies in passing and enforcing shelter reform legislation which mandates how a shelter must operate.

Otherwise, activists in Los Angeles will be back to square one if the candidate the Mayor chooses is not progressive, but even if he or she is, if they then later choose to leave for other opportunities in the not-too-distant future.

Nathan

Unbeatable Obama Comment

This is a comment left to one of the Obama posts below. Boks = Death, who soon will need a new name, is an extraordinary writer. We should not let this die.

Yesterday I got the new edition of "Pet Press" and, inexplicably. Lori Golden is actually telling people to "leave the Obamas alone."

Normally I like Lori and mostly agree with her, but I think she's really wrong here. Of course, there's nothing we can do to change this decision. But I think we'd be making a big mistake not to push back on this.

First, it wasn't one isolated instance where Barack Obama said they'd "prefer" a shelter dog. Both he and Michelle said they were leaning towards adoption; Michelle flat-out said in an Entertainment Tonight interview that they were GOING to adopt.

Second, if the stories Ed's reprinted here have any truth to them, these "adoption" red herrings were being repeatedly dropped at the same time plans were being made for the Obamas to acquire Bo. That's dishonesty. I voted for the man, but if he lies, we need to say he lied.

Thirdly, if this story is true, he and Michelle (and the ever-self-entitled Kennedys) WILL in fact be responsible for the deliberate large-scale breeding of PWD puppies while dogs who are already here are getting a needlefull of Euthanol. This was a totally foreseeable consequence of this decision and I lay every unwanted Portie bred and every dog who dies at the doorstep of the Obamas. They knew what the stakes were and they didn't care. They wanted a rich-and-powerful person's dog. They blew the unparalleled golden opportunity to make every shelter dog a rich-and-powerful person's dog.

And the fourth reason we shouldn't drop this is: every single time we have an opportunity to show that animal lovers are a MASSIVE demographic, we blow it. Every argument against taking a stand seems to be some variation on "Be tasteful -- and give the guy a break..." But the guy says he's a moral leader. Nothing is more immoral than ignoring the plight of living beings simply because they can't vote and they can't make a campaign contribution.

We OWE IT to the dogs who are going to die NOT to drop this. We owe it to all the shelter animals who needed the limelight, who needed a powerful person to take their side, who watched that powerful person walk away from them and their lives NOT to be tasteful, but to say, "Sorry, Barack and Michelle. I voted for you and you let me down. You sold out on the issue that's most important to me."

Dogs are going to die. We owe them this.

YOU CAN LEAVE YOUR OWN COMMENTS ON ONE OF THE OFFICAL OBAMA CHANGE.ORG ANIMAL ACTIVIST BLOGS:

http://animalrights.change.org/blog/view/obama_disappoints_animals_props_up_breeders

Winograd's Advice on Finding a Successor

I emailed Nathan that Boks had resigned and asked his advice on how the LA animal community should proceed. He responded as follows, with an advice we need to acknowledge:

You should ask for a citizens committee made up of the animal welfare groups to interview and recommend the next director. The committee should have veto power over who gets hired. A man/woman of the people by the people for the people (and the animals).But this position is too important to leave to the Mayor and his cronies.

If you agree we need to do something other than tear ourseleves apart trying to influence the Mayor to pick our choice, and you want to help me organize such a committee, or be on such a committee and lobby both the Mayor and Council that this is a way to go that probably would take the heat off the Mayor and the Council by making the GM a "peoples' choice, then leave a comment of support or advice or contact me privately at edwardmuzika@sbcglobal.net.

What Now?

For two years I have been trying to build support for the LA animal community to plan for what happens after Boks. Not much has happened. ADL has consistently relied on a Winograd strategy, which I supported, and some parts of the community still support either laura Heisen or Terri Macelero for GM.

I suggest the entire animal community get together now and develop a strategy to find a good successor.

Strangely, this article by Laura Beth was just published in the Daily News.

Spiteful identity thief tried to destroy good reputation

By Laura Beth Heisen

Updated: 04/24/2009 12:31:56 PM PDT

By Laura Beth Heisen

MY identity got stolen earlier this month. It was not the typical identity theft. No one bought extravagant electronics or a Vegas weekend on my credit card. What the thief stole was my good reputation that I worked so hard and so long to build.

