.
Can you believe this? Mayeda says she is just getting started changing the County shelter system. From a story today in the LA Times by Carla Hall:
Coming into a shelter system "like this and trying to make change is like trying to change direction of the Titanic -- or an aircraft carrier," said Mayeda, who has been at the helm of the department for 6 1/2 years. "Change doesn't happen overnight. I can put out great new policies -- and that's the first step -- but then the next step is getting everyone to buy into them."
During the last fiscal year, which ended in June, the county system took in 85,975 animals, roughly a third more than the city of Los Angeles. That number includes cats, dogs, rabbits, snakes -- even livestock. In the same year, the county euthanized 16,989 dogs, 26,384 cats and 9,429 other animals.
With a 38.5% save rate, how long is it going to take just to match LAAS, let alone San Francisco, Philly or Reno?
.
TNR vs. Spay/Neuter vs. No Charge to Rescues
.
Here is my point re allocation of resources; there are long term payoffs and short term.
Assuming ANY of Boks numbers are accurate, adoptions increased 2,600 since prior to when he started. That is significant. Fosters are up 800, that is significant. Died in shelter is up 600; that is significant.
These are short term gains/losses.
But what about TNR?
LAAS has had active spay/neuter programs for several years now with some mild reduction in impounds. However, we also speculate that Boks is refusing some animals and not taking ferals in at all. This could account for all the animals not taken in rather than spay/neuter.
Therefore if you put another $500,000 into TNR or spay/neuter to rescue groups, how many fewer will be impounded and how many fewer will die?
If you put $500,000 into spay neuter programs, how much will that drop impounds?
We'll never know how much impound numbers are corrupted by policies that refuse animals.
Everyone agrees TNR and spay/neuter are where its at, but this is just speculation. Studies of TNR are inconclusive. The effect of spay/neuter certifcates and those done in the shelter also are not knowable.
So long term we don't know what will reduce impounds and eithanasia.
Long term we do not know the impact of mandatory spay/neuter either.
Short term, we do: adoptions; fosters.
I am just saying money spent short term may have a big effect two years from now, but we don't know. Money given to rescues may have a big impact two years from now.
.
If you measure the success of a program in the short term rather than the long, thinks like storefront adoption centers, better advertsing and PR will probably have the biggest impact.
Here is my point re allocation of resources; there are long term payoffs and short term.
Assuming ANY of Boks numbers are accurate, adoptions increased 2,600 since prior to when he started. That is significant. Fosters are up 800, that is significant. Died in shelter is up 600; that is significant.
These are short term gains/losses.
But what about TNR?
LAAS has had active spay/neuter programs for several years now with some mild reduction in impounds. However, we also speculate that Boks is refusing some animals and not taking ferals in at all. This could account for all the animals not taken in rather than spay/neuter.
Therefore if you put another $500,000 into TNR or spay/neuter to rescue groups, how many fewer will be impounded and how many fewer will die?
If you put $500,000 into spay neuter programs, how much will that drop impounds?
We'll never know how much impound numbers are corrupted by policies that refuse animals.
Everyone agrees TNR and spay/neuter are where its at, but this is just speculation. Studies of TNR are inconclusive. The effect of spay/neuter certifcates and those done in the shelter also are not knowable.
So long term we don't know what will reduce impounds and eithanasia.
Long term we do not know the impact of mandatory spay/neuter either.
Short term, we do: adoptions; fosters.
I am just saying money spent short term may have a big effect two years from now, but we don't know. Money given to rescues may have a big impact two years from now.
.
If you measure the success of a program in the short term rather than the long, thinks like storefront adoption centers, better advertsing and PR will probably have the biggest impact.
Animal Cruelty Task Force Gets It Right This time
.
Dog Fighter Sentenced to Five Years in State Pen
Los Angeles: In March 2007, the Los Angeles Animal Cruelty Task Force (ACTF) conducted a probation search at the residence of Walter “Randy” Citizen, 42, in South Los Angeles. Seventeen adult pit bulls were taken into protective custody.
All of the dogs presented injuries that were consistent with dog fighting. Citizen was arrested in April 2007 by the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles District attorney’s Office charged Citizen with ten counts of dog fighting.
Deputy District Attorney Kimberly Abourezk announced today that Citizen pled guilty to five counts of dog fighting. He was sentenced to five years in state prison and is required to make restitution for the care and maintenance of the dogs. Citizen’s friend, Arnett Counts, was also arrested and charged with ten counts of dog fighting. His trial is pending.
.
Dog Fighter Sentenced to Five Years in State Pen
Los Angeles: In March 2007, the Los Angeles Animal Cruelty Task Force (ACTF) conducted a probation search at the residence of Walter “Randy” Citizen, 42, in South Los Angeles. Seventeen adult pit bulls were taken into protective custody.
All of the dogs presented injuries that were consistent with dog fighting. Citizen was arrested in April 2007 by the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles District attorney’s Office charged Citizen with ten counts of dog fighting.
Deputy District Attorney Kimberly Abourezk announced today that Citizen pled guilty to five counts of dog fighting. He was sentenced to five years in state prison and is required to make restitution for the care and maintenance of the dogs. Citizen’s friend, Arnett Counts, was also arrested and charged with ten counts of dog fighting. His trial is pending.
.
Council's Decision Will Kill More Animals
.
I agree with Boks 100% here. Council is being short-sighted.The mission of animal services is to save as many lives as possible and you can't do that by bankrupting rescure groups. To vote for manditory spay/neuter to decrease inpounds to decrese deaths and then vote to increase fees is stupid. Sounds like a Rosendahl idea.
Boks blames city council for making rescue groups pay for animals
Angeles Department of Animal Services director Boks sent an email to New Hope rescue partners with attachments including changes to the New Hope program. The biggest change is that rescuers will have to pay the same fees to rescue animals not on the list as adopters do.
Boks blame the city council for charging rescuers full fees for animals on the New Hope list. "Additionally, the City Council and the CAO recently expressed concern in regards to the huge increase in the amount of waived fees incurred by the Department in the past year, chiefly related to the New Hope Program."
The City Council is about to pass a mandatory spay and neuter law to help reduce animals coming into the shelters. But according to Boks, they are not happy that rescue groups are getting animals free because it means the Department of Animal Control brings in less money. Charging rescue groups full price for animals not on the New Hope list will mean less animals will get rescued. So they will end up with more animals in the shelter, not less. And if rescue groups can't afford to rescue so many animals because they have to pay full price, they will be killed.
Does the City Council know they are getting the blame for this? They seem to really support helping animals in the shelters so it is weird that they are now forcing animal control to make rescue groups pay full price.
Email and let them know and perhaps they will back down. (Districts 1 through 15 in order) The other person being blamed is the CAO City Administrative Officer Karen Sisson. Email her using this form: http://www.lacity.org/cao/cao_comments.htm
councilmemberreyes@lacity.org
councilmembergreuel@lacity.org
councilmemberzine@lacity.org
councilmemberlabonge@lacity.org
councilmember.weiss@lacity.org
councilmember.cardenas@lacity.org
councilmember.alarcon@lacity.org
councilmember.parks@lacity.org
councilmember.perry@lacity.org
councilmember.wesson@lacity.org
councilman.rosendahl@lacity.org
councilmember.smith@lacity.org
councilmember.garcetti@lacity.org
councilmember.huizar@lacity.org
councilmember.hahn@lacity.org
I agree with Boks 100% here. Council is being short-sighted.The mission of animal services is to save as many lives as possible and you can't do that by bankrupting rescure groups. To vote for manditory spay/neuter to decrease inpounds to decrese deaths and then vote to increase fees is stupid. Sounds like a Rosendahl idea.
Boks blames city council for making rescue groups pay for animals
Angeles Department of Animal Services director Boks sent an email to New Hope rescue partners with attachments including changes to the New Hope program. The biggest change is that rescuers will have to pay the same fees to rescue animals not on the list as adopters do.
Boks blame the city council for charging rescuers full fees for animals on the New Hope list. "Additionally, the City Council and the CAO recently expressed concern in regards to the huge increase in the amount of waived fees incurred by the Department in the past year, chiefly related to the New Hope Program."
