On November 21, Ed Boks wrote on Facebook:
"The Oreo Law is nothing more than a political vendetta on the part of Nathan Winograd against Ed Sayres. The law adds nothing to the saving of lives in NYC. While there I implemented a program called New Hope COST TO THEM and we provided the s/n surgery, vaccinations, and microchip, again, at no cost to the rescue groups. New
"Hope
"Hope
Nathan Winograd Responded to me via email:
“Ed Boks left Maricopa on threat of termination. He was fired from New York City Los Angeles
“And how did his program help Oreo? Not at all. The fact remains that shelters kill in the face of lifesaving alternatives. The only way to change that, and to change it forever, is to legally remove the discretion men like Boks and Sayres have to ignore what is in the best interests of animals and kill them needlessly. These directors already have had 15 years to follow the model pioneered in the No Kill movement and they have chosen not to. The animals do not have the time or luxury to wait another 15 years.
“If they won't save these animals willingly, we are going to force them to do so. This is not a vendetta. This is a war. A war to save the lives of animals under the threat of a death sentence by men like Boks.
"I might also add that Boks' argument is nonsensical. First, the law is state legislation meaning it would help animals in every shelter, not just NYCACC. Put aside the issue of Ed's claims (most of his "programs" were programs in name only and had no substance), laws set minimum standards. There is nothing preventing shelters from enacting more comprehensive lifesaving efforts. All Oreo's Law does is take away the power of shelters to kill in the face of a rescue alternative. It's focus is small, but its reach is enormous and will save thousands of animals every year. Boks is trying to undermine that and in doing so, shows his true colors: he doesn't appear to really care how many animals live or die, as long as he can make a name for himself. Which begs the question: if Boks talked and nobody listened, would he really make a sound?"
“And how did his program help Oreo? Not at all. The fact remains that shelters kill in the face of lifesaving alternatives. The only way to change that, and to change it forever, is to legally remove the discretion men like Boks and Sayres have to ignore what is in the best interests of animals and kill them needlessly. These directors already have had 15 years to follow the model pioneered in the No Kill movement and they have chosen not to. The animals do not have the time or luxury to wait another 15 years.
“If they won't save these animals willingly, we are going to force them to do so. This is not a vendetta. This is a war. A war to save the lives of animals under the threat of a death sentence by men like Boks.
"I might also add that Boks' argument is nonsensical. First, the law is state legislation meaning it would help animals in every shelter, not just NYCACC. Put aside the issue of Ed's claims (most of his "programs" were programs in name only and had no substance), laws set minimum standards. There is nothing preventing shelters from enacting more comprehensive lifesaving efforts. All Oreo's Law does is take away the power of shelters to kill in the face of a rescue alternative. It's focus is small, but its reach is enormous and will save thousands of animals every year. Boks is trying to undermine that and in doing so, shows his true colors: he doesn't appear to really care how many animals live or die, as long as he can make a name for himself. Which begs the question: if Boks talked and nobody listened, would he really make a sound?"
28 comments:
Before Boks arrived in New York they already had a rescue partner program. He just renamed it. He didn't create it. The rescue partner/New Hope program does not allow ACC to monitor rescue groups. They only care that the main person is a 501 3c, that's it.
Just look at how many New Hope dogs from LA ended up at Noah's Ark which was busted by Long Beach Animal Control. Others ended up with other hoarders like ZsuZsa. LA New Hope animals were adopted out to families unneutered. New Hope partner Kris Kelly adopted a cat to Paris HIlton unneutered. New Hope partner Mutts and Moms adopted out a dog unneutered to Ellen Degeneres. There are no controls.
The Oreo Law won't affect New Hope partners at all. Boks just wants to find some weird way to attack Nathan. Mind you, I'm no fan of Nathan but Boks' argument here makes no sense at all. He should be happy with the Oreo Law. It's basically makes the rescue partner/new hope program law.
The Oreo Law merely states that rescue groups should be allowed to adopt animals on death row. If some group wants to adopt a very sick or aggressive animal, they should be able to do so. They may be able to get the animal healthy or tame. I see no problem with that. A real rescue group would not want to take in a truly dying or vicious animal. I know I sure wouldn't unless I thought I could help the animal.