The thief falsified an e-mail address using my name to create the illusion of messages coming from me and assembled a list of Web stories about me from a desperate time when I was sick, physically abused and pregnant 24 years ago. The subject line for this e-mail was, "URGENT: SPAY-NEUTER VOUCHERS" knowing the recipients would open it believing it came from me, chairwoman of the Los Angeles Spay/Neuter Advisory Committee.

The identity thief then blasted it throughout L.A. City Hall, to the Mayor's Office, every City Council office, most L.A. Animal Services employees, my fellow committee members, and the humane community.

One week before the identity theft, I presented my committee's 89-page report to the City Council. Council members enthusiastically praised the report for its substance and fiscally minded recommendations. This was a stark contrast to City Council's sharp criticism of L.A. Animal Services' managers the week before.

The e-mail was clearly a malicious attempt to discredit not only me, but, more importantly, the committee's work and excellent results, and our important spay/neuter goals. How ironic that the smear campaign relies on something 24 years old.

I am a recovered abused wife. I got married after law school. When pregnant in 1985, my doctors said I would probably die from complications, including kidney malfunction and extremely high blood pressure.

During this time, my abusive husband demanded that I take the California Bar Examination for him - a violation that could get me disbarred. Each time I refused, he threatened me and threw large objects at me, causing me to relent.

After I was repeatedly hospitalized, my "fight" was worn down from abuse and life-threatening pregnancy complications. With every reason to fear for my and my unborn baby's lives, I took his bar exam, too weak and scared to find another available survival method.

My daughter and I were lucky. We survived; but survival came at a high price. I was convicted of taking the exam for my former husband in 1986, and then disbarred. All but a few kind and understanding people shunned me like a germ.

I worked very hard to learn from my mistakes and in 1987, a judge fully expunged the criminal charges from my record. I earned a second chance; the California Supreme Court ordered me reinstated in good standing with the California Bar, where I remain. As a government servant since 1990 and government attorney since 1999, I earned awards, including two prestigious national awards in the past two years.

My criminal penalty included community service. In that I found self-worth, and volunteerism remains my way of life. I spearheaded development of a new municipal dog park and revived a school district's Child Care Program. I founded and lead a respected animal charity. Mayor Hahn appointed me to a voluntary commissioner position with L.A. Animal Services. Most recently, I was appointed to and am now chairwoman of the Los Angeles Spay/Neuter Advisory Committee.

"The system" of law enforcement and punishment works. My life of public service and volunteerism might not have happened had I not been forced into the nightmare that my daughter and I survived. I spent years rebuilding my life and reputation. Then, an identity thief tried to undermined it with a few keystrokes.

To anyone struggling to overcome abuse or affliction, take heart. We can survive and do emerge from our respective nightmares as stronger, healthier, better people.

Don't let anyone push you back to your weaknesses. Let's keep showing the better person we have taught and grown ourselves to become - who we are today.

Laura Beth Heisen is a founding director and corporate officer of Animal Match Rescue Team Inc. and former commissioner of the Board of L.A. Animal Services (www.amrt.net).

BOKS RESIGNS!

This is the email he sent to employees:

GM Announcement
I am informing all LA Animal Services employees and volunteers that I am
resigning as General Manager effective June 30, 2009.

I plan to take leave for a couple of weeks but will be back in time to help
close out the current fiscal year and work with our management team to ensure a
smooth transition. While on leave I am naming Kathy Davis as the Acting
General Manager. Your support of Kathy is appreciated.

I want to let you know how proud I am of the work we were able to accomplish
over the past three and a half years including, but not limited to, development
of the most successful municipal pet adoption program in the nation (over 26,000
adoptions annually); successfully opening six new state-of-the-art animal care
centers; embarking on the Department's first Strategic Planning process;
updating and standardizing policies and procedures to ensure a well-run
Department; and building the finest animal care and control medical and
executive teams in the nation.

Gratefully, all of this, along with all your
hard work and commitment, has successfully contributed to the lowest three years
of pet euthanasia rates in the Department's recorded history; and we have
every reason to expect continued improvement.