The City Council is about to pass a mandatory spay and neuter law to help reduce animals coming into the shelters. But according to Boks, they are not happy that rescue groups are getting animals free because it means the Department of Animal Control brings in less money. Charging rescue groups full price for animals not on the New Hope list will mean less animals will get rescued. So they will end up with more animals in the shelter, not less. And if rescue groups can't afford to rescue so many animals because they have to pay full price, they will be killed.
Does the City Council know they are getting the blame for this? They seem to really support helping animals in the shelters so it is weird that they are now forcing animal control to make rescue groups pay full price.
Email and let them know and perhaps they will back down. (Districts 1 through 15 in order) The other person being blamed is the CAO City Administrative Officer Karen Sisson. Email her using this form: http://www.lacity.org/cao/cao_comments.htm
councilmemberreyes@lacity.org
councilmembergreuel@lacity.org
councilmemberzine@lacity.org
councilmemberlabonge@lacity.org
councilmember.weiss@lacity.org
councilmember.cardenas@lacity.org
councilmember.alarcon@lacity.org
councilmember.parks@lacity.org
councilmember.perry@lacity.org
councilmember.wesson@lacity.org
councilman.rosendahl@lacity.org
councilmember.smith@lacity.org
councilmember.garcetti@lacity.org
councilmember.huizar@lacity.org
councilmember.hahn@lacity.org
UCLA Addiction Researcher Says It Would Be Immoral To Turn Down $6 Million For Addiction Research.
.
From the LA Times today.
ALF's attacks on researchers may have drawn public scrutiny as to both the methods and goals of animal research.
This researcher says it would be immoral not to take tobacco money to do addiction research on teenagers and animals. Hummm... Dr. Mengele?
The UCLA Vice Chancellor of Research says, "Heck, we'll take money from anyone," in an amazing display of moral sickness.
At UCLA, a team of researchers is following this formula to produce what it hopes will be a groundbreaking study of addiction. So far, the scientists have proved that the issues of animal testing and tobacco-funded research are among the most contentious on university campuses.
UCLA professor Edythe London, the lead scientist on the three-year study, said it could discover new ways to help people quit smoking and lead to innovative treatments for other addictions.
The activists, who have also targeted other UCLA researchers, accused London of using "sadistic procedures" and "torturing nonhuman animals to death" in earlier studies. No one has been arrested in the attacks.
At the same time, Philip Morris' role in the study has drawn sharp criticism from anti-tobacco activists. They doubt that the company wants to help people stop smoking and question whether the study of teenage and monkey brains could help Philip Morris design a more addictive cigarette.
London said that Philip Morris would not have any oversight or other involvement in the study. The suggestion that the company might use her findings to make cigarettes more addictive is "twisted," she said. "That is not something we ever considered," she said. "The representatives of Philip Morris were very sincere."
Roberto Peccei, vice chancellor for research at UCLA, said the company's motives were immaterial.
"I have no idea why Philip Morris decides to fund this anti-smoking research, but they do," he said. "As long as we do not feel that we are interfered with and that the research is done with the highest intentions, what's in the mind of the funder is irrelevant."
"Edythe is a very good researcher, and frankly I'm shocked she would take the money," said Michael Cummings, a senior researcher at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, N.Y. "I think she's naive."
Philip Morris, which is paying for 23 research projects at seven UC campuses, supports the UCLA study as part of the company's effort "to reduce youth tobacco use and increase scientific understanding in the field," said William Phelps, a Philip Morris spokesman.
He said the company has no intention of using the results or teenagers' brain scans to develop more addictive cigarettes. "We would never do that," he said.
Phelps declined to comment on the use of animals in the study.
Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco), who backed efforts by an activist to obtain a copy of the grant proposal, said UC has no business accepting money from tobacco companies.
At UCLA, as at other University of California campuses, faculty members are free to accept money from any source. The only restriction is that studies involving animal and human subjects be approved by university review committees to ensure that they meet standards for the treatment of their subjects, university officials said.
Philip Morris invited London to submit a grant proposal, which she did, said Carol Stogsdill, senior executive director of UCLA's media relations office. The company awarded London $6 million to establish the Adolescent Smoking Cessation Center at the school and conduct the study on teenage and animal brains.
UCLA has attempted to keep quiet about London's study out of fear of attacks on its researchers.
In response to a subsequent Public Records Act request from The Times, UCLA provided more details but released virtually no information on the animal studies, citing the danger to its staff if specifics were made public.
In interviews, London and Peccei discussed some aspects of the study, which will include research on rats as well as monkeys.
The third phase will focus on animals. Researchers will administer liquid nicotine to adolescent and adult vervet monkeys, London said. The monkeys will undergo different behavioral tests and have PET (positron emission tomography) scans of their brains. Eventually, six to 12 monkeys will be killed and their brains studied, Peccei said.
After the first attack on her house, London took the unusual step of standing up to the activists.
She wrote an opinion piece for The Times contending that animal studies are a necessary part of research, saying it would "be immoral" to turn down the Philip Morris money and "decline an opportunity to increase our knowledge about addiction."
"It's very important to do animal studies," she said. "The animal studies are very focused on the effects of nicotine during development and the ability of the brain to do its work." richard.paddock@latimes.com
.
From the LA Times today.
ALF's attacks on researchers may have drawn public scrutiny as to both the methods and goals of animal research.
This researcher says it would be immoral not to take tobacco money to do addiction research on teenagers and animals. Hummm... Dr. Mengele?
The UCLA Vice Chancellor of Research says, "Heck, we'll take money from anyone," in an amazing display of moral sickness.
At UCLA, a team of researchers is following this formula to produce what it hopes will be a groundbreaking study of addiction. So far, the scientists have proved that the issues of animal testing and tobacco-funded research are among the most contentious on university campuses.
UCLA professor Edythe London, the lead scientist on the three-year study, said it could discover new ways to help people quit smoking and lead to innovative treatments for other addictions.
The activists, who have also targeted other UCLA researchers, accused London of using "sadistic procedures" and "torturing nonhuman animals to death" in earlier studies. No one has been arrested in the attacks.
At the same time, Philip Morris' role in the study has drawn sharp criticism from anti-tobacco activists. They doubt that the company wants to help people stop smoking and question whether the study of teenage and monkey brains could help Philip Morris design a more addictive cigarette.
London said that Philip Morris would not have any oversight or other involvement in the study. The suggestion that the company might use her findings to make cigarettes more addictive is "twisted," she said. "That is not something we ever considered," she said. "The representatives of Philip Morris were very sincere."
Roberto Peccei, vice chancellor for research at UCLA, said the company's motives were immaterial.
"I have no idea why Philip Morris decides to fund this anti-smoking research, but they do," he said. "As long as we do not feel that we are interfered with and that the research is done with the highest intentions, what's in the mind of the funder is irrelevant."
"Edythe is a very good researcher, and frankly I'm shocked she would take the money," said Michael Cummings, a senior researcher at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, N.Y. "I think she's naive."
Philip Morris, which is paying for 23 research projects at seven UC campuses, supports the UCLA study as part of the company's effort "to reduce youth tobacco use and increase scientific understanding in the field," said William Phelps, a Philip Morris spokesman.
He said the company has no intention of using the results or teenagers' brain scans to develop more addictive cigarettes. "We would never do that," he said.
Phelps declined to comment on the use of animals in the study.
Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco), who backed efforts by an activist to obtain a copy of the grant proposal, said UC has no business accepting money from tobacco companies.
At UCLA, as at other University of California campuses, faculty members are free to accept money from any source. The only restriction is that studies involving animal and human subjects be approved by university review committees to ensure that they meet standards for the treatment of their subjects, university officials said.
Philip Morris invited London to submit a grant proposal, which she did, said Carol Stogsdill, senior executive director of UCLA's media relations office. The company awarded London $6 million to establish the Adolescent Smoking Cessation Center at the school and conduct the study on teenage and animal brains.
UCLA has attempted to keep quiet about London's study out of fear of attacks on its researchers.
In response to a subsequent Public Records Act request from The Times, UCLA provided more details but released virtually no information on the animal studies, citing the danger to its staff if specifics were made public.
In interviews, London and Peccei discussed some aspects of the study, which will include research on rats as well as monkeys.