Boks needs to find a new career. He's done in animal control. No one would ever hire him after all the horrible things he's done.
Ed Boks is the Sarah Palin of the animal world...the difference being that she has more supporters. He'll probably see that as a compliment.
Oh stop name calling and putting peoples names on this site without knowing facts and then signing it Anonymous.
This is the problem with these kinds of sites they finger point and they do not know what the facts are.
New Hope is fine and it does a good job and none of the groups you listed are bad groups...you are stating a couple of facts...it sounds like Mary Cummins behavior...please go do something instead of putting people down...do something to create instead of wasting your time tattling on people you know nothing about.
People leave this man alone...he's gone what else do you want from this man...his death? My God he tried and failed...everyone move on..go forward and stop hashing up the past and being so hateful.
Isn't there anything else to write about? Instead concentrating on the positive and how you can affect the future of the suffering of animals not continue the suffering of Ed Boks for Christ sakes!
Sounds like Boks or some brainwashed friend of his. If Boks doesn't want to get attacked, he should stop acting like a jerk and saying shit about others. The poster is also a hypocrite. He or she is attacking others instead of doing something positive.
Poster three whines about people posting people's names and facts and signing things anonymously, then he/she posts names and signs their post anonymously.
Doesn't Boks look like Tony Alamo?
Actually Boks always reminded me of that free computer software guy on TV, except Boks' smile is paper-thin.
I was in a room with him one time and said something he didn't like. I wasn't rude, I just asked a fairly benign question - but he didn't like it and boy, that charm just disappeared like a water drop on a hot stove. It was amazing how obvious he was about it. How anyone ever gets fooled by that guy is a mystery. Villaraigosa and his staff are either dumb, or they knew exactly what they were getting with that guy on day one - there's no third option.
That being said, it has seemed to me that the problem with New Hope is that it's too inside baseball. Once you're in it's all about personalities (and very ugly personality conflicts) rather than clear guidelines.
Poster #2, I disagree with some of your contentions. First, several news outlets reported that the dog Iggy, adopted out to Ellen DeGeneres, was in fact a puppy. It's standard rescue procedure to adopt out puppies un-neutered, then follow up with adopters to make sure the procedure is done when it's time, and get an S/N certificate. L.A. law says they should be S/N at four months, but a lot of people feel that's too soon, and six months is more appropriate (perhaps longer for some breeds).
Mutts and Moms (as everyone should really know by now) did nothing wrong. Their job was to make sure Iggy had a safe home and they did what they needed to do to protect the dog. Ellen De Generes was 100% at fault and I still don't see why she's treated like the darling of the humane movement when she has never atoned for what she did to M&M. (and no, I don't personally know any of the people involved, but right is right).
Kris Kelly's problem was not adopting out an un-neutered cat, but adopting a cat for publicity purposes to a manifestly inappropriate adopter. It would really be hard to find someone less qualified to adopt from a reputable rescue than Paris Hilton. It's not like her lifestyle and personal ethos regarding animals was a big secret. Kris Kelly did it for publicity, and then when it went bad she sought more publicity.
Although she's since (wisely) changed it, on the day the news broke I looked at her website. It was wall-to-wall pictures of Kris Kelly in glamour shots with random animals as accessories. Furthermore, it was wall-to-wall stories about Kris Kelly, stories written in the third person, no less. It was the most blatant exercise in personal vanity I'd seen since...oh anything about Paris Hilton.
True rescue is the antithesis of glamour shots posing with cats and dogs so they don't muss your lipstick. It's unglamorous, it's hard, and by the end of the day the last thing you want is a camera pointed in your direction. The New Hope program needs to be less about cliques and individuals and more about saving ALL the animals, not just the cute and easily-adoptable, but the old, the handicapped, the funny-looking - all of them.
And certainly step one in moving rescue away from being just another venue for media whores is to make sure Ed Boks never works at or near a shelter ever again.