This was all accomplished while the Department experienced its largest, fastest,
and most historic growth in service demand. LA Animal Services is finding its
balance in an environment of severe budget cuts, unprecedented demand for
expansion of services, and a severe staffing shortage. I am proud to have
served as your General Manager during these difficult years.Â I know I am
leaving a Department committed to valuing the integrity of each employee,
volunteer and partner all contributing to the professional delivery of excellent
customer service, in an atmosphere of open, honest communication, predicated on
your trust in and respect for each other.

I wish you all the very best. Thank you for your commitment, dedication and
support for the Department's life saving mission.
Posted by: ED BOKS on 04/24/2009 11:30 AM

Prices of Portuguese Water Dogs Rising. Breeder Predicts General Mayhem

Barack Obama with daughters Malia (C) Sasha (R) and new puppy, Bo.
Jeff T. Green / Getty Images

In a disappointing deja vu, President Obama is getting a dog from a breeder, just as VP Joe Biden did. However, Obama's decision is much more disappointing than Biden's, considering his previous commitment to rescue a dog and his participation in Jana Kohl's book on puppy mills, "A Rare Breed of Love" (Buy Direct).

Barack Obama poses with Baby, a rescued dog, for the book "A Rare Breed of Love."
Photo by Robert Sebree

The Obama's new puppy is a Portugese Water Dog named Bo, a gift from Sen. Ted Kennedy, who got the dog from a breeder. The dog made his public debut on the South Lawn of the White House on Tuesday. Kohl now feels betrayed, as many animal advocates do.

I'm also very disappointed in Obama's decision, and withHSUS's press release on this subject, which congratulates the Obama's on accepting this "second chance" dog, just because the dog had been returned to the breeder by the previous family who purchased him. As PETA very clearly states, "The new first dog, Bo, is not a rescue." The dog was a gift to which the Obama's consented, and according to People.com, Kennedy "had been lobbying the Obamas to get a Portuguese Water Dog (or PWD) for months."

Because of his position in the public eye, Obama's decision affects more than the one dog he could have rescued from a shelter. Even before Bo made his public debut, Obama's anticipated decision created a demand for these purebred dogs:

When the Obamas announced earlier this year the breed was on their short list, (Mitch Horowitz, a dog breeder) started receiving three or four inquiries daily . . . "People are going to reproduce these dogs however they can," he said. "Prices have already gone up a lot. It's going to be general mayhem."

One newspaper article compares the popularity of these dogs to the popularity of Jackie Kennedy's pillbox hat. Unfortunately, a dog cannot be placed on a shelf in the closet when the next trend comes along. The increased demand for these dogs will lead to more dogs being bred, which will lead to more dogs suffering in puppy mills and dying in shelters.

Althouh PETA reports that the dog has been neutered, and Ecorazzi reports that Obama is making a donation to a "Humane Society," (it is unclear exactly which organization will receive the donation) this damage control is too little too late. As Kohl responded to The Vote Blog of the Christian Science Monitor regarding the donation: “That’s baloney,” Kohl said. “It’s farcical. They’re donating money to urge people not to do what they did.”

I agree wholeheartedly with Kohl. Donating money after the fact will do little to curb the damage. Not only is Obama setting a terrible example for the country, but he reneged on a promise he had made to animal advocates during the election.

Animal advocates are expressing their disappointment to the White House through theironline webform.

Laws Should Protect Animals

Bill 2296’s Punishment of Speech May Lead Activists to More Violence to Make Their Voices Heard

by Dan Kapelovitz, Jill Ryther and Jaimie Bryant / October 11th, 2008

Members of the campus community recently received an e-mail from UCLA Chancellor Gene D. Block extolling the virtues of Assembly Bill 2296, a new law that restricts the speech of animal-rights activists (whom he calls “anti-animal research extremists”) in order to protect animal researchers. As this law moved toward passage, much was said about the fear animal researchers feel when confronted by protestors. By contrast, few have commented on the pain and terror experienced by animals used in experiments or have explained why there is protest against animal research at UCLA and other institutions in the first place.