The third phase will focus on animals. Researchers will administer liquid nicotine to adolescent and adult vervet monkeys, London said. The monkeys will undergo different behavioral tests and have PET (positron emission tomography) scans of their brains. Eventually, six to 12 monkeys will be killed and their brains studied, Peccei said.
After the first attack on her house, London took the unusual step of standing up to the activists.
She wrote an opinion piece for The Times contending that animal studies are a necessary part of research, saying it would "be immoral" to turn down the Philip Morris money and "decline an opportunity to increase our knowledge about addiction."
"It's very important to do animal studies," she said. "The animal studies are very focused on the effects of nicotine during development and the ability of the brain to do its work." richard.paddock@latimes.com
.
Winograd's 111 Page 2005 Analysis of the Philly Shelter--AMMENDED
.
Winograd posted this on his blog. It is his 111 page analysis and recommendations of the Philly shelter system. This is what he says Philly failed to implement.
I have not carefully read it, but it appear to an an incredibly thorough and detailed operations analysis. I am impressed.
Take a close look at pages 29-32, t tells how you can cheat on euthanasia, impound and adoption numbers with password access to the tracking software.
http://www.nathanwinograd.com/linked/paccaassessment.pdf
Also, here are the 2006 and 2007 statistics for the combined Washoe County/Nevada Humane Society. Bonnie Brown is Nathan's protoge and head of the Nevada Humane side of the muni/private operation.
http://news.rgj.com/assets/pdf/J7950941226.PDF
I have not figured them out yet and I'll let you know when I do.
Winograd posted this on his blog. It is his 111 page analysis and recommendations of the Philly shelter system. This is what he says Philly failed to implement.
I have not carefully read it, but it appear to an an incredibly thorough and detailed operations analysis. I am impressed.
Take a close look at pages 29-32, t tells how you can cheat on euthanasia, impound and adoption numbers with password access to the tracking software.
http://www.nathanwinograd.com/linked/paccaassessment.pdf
Also, here are the 2006 and 2007 statistics for the combined Washoe County/Nevada Humane Society. Bonnie Brown is Nathan's protoge and head of the Nevada Humane side of the muni/private operation.
http://news.rgj.com/assets/pdf/J7950941226.PDF
I have not figured them out yet and I'll let you know when I do.
New Request For Public Records
.
I told Boks and the City Attorney that I'd shut up about Mason and his cats if Boks gave him his cats back, or at least allowed Mason to decide which New Hope they'd go to. I said they should take down the libelous post defending Boks' arrest of Mason for "Felony Animan Cruelty," which had never been the charge.
Don Cocek, Deputy City Attorney, emailed Dov Lesel I believe, asking if this were possible, showing Cocek, as I have heard, was an animal-friendly attorney who thought Boks was full of it and had refused to press charges against Mason.
I talked to Troy Boswell in a friendly sort of screaming way. He told me to ram myself and that he would check with Cocek. He never got back to me.
All in all, Boswell decided they were going to hold onto Mason's animals indefinitely in small cages rather than let him have any more to do with them or direct their adoption. Or, they were going to adopt them out at their own discretion whenever and to whomever they wanted. Naturally, I found his attitude endearing. He doesn't realize I can make something like the Mason case a lifetime career.
Finally Mason could not take their plight anymore and released them for adoption or euthanasia at Boswell's determination. Boswell has found a new friend in me.
Anyway, you remember Boks has refused any and all Requests for Public records regarding Mason's seized cats, such as who was euthanized, medical records to prove the necessity, who signed off on the euthanasia and any impound photos.
The case was offically over on January 16 after the City Attorney's Hearing Officer, Hilda Campos said it was all over. The seized records were returned to Mason but not the traps or cages. The animals would remain with them and Ron couldn't have any more to do with them.
Now I am resubmitting that same request with a bit more data I received from Shelterwatch investigator Brad Jensen.
Here is a precis of that request sent day before yesterday:
Ed Boks, General Manager
Los Angeles Animal Services
Dear Ed Boks,
This request is being made subject to the California Public Records Act: Government Code §6250-6268.
Under this statute you have 10 calendar days from the date of receipt of this request to respond as to whether you will release the records requested as detailed below. It is preferred your response be made in writing to either the street address or the email address below.
Background:
A previous request for public records was made for all documents, photos, ACO notes, dispatch log and other data regarding animals seized from Ron Mason’s property in Northridge on October 9 and October 11.
This request was denied in a letter signed by Linda Barth on January 8 citing the possibility of an ongoing criminal investigation.
As of January 16, 2008, Mr. Mason was notified by the Senior Hearing Officer, Hilda Campos that no charges have been filed or will be filed.
The remainder of the living seized animals have been signed over to LAAS by Mr. Mason. There is no longer any investigation regarding Mr. Mason. Despite the fact that 20 days have passed since the case was settled, I have not received the promised records. Therefore, I am resubmitting that original request.
Information Requested
Any and all information on all cats/kittens found at the Ron Mason property located in the 18700 block of Napa Street in Northridge impounded by Los Angeles Animal Services, including but not limited to the following information:
1. Chameleon records of each animal described above and impounded by Los Angeles Animal Services.
Each animal record is expected to contain the following information:
SHELTER_NAME, ANIMAL_ID, SPECIES, BREED, SEX, AGE, IN_DATE, INTAKE_TYPE, IN_CONDITION, OUT_DATE, OUTCOME_TYPE, OUTCOME_SUBTYPE and be provided in a readable format.
2. Copies of any call log, dispatch log and ACO notes related to the animal(s) described above.
3. Copies of any photographs and/or digital images of the animal(s) described above.
4. Copies of any and all notes and records related to physical and/or medical examinations conducted in the “field” for each animal described above.
5. Copies of any and all notes and records related to lab work and disease testing conducted in the field for each animal described above.
6. Copies of veterinary notes and records for each animal described above.
7. Copies of any and all records related to laboratory samples sent out for testing for each animal described above, including those sent to Antech.
8. Copies of kennel notes and records for each animal described above.
9. Date and time of euthanasia for each animal described above.
10. Copy of any euthanasia requests for each animal described above.
11. Copies of any and all Improper Euthanasia Reports related to each animal described above.
I have received some data from Brad Jensen regarding the information I am requesting. However, there are confusing reports as to how many animals were seized, the shelters they were taken to, and therefore their final disposition.
I include a minimal list of animals for which I am requesting the above information in a separate attachment.
Naturally I am most concerned with photos and medical records, as well as the results of lab tests for the animals that were euthanized, including those marked as irremediably suffering.
I am also concerned about the disposition of cats Mr. Mason was not allowed to get back and which were rescued by a New Hope as was promised to him.
Please indicate the cats signed over to you by Mr. Mason on approximately February 1, 2008 and their status and disposition as of February 6.
Sincerely,
Edward Muzika
CC:
Linda Barth
Ross Pool
Linda Barton
I am going to find out what happened to each and every animal and why. I am going to resubmit a new request for any animal they have refused to release to Mason or his chosen New Hope to follow them and make sure they are not euthanized.
.
PS: The Blogger Spellchecker doesn't work anymore.
I told Boks and the City Attorney that I'd shut up about Mason and his cats if Boks gave him his cats back, or at least allowed Mason to decide which New Hope they'd go to. I said they should take down the libelous post defending Boks' arrest of Mason for "Felony Animan Cruelty," which had never been the charge.
Don Cocek, Deputy City Attorney, emailed Dov Lesel I believe, asking if this were possible, showing Cocek, as I have heard, was an animal-friendly attorney who thought Boks was full of it and had refused to press charges against Mason.
I talked to Troy Boswell in a friendly sort of screaming way. He told me to ram myself and that he would check with Cocek. He never got back to me.
All in all, Boswell decided they were going to hold onto Mason's animals indefinitely in small cages rather than let him have any more to do with them or direct their adoption. Or, they were going to adopt them out at their own discretion whenever and to whomever they wanted. Naturally, I found his attitude endearing. He doesn't realize I can make something like the Mason case a lifetime career.
Finally Mason could not take their plight anymore and released them for adoption or euthanasia at Boswell's determination. Boswell has found a new friend in me.
Anyway, you remember Boks has refused any and all Requests for Public records regarding Mason's seized cats, such as who was euthanized, medical records to prove the necessity, who signed off on the euthanasia and any impound photos.
