The problem with Ed's defense on this is that Nathan's "24%" increase in Dog Euthanasia in the first year of the spay/neuter ordinance - is based on the previous year's numbers (2008 vs 2007 - which appear to be true based on the numbers Boks links to) and the 6% increase is for year 2 of the ordinance.
While it's true that they didn't start enforcing the law until June of that year, Boks and company were criticized by his own city's internal audit that they had done a poor job of communicating the exact info about the law to the general public.
Boks obviously has a lot of free time on his hands. Maybe he should get a job. He still goes to the Dept animal events as if he still worked there. How sad is that. The employees are like "what the heck is this loser doing here?"
The problem with Boks is that he never took responsibility for his mistakes, of which there were many. It was always someone else's fault.
The Department should get a restraining order against him attending any Department sponsored events. Boks continues to set the Department back even though no longer employed there.
It's not just about quibbling about numbers, which was always one of Boks' weaknesses.
If you look at Winograd's critiques of programs all across the country, he often refuses to take into account other factors that might affect intake and kill rates other than those that serve to support his underlying thesis that the department head always is to blame for anything that isn't going well. He follows that with the contention that the ONLY solution is the No-Kill Equation implemented with him serving as a consultant overseeing a hand-picked department head.
Since a spay-neuter law does not fit his Equation's insistence on voluntary spay-neuter, there's no way he can give it credit even if the numbers were great. He'd have to attribute the improvements to something else or risk undermining his own gospel.
Fortunately for him, there are enough other elements to the Equation that he wouldn't have trouble doing so, assuming those elements were being implemented to any degree. Ironically, in LA they ARE. So the situation is typically much less cut-and-dried than Winograd and his devotees make it out to be.
Maybe the real need is for everyone to pull together and help solve the problems, problems which have only gotten worse as the economy and government budgets have tanked, instead of all this squabbling over which guru is carving out the One True Path.
Actual enforcement of the spay/neuter ordinance didn't begin until October 2008. The first six months didn't include enforcement, but there was a big PR push when enforcement started. I remember you couldn't look at any publication or TV news show at some point that month without seeing something about it. I saw an ad for the ordinance when I went to a movie in the Valley, for heaven's sake, so don't tell me "they" (whoever "they" is) didn't try to get the word out for a while.
The question is what are they doing now, 18 months later, while their budget's being cut and a disaster is on the horizon?
5 comments:
The problem with Ed's defense on this is that Nathan's "24%" increase in Dog Euthanasia in the first year of the spay/neuter ordinance - is based on the previous year's numbers (2008 vs 2007 - which appear to be true based on the numbers Boks links to) and the 6% increase is for year 2 of the ordinance.
While it's true that they didn't start enforcing the law until June of that year, Boks and company were criticized by his own city's internal audit that they had done a poor job of communicating the exact info about the law to the general public.
The same is true for the cat numbers.
Boks obviously has a lot of free time on his hands. Maybe he should get a job. He still goes to the Dept animal events as if he still worked there. How sad is that. The employees are like "what the heck is this loser doing here?"
The problem with Boks is that he never took responsibility for his mistakes, of which there were many. It was always someone else's fault.
The Department should get a restraining order against him attending any Department sponsored events. Boks continues to set the Department back even though no longer employed there.
It's not just about quibbling about numbers, which was always one of Boks' weaknesses.
If you look at Winograd's critiques of programs all across the country, he often refuses to take into account other factors that might affect intake and kill rates other than those that serve to support his underlying thesis that the department head always is to blame for anything that isn't going well. He follows that with the contention that the ONLY solution is the No-Kill Equation implemented with him serving as a consultant overseeing a hand-picked department head.
Since a spay-neuter law does not fit his Equation's insistence on voluntary spay-neuter, there's no way he can give it credit even if the numbers were great. He'd have to attribute the improvements to something else or risk undermining his own gospel.
Fortunately for him, there are enough other elements to the Equation that he wouldn't have trouble doing so, assuming those elements were being implemented to any degree. Ironically, in LA they ARE. So the situation is typically much less cut-and-dried than Winograd and his devotees make it out to be.
Maybe the real need is for everyone to pull together and help solve the problems, problems which have only gotten worse as the economy and government budgets have tanked, instead of all this squabbling over which guru is carving out the One True Path.
Actual enforcement of the spay/neuter ordinance didn't begin until October 2008. The first six months didn't include enforcement, but there was a big PR push when enforcement started. I remember you couldn't look at any publication or TV news show at some point that month without seeing something about it. I saw an ad for the ordinance when I went to a movie in the Valley, for heaven's sake, so don't tell me "they" (whoever "they" is) didn't try to get the word out for a while.
The question is what are they doing now, 18 months later, while their budget's being cut and a disaster is on the horizon?
Post a Comment