Every day at places like UCLA, animals are subjected to excruciating, unrelieved pain as involuntary subjects in research experiments that have not been described or justified to the public. Researchers and the heads of experiments hide behind unsupported general claims that such research is necessary and productive for human health, but they offer no information by which the public can assess their claims as to specific experiments.

Therefore, the public has no information about the research that is being done or whether, in fact, any of it has led to or has the potential to lead to worthwhile advancements. Researchers and the heads of institutions like UCLA reject calls for transparency about the animal research that is conducted.

Because of the way research applications are reviewed and funded, it is highly likely that research dollars are wasted on useless animal testing and experiments. Funding might well have been more productively invested in research methods that bear actual fruit in advancing human health.

Animal researchers like to further argue that they are in complete compliance with state anticruelty statutes and federal laws that regulate scientific research on animals. However, as legally interpreted, neither state nor federal laws provide any protection to animals tortured at institutions like UCLA.

State anticruelty statutes define “cruel” as only the infliction of “unnecessary” suffering on animals. Scientific research is arbitrarily defined as “necessary,” which means that the infliction of even the most horrific suffering on animals falls outside the legal boundaries of the “anticruelty” statutes.

Federal law is no different. The Animal Welfare Act purports to regulate scientific research, yet the AWA covers only a very small minority of the animals used in research and explicitly states that none of its provisions can be used to impede or affect research design or implementation. The AWA does not prevent the infliction of horrific suffering on animals; it only creates paperwork for research scientists who need to provide minimal justifications for their unwillingness to provide pain relief or consider alternatives to animal-based research or testing.

Chancellor Block, a former animal researcher himself, praises AB 2296 for providing new protections for animal researchers, but animal researchers already have complete legal protection from violent conduct. That is why we believe that a primary purpose of the new law is to intimidate peaceful protestors; the first versions of the law were even more expansive in curtailing their speech. Even though AB 2296 was reduced in scope before it was enacted, it still punishes speech.

Given the history of law enforcement reactions to animal advocacy protests, we believe that such a law is likely to be abused by law enforcement officials who use their authority to intimidate peaceful animal activists into silence. It is animals – and the people who care about them – who are not sufficiently protected by existing laws.

Unfortunately, laws like this – whose focus is the speech of protestors – may actually increase violent acts against researchers rather than diminish them. When lawful speech is stifled by expansive use of such laws to intimidate protestors, activists concerned about imminent and ongoing violence against animals may feel the need to resort to methods other than speech to have their voices heard. That tragedy could be avoided with more transparency and more public debate about whether the extreme pain inflicted on animals is justified.

Dan Kapelovitz is President of the Animal Law Society at the UCLA School of Law. Jill Ryther is the Communications Director of the Animal Law Society at the UCLA School of Law. Jaime Bryant is Professor of Law, Faculty Adviser to the Animal Law Society at the UCLA School of Law.

Well, well, what have we here, Obama the phony?

This article ran when Obama was running for Pres. in June 2008.

Barack Obama vows to hold puppy mills accountable for torturous conditions: Will Obama fix the problem?

"Kohl says (of Obama), "It was so evident this was an extraordinary human being." Kohl says he was very distressed at what she told him about puppy mills and Baby's plight, and showed a lot of compassion. "He's a mensch," she adds.”

“Obama posed with Baby in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. -- a fitting backdrop, says Kohl, because Lincoln was an animal lover.”

Michelle Obama Says Bo kind of Crazy: He bites peoples feet

DARLENE SUPERVILLE, Associated Press – Thu Apr 23, 2:05 pm ET

WASHINGTON – First dog Bo is a "kind of crazy" puppy who likes to chew on people's feet, Michelle Obama told children visiting the White House on Thursday.

The first lady is spending a lot of time walking and training the 6-month-old Portuguese water dog who became a member of the president's family last week.

An energetic breed, Bo plays well into the night, as he did on Wednesday.

"It was like 10 o'clock. Everybody was asleep and we hear all this barking and jumping around," Mrs. Obama said. "The president and I came out and we thought somebody was out there. And it was just Bo. He was playing with his ball. And it was like there was another person in the house.