The case was offically over on January 16 after the City Attorney's Hearing Officer, Hilda Campos said it was all over. The seized records were returned to Mason but not the traps or cages. The animals would remain with them and Ron couldn't have any more to do with them.
Now I am resubmitting that same request with a bit more data I received from Shelterwatch investigator Brad Jensen.
Here is a precis of that request sent day before yesterday:
Ed Boks, General Manager
Los Angeles Animal Services
Dear Ed Boks,
This request is being made subject to the California Public Records Act: Government Code §6250-6268.
Under this statute you have 10 calendar days from the date of receipt of this request to respond as to whether you will release the records requested as detailed below. It is preferred your response be made in writing to either the street address or the email address below.
Background:
A previous request for public records was made for all documents, photos, ACO notes, dispatch log and other data regarding animals seized from Ron Mason’s property in Northridge on October 9 and October 11.
This request was denied in a letter signed by Linda Barth on January 8 citing the possibility of an ongoing criminal investigation.
As of January 16, 2008, Mr. Mason was notified by the Senior Hearing Officer, Hilda Campos that no charges have been filed or will be filed.
The remainder of the living seized animals have been signed over to LAAS by Mr. Mason. There is no longer any investigation regarding Mr. Mason. Despite the fact that 20 days have passed since the case was settled, I have not received the promised records. Therefore, I am resubmitting that original request.
Information Requested
Any and all information on all cats/kittens found at the Ron Mason property located in the 18700 block of Napa Street in Northridge impounded by Los Angeles Animal Services, including but not limited to the following information:
1. Chameleon records of each animal described above and impounded by Los Angeles Animal Services.
Each animal record is expected to contain the following information:
SHELTER_NAME, ANIMAL_ID, SPECIES, BREED, SEX, AGE, IN_DATE, INTAKE_TYPE, IN_CONDITION, OUT_DATE, OUTCOME_TYPE, OUTCOME_SUBTYPE and be provided in a readable format.
2. Copies of any call log, dispatch log and ACO notes related to the animal(s) described above.
3. Copies of any photographs and/or digital images of the animal(s) described above.
4. Copies of any and all notes and records related to physical and/or medical examinations conducted in the “field” for each animal described above.
5. Copies of any and all notes and records related to lab work and disease testing conducted in the field for each animal described above.
6. Copies of veterinary notes and records for each animal described above.
7. Copies of any and all records related to laboratory samples sent out for testing for each animal described above, including those sent to Antech.
8. Copies of kennel notes and records for each animal described above.
9. Date and time of euthanasia for each animal described above.
10. Copy of any euthanasia requests for each animal described above.
11. Copies of any and all Improper Euthanasia Reports related to each animal described above.
I have received some data from Brad Jensen regarding the information I am requesting. However, there are confusing reports as to how many animals were seized, the shelters they were taken to, and therefore their final disposition.
I include a minimal list of animals for which I am requesting the above information in a separate attachment.
Naturally I am most concerned with photos and medical records, as well as the results of lab tests for the animals that were euthanized, including those marked as irremediably suffering.
I am also concerned about the disposition of cats Mr. Mason was not allowed to get back and which were rescued by a New Hope as was promised to him.
Please indicate the cats signed over to you by Mr. Mason on approximately February 1, 2008 and their status and disposition as of February 6.
Sincerely,
Edward Muzika
CC:
Linda Barth
Ross Pool
Linda Barton
I am going to find out what happened to each and every animal and why. I am going to resubmit a new request for any animal they have refused to release to Mason or his chosen New Hope to follow them and make sure they are not euthanized.
.
PS: The Blogger Spellchecker doesn't work anymore.
More of My Opinion on Philly
.
I don't know where the story about Philadelphia will go, but be clear, Philly has almost zippo resources campared to LA. The city did not even provide funding for one full time veterinarian. LAAS has six vets and still they are killing 45%. Philly kills 40%. Philly went from 90% kill to 40% in two or three years. Boks did not drop kill rates even 1% the first year and we can't trust any figure he has given us since May.
Philly takes in 28,000 cats and dogs, LA over 42,000 depedning on who is lying to you.
I find what Philly has accomplished with $3 million astounding, compared to $25 million in LA.
Why Winograd has publically turned on them is inexplicable unless there is something really, really wrong at PAWS that no one is talking about so far.
.
I don't know where the story about Philadelphia will go, but be clear, Philly has almost zippo resources campared to LA. The city did not even provide funding for one full time veterinarian. LAAS has six vets and still they are killing 45%. Philly kills 40%. Philly went from 90% kill to 40% in two or three years. Boks did not drop kill rates even 1% the first year and we can't trust any figure he has given us since May.
Philly takes in 28,000 cats and dogs, LA over 42,000 depedning on who is lying to you.
I find what Philly has accomplished with $3 million astounding, compared to $25 million in LA.
Why Winograd has publically turned on them is inexplicable unless there is something really, really wrong at PAWS that no one is talking about so far.
.
No-Kill's Future
.
Philly was to be the proof in the pudding that No-Kill was possible in a large city with a crappy budget. All previous and current Winograd successes have involved small shelters with 1/6th LA's impound numbers. If Philly were a success, it would have been a rally point for No-Kill nationally. Winograd now says Philly and PAWS are failures and may return to its pre-2005 kill numbers even while he was touting its success eight months ago.
What happened? Winogard is blaming everyone but himself, his vision and his methods. He takes responsibility for any short term success but when the numbers turn south he is blames "old-guard" mentality and actions.
For example, in his recent email, basically he only named a few names and cited a bad shelter location and a return to the kill-mentality of his mentored PAWS organization. Mostly he mentioned external pressures to fail. However, he really didn't say how or why PAWS itself was failing internally except by vague references to management. Other factors remained the same: budget, facilities, staff numbers, impound numbers.
PAWS has always suffered from poor financial support and location. It has a tiny fraction of LAAS's budget and only one shelter, and that is in a poor location. Not only that, the shelter is falling apart and has been deemed unsalvagable by objective third person experts. And, Philly has only a fraction of LA's employees.
In a sense given Philly's circumstances, it should never have reached a 60% save rate.
Now Nathan says that progress is all over and Philly is backsliding.
This brings up the obvious question as to whether PAWS' numbers were ever accurate. They went from a 15% save rate to a 60% save rate in two years. Current stats still show their best ever performance, a 60% save rate. The numbers do not support Winogard's prediction that the numbers will fall back to the high kill range or that Philly is failing. Over and over again Nathan referred to PAWS numbers as proof of his No-Kill methods.
There are several speculations why Philly is failing if it is: 1. Winograd type no-kill successes cannot be sustained without Winograd's substantial ongoing presence; 2. the "old, kill mentality" will always return and wipe out any gains towards no-kill; 3. there never has been more than sporatic temporary successes, or successes were based on overcrowding and creative numbers management.
My personal belief and hope is that No-Kill is possible and even inevitable as consciousness of the value of all life predominates. But it is clear Nathan has lost some of his credibility. He may be right--I am sure he is--that no kill can only be reached and sustained when the entire community wants it and supports the shelters and its management. But how is that accomplished? Isn't it up to the newly chosen Winograd GM to make it happen? If not, Nathan's methods will only work in a few communities that are on the edge of no-kill already.
Nathan refused the GM job in LA saying the commitment is not here, which would doom any sustainable no kill efforts by anyone, no matter how talented.
If it is not attainable here given LA's fantastic per capita funding, new shelter facilities and huge numbers of employees, where is it possible? Where is the community that will give him that 100% support he claims to need?
If he is saying his methods only work when the community is already set up for success, but only have not implemented his common sense, no-kill programs, then I think there are VERY FEW communities where his methods will succeed.
Philly was to be the proof in the pudding that No-Kill was possible in a large city with a crappy budget. All previous and current Winograd successes have involved small shelters with 1/6th LA's impound numbers. If Philly were a success, it would have been a rally point for No-Kill nationally. Winograd now says Philly and PAWS are failures and may return to its pre-2005 kill numbers even while he was touting its success eight months ago.
What happened? Winogard is blaming everyone but himself, his vision and his methods. He takes responsibility for any short term success but when the numbers turn south he is blames "old-guard" mentality and actions.