Poster 7,
New Hope guidelines state ALL animals must be spayed or neutered BEFORE adopting out to the public. That is the main rule of New Hope, and it's a good one. People get busy, lazy, distracted, don't neuter the pet and next thing you know..babies. The only time you wouldn't spay neuter is if the animal is very old or has health issues. Then you must have a vet certificate saying why it can't be neutered.
Kris Kelly adopted out an 8 week old kitten. It should have been neutered. Everyone knows how irresponsible Paris Hilton is. Kris wanted to get publicity from adopting out to Paris. When she didn't get press from Paris, she turned on her and outed her for not neutering the cat.
Yes, Kris is a total ego whore. She "rescues" animals for her ego and image. She's not really in it for the animal. I would never adopt out an animal to Paris Hilton, not even a pet rock.
Mutts & Moms also adopted out the dog without neutering it. That's my main fault. The dog was old enough to be neutered. These people should not have brought un-neutered animals to adoption events.
Ed,
How do I get important enough to even get Nathan's email, let alone have him respond?:)
I have been a supporter of Nathan's for many years. I fully support his crusade for No Kill. He has posted support for me in the past on many issues. AND, I have a blog that is read by at least 150 and sometimes as many as 350 people a day.
#8, you may be right that that's what the New Hope guidelines state. But if they really mean an 8 week-old kitten or puppy should be S/N then they are, in my and many others' opinions, really wrong.
Other experts insist on a minimum body weight. Who's right? I've had a bunch of cats and dogs, and have S/N'd them like clockwork the day they hit six months, if I got them younger - and did so even before I really had any grasp of the homeless animal problem. Any even minimally responsible owner spay/neuters.
Yes, a boneheaded adopter could allow a cat or dog to breed, but that's equally an argument for more stringent screening of adopters. But I've never met a vet yet who thinks spaying and neutering at eight weeks is wise. It's important to prevent breeding, but not at the cost of the health of animals who are already here. If we don't care about the wellbeing of the animals who are already here what are we doing in the first place?
And S/N really isn't relevant to the issue of Mutts and Moms, because apparently the only responsible thing Ellen De Generes actually did in relation to this dog is to neuter him on time.
Oh my God cannot understand this commenting. How can you people say you love animals and knock organizations that save animals? That is why animal people are considered nuts because they bite the hand that feeds them...excuse the pun :-)
I have never met a bunch of pain in the asses than animal rescue people or should I say wanna bes that are not really doing it but knocking the ones who do. All they do is complain and complain and get petty with each other.
I looked up every person that is commented about and I see they do excellent work and save animals from shelters. Isn't that what you people want? Why on earth would you talk about them like high school students? Why not talk about people that do not rescue or murderers?
Why would you put down people that are on your side? I hear the word Haters here. I mean it sounds like pure jeolousy or something.
Please guys go do something to help whatever cause it is that you say you stand for. If it is animals go do something that is credible and stop whining and whining and whining.
Get off the computer and do something...if you feel like an organization or Ed Boks is not doing something start your own organization or go run for office or something. My god you all sound like a bunch of old ladies in an old folks home. It's embarrassing.
OK I'm done...poor Ed Boks man he must have had a headache everyday!
Oh and may I add because of all your crying and finger pointing you can imagine why any city official would run for the hills if they were approached with hiring an animal rescue person for the job of GM...my God you are all nuts and crusty!!!!
If you want to communicate with Nathan, make a comment on his examiner.com page.
I was told to come to this site and read these comments. They were right it is craziness. This site should be called "Shelter Watch" because everyone just watches and gossips.
People the more time you spend on Ed Boks and the hate in your hearts for a man that really none of you know the more time that is away from the cause I am assuming you care about.
Who is the knucklehead who is bringing girlie crap into this? It has to be a woman!
If I hear one more thing about Winograd vs Boks I am going to puke!
Enough!!! You mention publicity...well Winograd wrote a book and promoted it...does that make him a publicity whore?
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU ALL TALKING ABOUT???
The animals will die year and year if people do not dummy up and stop this stupid destructive human level crap.