"He's kind of crazy, but he's still a puppy. So he likes to play a lot," she said.

The dog, unveiled last week after months of speculation, was a gift to Obama daughters Malia and Sasha.

"He loves to chew on people's feet," Mrs. Obama divulged to more than 100 children invited to a program marking the annual Take Your Child to Work Day.

Dozens of executive branch employees brought their children and grandchildren to the White House on to see where their parents work and what they do there. Vice President Joe Biden's granddaughter, Maisy, 8, was among them.

In a question-and-answer session with the first lady, several students wanted to know about Bo.

Asked what she does with her free time, Mrs. Obama said she doesn't get much of it.

"Well, right now I'm taking care of this puppy. So I'm doing a lot of dog walking and dog training," she said.

Another youngster asked what would she do if Bo ran away.

"I would be very sad, first of all but ... he has (dog) tags, and hopefully someone would find him and bring him back," Mrs. Obama said.

She said it would be hard for Bo to get off the South Lawn, one of the places he is taken for walks and to play, because it is gated. But if he were to get out, she said, lots of people would try to track him down.

"I think everyone at the White House would probably help go out and find him," she said. "That's why we're working on training him, so that he doesn't run away and he listens when we call him. And so far he's doing OK, so we hope we don't have that problem."

Boks New York Lawsuit

Antonio Villaraigosa's Director Ed Boks found guilty of racial discrimination, unlawful te

by London Bridges
Thursday Apr 23rd, 2009 12:48 PM

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa hired Ed Boks the Director of Animal Services without checking out his references. He did not know that Boks had just been sued for racial discrimination and unlawful termination a month before he hired him. When the City was apprised of the lawsuit in January 2006, Boks told the Mayor that the lawsuit "had no merit." Antonio did not investigate and took him at his word. Judge Kimba Wood in New York has ruled otherwise.

meanantonio.jpg

In an opinion and order dated March 27, 2009 Judge Wood stated that "Viewing the available evidence as a whole, the Court finds that a reasonable jury could conclude that Defendants terminated Plaintiff because of his race." Since the judge's ruling the City of New York has decided to settle with the plaintiff Wesley Artope. The exact amount is unknown at this time.

November 1, 2005 Wesley Artope filed a lawsuit against Ed Boks and New York City Animal Care and Control for racial discrimination and unlawful termination. African American Artope claimed that he was fired so that Boks could hire a personal friend, Richard Gentles who was white and had no experience. On top of this Gentles had recently been fired from the Parks and Recreation Department after being arrested and charged with a felony work-related crime. To make things even more awkward Gentles was a friend of the woman Boks was "seeing" who sat on the board that over saw his Department.

As per the lawsuit Artope had been with the Department for many years and was better qualified than his replacement. "Plaintiff was promoted regularly to positions of increasing responsibility. Plaintiff has an Associates Degree in Veterinary Technology and a Bachelors Degree in Psychology. Plaintiff also has licenses and certifications as a veterinary technician, animal handler, and animal rehabilitator, and work experience in animal training, handling, and treatment." Gentles who replaced him on the other hand had no animal-related experience at all. In deposition Gentles admits that his “only experience with veterinary personnel was when he took his pets to the veterinarian.”

Boks initially told Artope that he was fired for "budgetary and restructuring reasons." After Artope filed suit Boks changed his story and stated he was fired because of "poor performance." Oddly enough Artope had never been told his performance was lacking. In fact he was told his performance was "great." The Judge did not believe Boks' claim that he fired him because of poor performance.

Boks tried to make the case that he did not discriminate based on race because he also fired two white people and demoted another. The records show that he only demoted one white person. Boks also failed to state that the white person was offered to be demoted instead of fired, and they accepted. Boks did not make this same offer to Artope. The Judge did not believe Boks' argument.

Artope claimed that when he was fired he was not given the chance to apply for the new position which replaced his. In fact Boks gave the job to his friend Gentles without making it available to anyone which is against City policy. Boks had no explanation for this action at all.

A source close to Boks said Boks gave them this explanation for why he fired Artope and hired his friend Gentles. Boks stated that Artope was "just a lazy black employee." He wanted to fire him but couldn't because of the union. He decided to get rid of his position, then recreate his position with a new title. He wanted his personal friend to have the job because he was "like-minded" and needed a job.