For example, in his recent email, basically he only named a few names and cited a bad shelter location and a return to the kill-mentality of his mentored PAWS organization. Mostly he mentioned external pressures to fail. However, he really didn't say how or why PAWS itself was failing internally except by vague references to management. Other factors remained the same: budget, facilities, staff numbers, impound numbers.
PAWS has always suffered from poor financial support and location. It has a tiny fraction of LAAS's budget and only one shelter, and that is in a poor location. Not only that, the shelter is falling apart and has been deemed unsalvagable by objective third person experts. And, Philly has only a fraction of LA's employees.
In a sense given Philly's circumstances, it should never have reached a 60% save rate.
Now Nathan says that progress is all over and Philly is backsliding.
This brings up the obvious question as to whether PAWS' numbers were ever accurate. They went from a 15% save rate to a 60% save rate in two years. Current stats still show their best ever performance, a 60% save rate. The numbers do not support Winogard's prediction that the numbers will fall back to the high kill range or that Philly is failing. Over and over again Nathan referred to PAWS numbers as proof of his No-Kill methods.
There are several speculations why Philly is failing if it is: 1. Winograd type no-kill successes cannot be sustained without Winograd's substantial ongoing presence; 2. the "old, kill mentality" will always return and wipe out any gains towards no-kill; 3. there never has been more than sporatic temporary successes, or successes were based on overcrowding and creative numbers management.
My personal belief and hope is that No-Kill is possible and even inevitable as consciousness of the value of all life predominates. But it is clear Nathan has lost some of his credibility. He may be right--I am sure he is--that no kill can only be reached and sustained when the entire community wants it and supports the shelters and its management. But how is that accomplished? Isn't it up to the newly chosen Winograd GM to make it happen? If not, Nathan's methods will only work in a few communities that are on the edge of no-kill already.
Nathan refused the GM job in LA saying the commitment is not here, which would doom any sustainable no kill efforts by anyone, no matter how talented.
If it is not attainable here given LA's fantastic per capita funding, new shelter facilities and huge numbers of employees, where is it possible? Where is the community that will give him that 100% support he claims to need?
If he is saying his methods only work when the community is already set up for success, but only have not implemented his common sense, no-kill programs, then I think there are VERY FEW communities where his methods will succeed.
Nathan's no-kill programs are common sense. As Boks points out he is doing all of them, especially the compassionate director bit written by a non-existant third person. It is not that these progarms theoretically will not work, it is just Boks has not been able to get them to work and to sustain, just as Philly appears to be failing.
I think this is time to reflect on the no-kill movement.
Some of us have to do real, third person, in depth analyses of the methods and programs of no kill and see if they can work in any environment. We have to look at shelter successes and failures everywhere in the country. Boks refused such help from the beginning with the extremely alienating attitude that if he didn't think of it, he was not interested in it.
Winograd has never shown his methods work except in the short term; he never even mentions how his Ithaca New York shelter is doing since he left.
Nathan, to prove no-kill can work in a large city, you have to do it yourself. When Boks leaves you have to take the job and commit for two years. If the unions, civil service and mayoral indifference defeat you here, your brand of no kill might be a lost cause. You would have several advantages over past general managers in LA, including a much larger budget, six spanking new shelters and lots of employees with access to a potential volunteer base far larger than San Francisco or Philly.
In fact there are more resources available in LA City than perhaps anywhere else in the Country except possibly for Mayeda's horrible system.
In addition, you also have the advantage of the vast good will and support of the LA rescue and humane community. If you need more than that, such a a mayor that throws himself totally behind you, it will be proof your methods might fail anywhere except where they don't.
With all of these advantages, if you cannot implement No-Kill in LA within three years, the no-kill movement may die; then there will be no hope.
Nathan, take the job if offered to sustain your credibility and the viability of the no kill movement.
.
No Hope?
.
Winograd has dissociated from Philadephia. He says it is a sinking ship.
This may or may not be true. I have been warned not to take Philly's or San Francisco's stats at face value.
The only successes Nathan backs now are Charlottesville and Reno Nevada. It appears that his other consults are not doing well either.
He blames Philly's alleged failure on the old kill mentality but indicates PAWS itself is now part of the program.
I reported some time ago that the operations manger left. I asked if it was due to problems at Philly. She denied it and said Philly is doing well.
This is a sad day for it now appears Winograd style successes may not sustain without his driving presence. However, there are still questions about Nathan's motivation for distancing himself from Philly and Tara Derby.
I do not think Winograd will ever fully commit to reforming any city but will continue to put the shelter's success or failure in the hands of his appointed managers, who may or not be able to prevail against the old mentality Nathan denigrates.
I am not sure LA will ever reach and sustain No-Kill if it is defined as a 90% save.
NATHAN:
"In Philadelphia, the fight has gone from "passive aggressive" to outright war, and it is getting uglier and uglier. In Philadelphia, unfortunately, the animals will come away the losers because a true and complete champion for No Kill no longer exists, as it did in San Francisco with the San Francisco SPCA under Avanzino; and as it does in Washoe County, thanks to the extremely capable leadership of the Nevada Humane Society under Bonney Brown.
And it is why I must remove my support for Philly PAWS, the organization that runs the Philadelphia Animal Care & Control Association (PACCA). I do not believe Philly PAWS is doing enough to save animals, and it has strayed from its core mission of achieving a No Kill Philadelphia by hiding behind half-truths, becoming complacent about problems, and engaging in only a half-hearted No Kill program implementation.
And it is this mismanagement which has allowed the Pennsylvania SPCA (PSPCA) to exploit the situation for its own benefit, which I believe will result in even greater harm to the animals of Philadelphia.
Our allegiance must always be to the animals and not to any particular institutions. When organizations act in ways that fully help animals, we should support them. When they do not, we must give voice to the needs of the animals at the expense of our relationships with particular organizations or people. (That doesn't mean that there are not some hard working people at PACCA. But I do not believe they are being supported, and it appears that their efforts are continually being undermined by higher-ups).
Sadly, these fears have come to pass, and I fear that the hopes for the achievement of a No Kill Philadelphia are fading quickly. Not only has PACCA leadership reached a state of complacency with killing, but a lack of rigor and comprehensive oversight have allowed poor care to creep back into the agency.
There is only one way for No Kill to be achieved in Philadelphia or anywhere else. And it is the way it was achieved in Charlottesville, VA. It is the way the Nevada Humane Society is achieving it. And it was how Philly began the march towards it in 2005.
But it is not being comprehensively implemented in Philadelphia now and there is no reason to believe it will be under the PSPCA. And as long as directors on both sides of the fight do not fully embrace it, the prognosis for a No Kill Philadelphia under either agency will go from guarded to what it currently appears to be: poor to grave. And I fear a great opportunity to move the City forward will be lost, until a real culture change takes place that puts the animals before personal ambition, ego, comfortable relationships with the union representing PACCA workers, and petty Board politics."
Winograd has dissociated from Philadephia. He says it is a sinking ship.
This may or may not be true. I have been warned not to take Philly's or San Francisco's stats at face value.
The only successes Nathan backs now are Charlottesville and Reno Nevada. It appears that his other consults are not doing well either.
He blames Philly's alleged failure on the old kill mentality but indicates PAWS itself is now part of the program.
I reported some time ago that the operations manger left. I asked if it was due to problems at Philly. She denied it and said Philly is doing well.
This is a sad day for it now appears Winograd style successes may not sustain without his driving presence. However, there are still questions about Nathan's motivation for distancing himself from Philly and Tara Derby.
I do not think Winograd will ever fully commit to reforming any city but will continue to put the shelter's success or failure in the hands of his appointed managers, who may or not be able to prevail against the old mentality Nathan denigrates.
I am not sure LA will ever reach and sustain No-Kill if it is defined as a 90% save.
NATHAN:
"In Philadelphia, the fight has gone from "passive aggressive" to outright war, and it is getting uglier and uglier. In Philadelphia, unfortunately, the animals will come away the losers because a true and complete champion for No Kill no longer exists, as it did in San Francisco with the San Francisco SPCA under Avanzino; and as it does in Washoe County, thanks to the extremely capable leadership of the Nevada Humane Society under Bonney Brown.