GET A LIFE because the people who you are taking your PRECIOUS time have a life and they are successful at what they do and that just makes you angry doesn't it? AGAIN GET A LIFE!!! You make rescuers lose crediblity and they have to try harder to prove they are not off the wall and they are upstanding educated people that can comingle with people that can make a difference for the animals...not people who are unhappy and just disgrace themselves by leaving terrible comments about people...UGH!
Mr. Myers, when you do puke, would you please aim it at Boks?
Mr. Myers and the person who sent you:
I couldn't agree more. This blog is for the LAAS, Boks, Villaraigosa haters and they are out-of-their-minds crazy. They have no intention of helping animals here. They just want to bash on the people they hate. They invade other blogs and ruin them.
They are nothing but a small branch of the ADLLA, who EVERYBODY in the city knows are crazy, immature nutjobs. Did you see their latest email blast begging for people to show up to picket? Nobody showed up so they didn't have anyone to picket!! Hilarious!
Yeah, I'd stay away from these people if I were you.
If you want to help animals, do what I do and go to the shelters and volunteer.
I like how a couple of people posting here seem to think THEIR personal criticisms are somehow on a loftier level than other people's personal criticisms...
It also seems at least one of these people doesn't really understand the history. The fact is people like Kris Kelly need to be called to account because when you court publicity you give the non-rescue community the impression that you represent local rescuers. Unfortunately, you cannot adopt an animal to Paris Hilton and retain any credibility as a rescuer. Then you make a big stink about it, get all kinds of publicity, and the general public rightly thinks "How can they be serious about animal welfare when they give a cat to some idiot who lost one dog, buys puppies at stores that get their dogs from puppy mills, and who used a wild animal as an accessory?"
Then God forbid they go to your website and discover that your rescue is really about glamour shots of you rather than about the animals. People aren't stupid, they can tell vanity and narcissism when they see it.
It's completely inexcusable. That sort of frivolous publicity-seeking is the reason private rescues aren't taken seriously.
By the same token, Ellen De Generes and Portia de Rossi are routinely trotted out by big-name humane groups as their token celebrities. But Ellen deliberately and premeditatedly focused the wrath of thousands of her fans on a small rescue group in an attempt to get her way in a situation where she was completely in the wrong. She caused L.A. rescuers to receive death threats, and she destroyed the rescue. She also gave people a totally specious set of reasons to buy rather than adopt. Also inexcusable. How do you fix that kind of damage? Apparently if you're Ellen De Generes you throw some money around and the whole thing gets erased.
Blogs like this exist in part so that media whitewashes are not 100% successful.
I don't hate Ellen De Generes, nor do I hate Kris Kelly. I don't even literally HATE Ed Boks. But, to varying degrees, they have all done very bad things to animals in the name of their egos. If the subject comes up I'm going to say my piece. That doesn't make me a hater.
Actually, the word "hater" is pretty suspect. It's like the low-grade version of "terrorist" (another word that gets tossed around pretty freely here). All it means is I've said something you don't like. Oh well, life's like that.
Boks = Death said...
"I like how a couple of people posting here seem to think THEIR personal criticisms are somehow on a loftier level than other people's personal criticisms..."
Amen sister (or brother), very well put. Ditto with the rest of your comment.
That being said, if the animals were healthy enough to be sterilized, then Kris and Mutts and Moms were in violation of CA Food & Ag 30503. So it isn't just a local department rule, it's state law.
Nice try #17, but not only am I not ADLLA (or any other group for that matter), in the past I've written posts criticizing their methods and explaining why I think they're ineffective.
You don't know who we are, and you don't care. You are trying to discredit those who disagree with you. But you have no facts.
The answer is that I am not a radical or a picketer. You would never be able to pick me out of any crowd, I'm that boring and normal. But that doesn't change the fact that I pay attention to what goes on.
You also have no way of knowing what anyone who posts here does to benefit animals. You hope to marginalize opposition by minimizing our contribution, but the flaw in your plan is you genuinely don't know what you're talking about. Periodically people post here saying everyone who opposes the status quo is crazy, or a "hater," or a picketer, or a communist, or a terrorist. But no matter what we are, the one thing you are certain of is that we actually do nothing to help animals.