While in New York and Los Angeles Boks had a singles ad on Match.com. In his profile he stated that he is only interested in "white/caucasian" women. No Hispanic, African American or even Asian need apply. Was this whole thing a case of racism or croneyism, or perhaps a little of both?

What is most disturbing is that Antonio Villaraigosa hired Ed Boks immediately after he'd been sued for racial discrimination, immediately after he'd been fired from New York. In deposition it was stated that the Mayor's Office in New York "hated" Boks and frequently reprimanded him for bad behavior. Deputy Mayor Jimmy Blackman was in charge of vetting Boks. Why didn't he talk to the people in New York before hiring Boks? Why did LA hire a man who was fired from his previous position because of bad behavior?

Since Boks has come to LA he's managed to garner the wrath of personnel, volunteers, animal rescuers, the public and even City Council, a first for any Director. It's been one mistake after another from the "Hooters for Neuters" bikini contest to the Pitbull Academy run by ex-cons to incurring countless lawsuits. Through all of this Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has stood by his side, even after Boks was reported for driving the City vehicle drunk and sexually harassing female rescuers. This is on top of Boks' poor performance with increased euthanasia and three times as many animals dying on their own in the shelter from illness and injury. It really makes one doubt the abilities of our Mayor. How many other "Ed Boks" has the Mayor appointed to top positions in our City? Does the Mayor even know what is happening? Is he even in town?

Lindy Greene Arrested for Stalking and "threatening protests"

Well, if you can't catch people who planted "arson" devices, why don't you go after the pickets? This is what authorities did to two primate picketers. They are charged with stalking and conspiracy to threaten school employees and holding "threatening" protests.

The article says they are not charged with the arson attempts or other vandalism related events. The article also says they are doing this in protest to the "seriousness" of what the animal people are doing at UCLA. To me this seems like another Mason-like case, an arrest to make a point. I hope both make a lot of money when they sue the County or whomever is involved.

Linda Faith Greene, 61, and Kevin Richard Olliff, 22, have been charged with 10 felonies involving incidents against scientists who use animals in their research.

By Andrew Blankstein and Larry Gordon
April 21, 2009

Two animal rights activists have been charged with threatening and harassing UCLA scientists who use animals in their research, according to a Los Angeles County grand jury indictment unsealed Monday.

Linda Faith Greene, 61, and Kevin Richard Olliff, 22, were charged March 27 with 10 felonies, including stalking and conspiracy to threaten a school employee. Along with targeting UCLA faculty members, they were accused of holding threatening protests against research near the homes of executives of the POM Wonderful Juice company.

Greene, who is being held on $450,000 bail, and Olliff, in custody on $460,000 bail, pleaded not guilty to the charges. Neither could be reached for comment.

UCLA officials have reported at least 10 arsons, attempted arsons, vandalism and threats against researchers and their families in the last three years. Greene and Olliff were not charged, however, with any of the arsons.

The indictment alleged that Greene and others with the North American Animal Liberation Press Office posted claims from unidentified activists about an explosive reportedly left on the doorstep of UCLA psychiatry professor Lynn Fairbanks in June 2006. The device, which had been lighted but did not ignite, was actually planted at a neighbor's home.

The next month, prosecutors allege, Greene, Olliff and others demonstrated outside Fairbanks' house and chanted obscene slogans about burning it down.

UCLA Chancellor Gene Block expressed gratitude Monday to UCLA's police, other law enforcement agencies and the L.A. County district attorney's office "for recognizing the seriousness of the crimes against our researchers."

The indictment comes at a sensitive time in the debate at UCLA over research that uses animals. The campus is bracing for dueling rallies Wednesday, one from a newly formed group that supports the research and the other by protesters who contend that UCLA scientists are torturing animals.

I'll be out of town for 2 days, so this blog will be inactive.

More on Sam Simon and Amanda

I am not certain as to all of what happened re the S/N vans, but the two links below indicate Sam Simon won a three year contract for City S/N services in 2005. Amanda lost.