And it is why I must remove my support for Philly PAWS, the organization that runs the Philadelphia Animal Care & Control Association (PACCA). I do not believe Philly PAWS is doing enough to save animals, and it has strayed from its core mission of achieving a No Kill Philadelphia by hiding behind half-truths, becoming complacent about problems, and engaging in only a half-hearted No Kill program implementation.
And it is this mismanagement which has allowed the Pennsylvania SPCA (PSPCA) to exploit the situation for its own benefit, which I believe will result in even greater harm to the animals of Philadelphia.
Our allegiance must always be to the animals and not to any particular institutions. When organizations act in ways that fully help animals, we should support them. When they do not, we must give voice to the needs of the animals at the expense of our relationships with particular organizations or people. (That doesn't mean that there are not some hard working people at PACCA. But I do not believe they are being supported, and it appears that their efforts are continually being undermined by higher-ups).
Sadly, these fears have come to pass, and I fear that the hopes for the achievement of a No Kill Philadelphia are fading quickly. Not only has PACCA leadership reached a state of complacency with killing, but a lack of rigor and comprehensive oversight have allowed poor care to creep back into the agency.
There is only one way for No Kill to be achieved in Philadelphia or anywhere else. And it is the way it was achieved in Charlottesville, VA. It is the way the Nevada Humane Society is achieving it. And it was how Philly began the march towards it in 2005.
But it is not being comprehensively implemented in Philadelphia now and there is no reason to believe it will be under the PSPCA. And as long as directors on both sides of the fight do not fully embrace it, the prognosis for a No Kill Philadelphia under either agency will go from guarded to what it currently appears to be: poor to grave. And I fear a great opportunity to move the City forward will be lost, until a real culture change takes place that puts the animals before personal ambition, ego, comfortable relationships with the union representing PACCA workers, and petty Board politics."
East Valley Overcrowded
.
Get this; East Valley is in emergency mode trying to cope with overcrowding, and this is the beginning of February. What is going to happen in June during kitten season?
Oh, I know. Suddenly kitten impounds will drop to nothing or even negative numbers and the year will end with another 2,000 fewer animals killed.
AN ABSOLUTE EMERGENCY AT THE EAST VALLEY SHELTER!!!
I know that everyone is packed but I just received a call from East Valley.The shelter has over 300 dogs and cannot keep these numbers up.I will be sending pleas out for dogs in need out of East Valley. Pls help by cross posting widely and if by chance you can take just one of the manywonderful dogs available pls contact the East Valley shelter directly at 818 7569323 or Valerie at 213 305 9006 or Pnina at pd53@...http://www.ci.la.ca.us/ANI/petinfo_adoptapet.htmThank you!Pnina818 399 2495/ 818 389 8446
.
Get this; East Valley is in emergency mode trying to cope with overcrowding, and this is the beginning of February. What is going to happen in June during kitten season?
Oh, I know. Suddenly kitten impounds will drop to nothing or even negative numbers and the year will end with another 2,000 fewer animals killed.
AN ABSOLUTE EMERGENCY AT THE EAST VALLEY SHELTER!!!
I know that everyone is packed but I just received a call from East Valley.The shelter has over 300 dogs and cannot keep these numbers up.I will be sending pleas out for dogs in need out of East Valley. Pls help by cross posting widely and if by chance you can take just one of the manywonderful dogs available pls contact the East Valley shelter directly at 818 7569323 or Valerie at 213 305 9006 or Pnina at pd53@...http://www.ci.la.ca.us/ANI/petinfo_adoptapet.htmThank you!Pnina818 399 2495/ 818 389 8446
.
Boks Gets It Right: Rosendahl is an idiot
.
Months before the last election when Rosendahl was running for office, I emailed him and a staffer for his positions on animal issues. For months I got no response. Then a few weeks before the election he sent out a generic email to the animal community outlining his "positions." Basically he said nothing except he likes animals and would work to protect them.
Well, he was the only Councilmember to vote against the citywide spay/neuter ordinance. Instead, he complained that Boks did not have enough guys going door to door to see dogs were licensed. Where did this zippo-head get his priorities? Walmart?
Boks' response was why did Roendahl want canvassers going around collecting license fees, but not to see if animals were neutered?
Cythia Hockman, the new Animal Services vet, Ron Mason's former vet, refused to spay/neuter his cats before they were six months old because of increased the risk of complications. I agree.
f complications. Personally, I think 4 months too young, but so what, I am a blogger-critic, not a vet.
.
Months before the last election when Rosendahl was running for office, I emailed him and a staffer for his positions on animal issues. For months I got no response. Then a few weeks before the election he sent out a generic email to the animal community outlining his "positions." Basically he said nothing except he likes animals and would work to protect them.
Well, he was the only Councilmember to vote against the citywide spay/neuter ordinance. Instead, he complained that Boks did not have enough guys going door to door to see dogs were licensed. Where did this zippo-head get his priorities? Walmart?
Boks' response was why did Roendahl want canvassers going around collecting license fees, but not to see if animals were neutered?
Cythia Hockman, the new Animal Services vet, Ron Mason's former vet, refused to spay/neuter his cats before they were six months old because of increased the risk of complications. I agree.
f complications. Personally, I think 4 months too young, but so what, I am a blogger-critic, not a vet.
.
I just Talked to the Head of San Francisco's Animal Services
.
I just talked today to Carl Friedman, head of San Francisco's Animal Care and Control. He said last month they had an 85% real live save rate. By that, he meant 85% of live animals that came in made it out alive, including neonates.
The only exception is if an animal came in very ill or injured AND the owner requested euthanasia, AND the department vet felt it necessary. Otherwise it would be impounded and treated as any other impound for statistical purposes. This would bring the live save rate down 2-3%. We don't know anymore whether Boks still includes owner requested euthanasia in LAAS' Euth statistics anymore as once they did.
For the past 12 months, the live save rate in SF has been 82%. Friedman says they do not use any of the bullshit-speak about adoptable, treatable or other ways to artificially decrease the kill rate. Live in--live out.
He said a lot of other shelter directors use false statistics and spin to get their euth stats down, and said he could come to LA and within hours prove he saved 115% of all animals coming in just by use of words and statistics. He said he could prove the dept even brought animals back from the dead if he wanted to.
Boks and Bickhart have repeatedly said their biggest stumbling block to turning the department around is the union and civil service. Bickhart used to say Boks turned a 2 cylinder dept into a 4 cylinder dept during 2006. When I asked him why that didn't translate into a higher save rate in 2006, his response was that I'd probably know better than he.
Friedman's response to the claim of union and civil service hindrances to reform was that there are seven different unions representing employees in his department, not one as in LA, and he says his dept has every conceivable civil service protection and regulation possible. He said Boks or Bickhart can call him at any time to discuss anything, but he'd prefer them not talking behind his back downplaying San Francisco's success. (They claim SF does not count neonates)
SFACC&C is a full service municipal shelter; they cannot refuse any animal. They turn over a fair proportion of their impounds to the SFSPCA which has an even higher save rate of 94%. The total combined save rate for SF according to Winograd was 87% eight months ago when he made that statement.
Subsequently Friedman's municipal shelter save rate increased from 80 to 82%, so the combined live save rate may cuurently be as high as 89% (less SFAC&C's 3%). Friedman says other shelter managers badmouth San Francisco's success because they are jealous, no more and no less.
.
I just talked today to Carl Friedman, head of San Francisco's Animal Care and Control. He said last month they had an 85% real live save rate. By that, he meant 85% of live animals that came in made it out alive, including neonates.
The only exception is if an animal came in very ill or injured AND the owner requested euthanasia, AND the department vet felt it necessary. Otherwise it would be impounded and treated as any other impound for statistical purposes. This would bring the live save rate down 2-3%. We don't know anymore whether Boks still includes owner requested euthanasia in LAAS' Euth statistics anymore as once they did.
For the past 12 months, the live save rate in SF has been 82%. Friedman says they do not use any of the bullshit-speak about adoptable, treatable or other ways to artificially decrease the kill rate. Live in--live out.
He said a lot of other shelter directors use false statistics and spin to get their euth stats down, and said he could come to LA and within hours prove he saved 115% of all animals coming in just by use of words and statistics. He said he could prove the dept even brought animals back from the dead if he wanted to.