No matter how little sense that charge makes, and the degree to which no one here owes you an explanation, I will once again say that I know one or two people who post here and they do in fact work for animals. I spend a great deal of my time working in a shelter and doing other work related to helping animals.
I have a great deal of admiration for some, but not all, of the people who volunteer at local city and county shelters. Many do literally thankless work under bad conditions and stay focused on the task. Some deliberately create a hostile environment for new volunteers, believing nobody but they are sufficiently qualified or serious to help. They do their best to force new people out. I know this for a fact.
Another consideration is an ethical one, for which I do not have an answer. Is it better to find ways around a corrupt and failing system like the County and City shelter systems, as private shelters and rescuers do - pulling redlisted dogs and cats out but not being part of the municipal system? Or is it better to work within the system even though it is corrupt, and to continue working there even though that means you have to close your eyes to abuses, both of people and of animals? I don't know the absolute moral answer to that, but I do know which side I'm able to work on. That being said, I see no reason to attack others for making a different choice, so long as their reasons make sense to them.
Don't assume you know someone else's motives when you don't know anything about them. Don't do it to new volunteers in the shelter and don't do it here. It just makes you look hostile and silly.
Myers,
I post on this board and I rescue from the shelter and I rescue from the public. I post my opinion. You are posting your opinion. Why is my opinion bad and yours good? Hypocrite.
So, is someone going to start a "Boks Watch" blog? We need to protect the animals and their people.
Seems to me this is as good a "Boks Watch Blog" as you'll ever get. I find out lots of great things about what Boks is up to by reading this blog.
Good point #22. I meant no disrespect to Mr. Muzika with the Boks Watch comment.
Cool! 23 WHOLE COMMENTS! Way to go! #12 is pretty funny in the end calling everbody "crusty!!!"
I like #7's comment too, for once. Pretty darn articulate guy. I like his writing style.
I have to admit, though. I like the "crusty" part. New word for me! LOL!
: )
P.S. So, everyone agrees that ZsuZsa was a hoarder? Wow. (#2 ?) I thought the rescue world was defending her. I missed this change of opinion.
Boks defender, 3rd post, This whole post is about Boks attacking Winograd and Winograd's response. Apparently he is not gone from the scene. He still is a paid lobbyist opposing declaw bans in LA and Santa Monica and he still publicly attacks people he doesn't like. What does he or you expect, that he can do anything he wants, anytime he wants without paying the consequences?
Oh, I forgot, that's how he ran the department for three years.
Boks just totally blocked or deleted his Facebook account. Boks adds complete strangers as his friends and wonders how his comments end up on the internet? He likes to dish it out but can't take it.
Boks was making $160,000 plus a year at LA Animal Services not including a car to use, health insurance, benefits, pension, credit card....
Boks expenses in Los Angeles were $4,500 a month just for his condo (mortgage, taxes, insurance, HOA dues, utilities) or $54,000 a year. Easy to do when you make $160,000 a year. He's been out of work almost six months, still paying the big condo bill but no income. He was eating hand to mouth before this as it was.
Boks applied to become the Executive Director at Whatcom Humane. That position paid gross $60,767 plus $1,192 in benefits for a whopping rounded $63,000 gross, much less net. His net income would not have even paid for his LA condo. That means he would have dumped his upside down condo on the bank and fled town with destroyed credit. He's been leaving towns after total humiliation for years, nothing new.
Nevada Humane Society Associate Director position paid $61,846 with no benefits gross. That means he again would have had to flee LA dumping his condo on the bank.
He was rejected from both positions. He was rejected from small time one shelter humane societies that paid 1/3 his former pay. That means the world realizes he's a total fraud. Who the hell would ever hire him? in any field?
Boks needs to get the message. Time to change careers, name, go to AA, find himself or ...
How Boks became the GM of Animal Services
Mayor Villaraigosa accepts bribes for jobs
Post a Comment