It appears that Sam Simon wasn’t able to do as many spay/neuter surgeries as required by the contract and asked to be let out. They were supposed to take over the South LA S/N clinic until a proper RFP for that location was published.

Amanda assumed Sam Simon’s contract to run the van, but it appears San Simon never took over the South LA clinic and has continued to provide S/N services at a lower rate than the contract. Sam Simon has never been paid out of the voucher fund, but out of “the other revenues of the Spay and Neuter Trust fund.”

In 2004 I looked into those funds and revenue sources and there were 4-5 separate funds, each almost in a lock box where monies could not be shifter around. I don’t know what the situation is now.

However, on the face of it, Sam Simon did jump through the RFP hoop as did Amanda, and Amanda took over Sam Simon’s contract and has done a great job. That Sam Simon has continued to provide services paid out of some other fund, not the voucher or the van fund, does not seem to present a problem, does it?

http://www.laanimalservices.com/pdf/commission/Archive/061206Agd.pdf

http://www.laanimalservices.org/PDF/commission/2008/Board%20Report-%20Mobile%20SN%20clinic.pdf

Another Kennedy in the White House

This is one of several articles I found on the web. Seems we were all set up by the bull-cocky that the Obamas were actually looking for a shelter dog. The leading PWD breeding organization was never contacted by the White House or were any of the area shelters.

The Obamas led us on for six months and put a Kennedy plant into the White House.

The Obama puppy: The breeder tells the tale

By Christie Keith

April 12, 2009

Texas Portuguese Water Dog breeder Martha Stern is no stranger to placing her puppies with the famous and powerful. She bred Sen. Ted Kennedy’s beloved dogs Splash, Sunny and Cappy. And now it turns out she and her husband, Art, are also the breeders of the new First Dog, Bo — or Amigo’s New Hope, his registered name.

The news started leaking two days ago, when gossip site TMZ published a story that Sen. Kennedy would be giving the Obama girls the puppy their father had promised them when he was on the campaign trail. The breeder wasn’t identified, but the puppy was said to be of the “same lineage” of the Kennedy dogs.

I’d spoken to Stern a couple of months earlier, when rumors were flying that she’d sold a puppy to the Obamas. The basis for the rumor seemed to be not much more than the fact that she was the breeder of the Kennedy’s dogs, the Obamas had expressed an interest in the breed, and there was a puppy in the same litter from which Sen. Kennedy had gotten his newest puppy with the registered name of “Amigo’s Change to Believe In.”

At the time she said the rumor wasn’t true. “I did have what I called my ‘Hope’ litter, and all of them are named Hope or Change, or something like that, but no, they did not…” she told me then. “I would have loved to place a puppy with them. I think.” She paused, then laughed. “I’m not sure. Let me ponder on it a little bit.”

I left her a message yesterday, wanting to find out what the story was now. When I heard back from her this morning, she told me this had all transpired after we talked.

“Yeah, I called the girl who has Amigo’s Change to Believe In, and she laughed and laughed,” Stern said. “She’s been a huge Obama supporter from the beginning. She said she made 1500 phone calls for him during the campaign. She told me, ‘He can have my money, but he can’t have my dog.’”

While the Obamas had wanted to adopt a rescue or shelter dog, they also had their hearts set on a Portuguese Water Dog. This was partly because they fell in love with the Kennedy’s dogs, and partly because Malia Obama suffers from allergies.

Portuguese Water Dogs, like their Poodle relatives and a few other breeds, have what’s known as a “single” coat. These coats shed less than the more common canine double coat, and so less dander gets deposited in the environment. This sometimes makes them less of a problem for people with allergies.

It was Sen. Kennedy’s wife, Vicki, who heard about a littermate of Cappy’s in Washington DC who was probably going to be needing a new home. The family had two older Portuguese Water Dogs, and when one of them died, they got a puppy to keep their remaining dog company.

“Usually that works out all right,” said Stern. “But not this time. This little puppy was quite rambunctious, and I think he kind of barreled in there and tried to nurse off the older dog when he first got there. And she said, ‘You’ve got to be kidding.’ She did not understand this at all, and just lay around growling at him.”