Boks and Bickhart have repeatedly said their biggest stumbling block to turning the department around is the union and civil service. Bickhart used to say Boks turned a 2 cylinder dept into a 4 cylinder dept during 2006. When I asked him why that didn't translate into a higher save rate in 2006, his response was that I'd probably know better than he.
Friedman's response to the claim of union and civil service hindrances to reform was that there are seven different unions representing employees in his department, not one as in LA, and he says his dept has every conceivable civil service protection and regulation possible. He said Boks or Bickhart can call him at any time to discuss anything, but he'd prefer them not talking behind his back downplaying San Francisco's success. (They claim SF does not count neonates)
SFACC&C is a full service municipal shelter; they cannot refuse any animal. They turn over a fair proportion of their impounds to the SFSPCA which has an even higher save rate of 94%. The total combined save rate for SF according to Winograd was 87% eight months ago when he made that statement.
Subsequently Friedman's municipal shelter save rate increased from 80 to 82%, so the combined live save rate may cuurently be as high as 89% (less SFAC&C's 3%). Friedman says other shelter managers badmouth San Francisco's success because they are jealous, no more and no less.
.
U.S. probes Chino slaughterhouse, supplier to school lunch program
.
Sick animals were abused to get them to stand up to pass inspection, undercover video shows. Use of meat from 'downer' cows is banned.
By Sarah D. Wire, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer January 31, 2008
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced Wednesday that it was investigating a Chino-based supplier of meat to the National School Lunch Program after release of a video showing slaughterhouse workers using inhumane and illegal practices on weak and sick cows.
The video, presented by the Humane Society of the United States at a news conference Wednesday morning, showed workers at Hallmark Meat Packing using forklifts to pick up and roll animals too weak to stand and forcing sick or weak cows to stand by shooting high-pressure water sprays into their nostrils or repeatedly shocking them with electricity.
Video: Humane Society slaughterhouse investigation (WARNING: Graphic content)
Federal and California laws prohibit the slaughter of "downer" cattle -- those that cannot stand or walk -- for the human food supply, to prevent both animal cruelty and the consumption of meat from unhealthy animals.Meat processed at Hallmark is distributed by Westland Meat Co., also of Chino.
According to the USDA, Westland sold 27 million pounds of frozen meat last year to federal food and nutrition programs, including those that provide school lunches and meals for the poor and elderly. Nearly 8 million pounds of that meat went to programs in California; of that amount, more than 5.7 million pounds was used in the Los Angeles area.
The Humane Society said the hidden-camera video was taken by a person who worked at the plant for six weeks last year as part of an undercover investigation by the group. Within hours of the video's release, the USDA suspended Westland's participation in the food and nutrition programs and placed a hold on all products destined for the programs.
The undercover investigation found workers using "Herculean efforts to get 'downers' into the kill box," Pacelle said."The attempt was to make them so distressed and to cause them so much suffering that these animals would get up and walk into the slaughterhouse," he said. "If they could walk past [the inspector] or even just stand, they would pass.
The company obtained the video Tuesday after the Washington Post reported its existence.Magidow said the employees shown in the video had worked in the slaughterhouse for many years and "felt they knew how to handle these animals better than we do."U.S.
Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer issued a news release late Wednesday expressing confidence in the food inspection system, while adding that he was "deeply concerned" about the Humane Society's allegations. But he faulted the society, which he said "did not present this information to us when these alleged violations occurred in the fall of 2007. Had we known at the time the alleged violations occurred, we would have initiated our investigation sooner and taken appropriate actions at that time."
"sarah.wire@latimes.com
Sick animals were abused to get them to stand up to pass inspection, undercover video shows. Use of meat from 'downer' cows is banned.
By Sarah D. Wire, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer January 31, 2008
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced Wednesday that it was investigating a Chino-based supplier of meat to the National School Lunch Program after release of a video showing slaughterhouse workers using inhumane and illegal practices on weak and sick cows.
The video, presented by the Humane Society of the United States at a news conference Wednesday morning, showed workers at Hallmark Meat Packing using forklifts to pick up and roll animals too weak to stand and forcing sick or weak cows to stand by shooting high-pressure water sprays into their nostrils or repeatedly shocking them with electricity.
Video: Humane Society slaughterhouse investigation (WARNING: Graphic content)
Federal and California laws prohibit the slaughter of "downer" cattle -- those that cannot stand or walk -- for the human food supply, to prevent both animal cruelty and the consumption of meat from unhealthy animals.Meat processed at Hallmark is distributed by Westland Meat Co., also of Chino.
According to the USDA, Westland sold 27 million pounds of frozen meat last year to federal food and nutrition programs, including those that provide school lunches and meals for the poor and elderly. Nearly 8 million pounds of that meat went to programs in California; of that amount, more than 5.7 million pounds was used in the Los Angeles area.
The Humane Society said the hidden-camera video was taken by a person who worked at the plant for six weeks last year as part of an undercover investigation by the group. Within hours of the video's release, the USDA suspended Westland's participation in the food and nutrition programs and placed a hold on all products destined for the programs.
The undercover investigation found workers using "Herculean efforts to get 'downers' into the kill box," Pacelle said."The attempt was to make them so distressed and to cause them so much suffering that these animals would get up and walk into the slaughterhouse," he said. "If they could walk past [the inspector] or even just stand, they would pass.
The company obtained the video Tuesday after the Washington Post reported its existence.Magidow said the employees shown in the video had worked in the slaughterhouse for many years and "felt they knew how to handle these animals better than we do."U.S.
Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer issued a news release late Wednesday expressing confidence in the food inspection system, while adding that he was "deeply concerned" about the Humane Society's allegations. But he faulted the society, which he said "did not present this information to us when these alleged violations occurred in the fall of 2007. Had we known at the time the alleged violations occurred, we would have initiated our investigation sooner and taken appropriate actions at that time."
"sarah.wire@latimes.com
Department to Take a Large Budget Hit
.
According to the November 23, 2007 Commission minutes:
In the current fiscal year (07-08), the Mayor and the Council approved a 5% efficiency cut for the Department’s Budget. Although $20 million was needed to pay all the Department’s salaries, $1 million was cut. The Department however, was able to survive the reduction because the Mission Valley Animal Care Center and the expanded Harbor Animal Care Center did not open.
For next year’s Budget, the Mayor has instructed the Department to somehow establish requested additional or expanded programs with the budget that the Department already has.
The City of Los Angeles has negotiated an agreement with the unions representing many of the Department’s employees, which Council will soon approve, that will give a cost of living adjustment of a 2% increase as of past July, another 2% increase this upcoming January, and another 3% increase next July, for a net total of a 7% increase in salaries.
Additionally the Mayor has also asked for an 8% efficiency cut in Department budgets. In order to meet the Mayor’s request, the Department is proposing to execute one or a combination of the following scenarios:
Not open one of the new animal care centers.
Close one of the centers to the public and use it as a training facility and a center to hold evidence animals.
Reduce the operation hours of the animal care centers.
It sounds like the 8% cut is across the board while the 7% hike was just for salaries. Depending on who you talk to or what you read, the current budget is from $20 million to $34 million depending on whether you count paper clips or PERS contributions.
Boks would like the last solution as it would cut his already faked kill numbers by 15%.
Imagine, Stuckey hid his numbers thinking he was not doing a good job cutting killing by 11%. Boks knows he is not doing a good job and fakes numbers that proclaim he is cutting killing by 11% (or 7%, or 15%, or 23%, or...)
.
According to the November 23, 2007 Commission minutes:
In the current fiscal year (07-08), the Mayor and the Council approved a 5% efficiency cut for the Department’s Budget. Although $20 million was needed to pay all the Department’s salaries, $1 million was cut. The Department however, was able to survive the reduction because the Mission Valley Animal Care Center and the expanded Harbor Animal Care Center did not open.
For next year’s Budget, the Mayor has instructed the Department to somehow establish requested additional or expanded programs with the budget that the Department already has.
The City of Los Angeles has negotiated an agreement with the unions representing many of the Department’s employees, which Council will soon approve, that will give a cost of living adjustment of a 2% increase as of past July, another 2% increase this upcoming January, and another 3% increase next July, for a net total of a 7% increase in salaries.
Additionally the Mayor has also asked for an 8% efficiency cut in Department budgets. In order to meet the Mayor’s request, the Department is proposing to execute one or a combination of the following scenarios:
Not open one of the new animal care centers.
Close one of the centers to the public and use it as a training facility and a center to hold evidence animals.
Reduce the operation hours of the animal care centers.
It sounds like the 8% cut is across the board while the 7% hike was just for salaries. Depending on who you talk to or what you read, the current budget is from $20 million to $34 million depending on whether you count paper clips or PERS contributions.
Boks would like the last solution as it would cut his already faked kill numbers by 15%.
Imagine, Stuckey hid his numbers thinking he was not doing a good job cutting killing by 11%. Boks knows he is not doing a good job and fakes numbers that proclaim he is cutting killing by 11% (or 7%, or 15%, or 23%, or...)
.
Animal shelter design woes anger Zine
By Rick Orlov
Los Angeles City Councilman Dennis Zine issued a sharp rebuke Monday as the heavy rain flooding Los Angeles recently has exposed problems at some new city animal shelters, where plastic sheeting is being used to protect animals and prevent flooding in kennels.
Zine said use of the sheeting at the city's Northeast Animal Center at 3201 Lacy St. is an affront to taxpayers who approved a $160 million bond in 2000 to build seven new shelters.
Told Monday that the city now might need to pay $180,000 or more from the bond to correct deficiencies in the shelter designs - modeled after shelters used in Pasadena - Zine erupted.
"How often do we have to ask the taxpayers to pay for our mistakes?" Zine said. "This is outrageous. I get so frustrated at the incompetence I see happening over and over."
Zine was told the city had worked with the humane community to develop and approve modern designs for the shelters that now make it difficult to require contractors to make repairs without compensation.
"What bothers me is the lack of oversight on these facilities," Zine said. "They designed these and I'm not sure they really looked at our needs here. Here we have brand new shelters and we have tarps up to protect the animals.
"What I want is for the contractor to pay ... to fix the problems. But I want a report on all these shelters." Zine said residents alerted him to the problem and said he understands there might be similar problems at shelters in the San Fernando Valley.
Councilman Ed Reyes asked for a report on problems at each of the shelters, along with steps needed to improve the facilities.
Comment: What is not mentioned here is it is the City's engineering department that designed and oversaw the project, but Linda Gordon told the engineering dept. what she wanted. Nothing is mentioned about input from the animal community.
From the Engineering Dept. website:
Program Manager - Bureau of Engineering: Kiran Vohra
Dept. Animal Services Representative: Linda Gordon
Project Managers - Bureau of Engineering: Al Bazzi; Alan Espiritu; Pradeep Ranade; Hoi Van Luc.
By Rick Orlov
Los Angeles City Councilman Dennis Zine issued a sharp rebuke Monday as the heavy rain flooding Los Angeles recently has exposed problems at some new city animal shelters, where plastic sheeting is being used to protect animals and prevent flooding in kennels.
Zine said use of the sheeting at the city's Northeast Animal Center at 3201 Lacy St. is an affront to taxpayers who approved a $160 million bond in 2000 to build seven new shelters.
Told Monday that the city now might need to pay $180,000 or more from the bond to correct deficiencies in the shelter designs - modeled after shelters used in Pasadena - Zine erupted.
"How often do we have to ask the taxpayers to pay for our mistakes?" Zine said. "This is outrageous. I get so frustrated at the incompetence I see happening over and over."
Zine was told the city had worked with the humane community to develop and approve modern designs for the shelters that now make it difficult to require contractors to make repairs without compensation.
"What bothers me is the lack of oversight on these facilities," Zine said. "They designed these and I'm not sure they really looked at our needs here. Here we have brand new shelters and we have tarps up to protect the animals.
"What I want is for the contractor to pay ... to fix the problems. But I want a report on all these shelters." Zine said residents alerted him to the problem and said he understands there might be similar problems at shelters in the San Fernando Valley.
Councilman Ed Reyes asked for a report on problems at each of the shelters, along with steps needed to improve the facilities.
Comment: What is not mentioned here is it is the City's engineering department that designed and oversaw the project, but Linda Gordon told the engineering dept. what she wanted. Nothing is mentioned about input from the animal community.
From the Engineering Dept. website:
Program Manager - Bureau of Engineering: Kiran Vohra
Dept. Animal Services Representative: Linda Gordon
Project Managers - Bureau of Engineering: Al Bazzi; Alan Espiritu; Pradeep Ranade; Hoi Van Luc.
The Real Kill Rate in LA's Shelters, Part 3
.
Boks claims a 2007 kill rate of 45%.
Before Boks in 2005, the kill rate was 56.9%.
Under Boks the first year in 2006, it climbed .1% to 57%.
If you add the 2% died in shelter rates for both years, the real kill rate was 59%.
The sample of Mason's cats was 65%.
I think it safe to say the real kill rate is 60% or better.
.
Boks claims a 2007 kill rate of 45%.
Before Boks in 2005, the kill rate was 56.9%.
Under Boks the first year in 2006, it climbed .1% to 57%.
If you add the 2% died in shelter rates for both years, the real kill rate was 59%.
The sample of Mason's cats was 65%.
I think it safe to say the real kill rate is 60% or better.
.
Mason Story Begins to Hit the Media
.
Pet Press' latest issue is out, Volume 9, Issue 4. Go get it. Tippi Hedren is on the cover.
Lori Golden basically accuses Animal Services/Boks/ACTF of staging a bust for publicly and thanks City TV35 by showing images that reveal the fraudulence of the raid (my wording).
She states Mason was likely busted because he reached out for help and that made him a perfect patsy for a staged raid.
She states she was shocked by what she saw on City TV35:
"Ron Mason was the most docile animal 'hoarder' there ever could be. Possibly because he wasn't guilty. Mr Mason stood there, calmly answering all the questions asked of him about the cats found on his property.
"Here is what really disturbed me. Ron Mason explained how he wasn't even a cat person until neighborhood cats started coming around his house. Like any humane person would do, he fed them. So more cats came around. And neighbors dumped cats on his property, because he was feeding them. He tried to get help from LA Animal Services with spaying and neutering. He took cats that were ill to his veterinarian. He constantly reached out for help, which in the end is probably what did him in."
Go see the rest of the article for yourselves and email your comments to Council and Bratten. Let everyone know what LAAS is really like.
.
Pet Press' latest issue is out, Volume 9, Issue 4. Go get it. Tippi Hedren is on the cover.
Lori Golden basically accuses Animal Services/Boks/ACTF of staging a bust for publicly and thanks City TV35 by showing images that reveal the fraudulence of the raid (my wording).
She states Mason was likely busted because he reached out for help and that made him a perfect patsy for a staged raid.
She states she was shocked by what she saw on City TV35:
"Ron Mason was the most docile animal 'hoarder' there ever could be. Possibly because he wasn't guilty. Mr Mason stood there, calmly answering all the questions asked of him about the cats found on his property.
"Here is what really disturbed me. Ron Mason explained how he wasn't even a cat person until neighborhood cats started coming around his house. Like any humane person would do, he fed them. So more cats came around. And neighbors dumped cats on his property, because he was feeding them. He tried to get help from LA Animal Services with spaying and neutering. He took cats that were ill to his veterinarian. He constantly reached out for help, which in the end is probably what did him in."
Go see the rest of the article for yourselves and email your comments to Council and Bratten. Let everyone know what LAAS is really like.
.
What is the Real Kill Rate in LA's Shelters, Part 2
.
In the last post I showed that Animal Services killed 65% of Mason’s cats in an alleged “hoarder” raid. I said this is a sample of the real death rate in LA’s (Boks) shelters.
This is true only if the sample is representative. Boks will say it is not, that Mason’s cats were in much worse health than average, and that is why he killed almost 50% more.
We know that is crap.
So, let’s see how a real rescue organization handles an alleged hoarder situation.
Yesterday I go an email from Cristi Metropole’s Stray Cat Alliance.
http://www.straycatalliance.org/northridge.html
They went to a rescue on a call about a hoarder in Northridge—the same area Mason lives in--about a large number of ill and dying cats in a house owned by an ill 80 year old woman. There were over 41 cats there. One was found dead, one died during treatment on the spot.
The cats had not been fed in days nor given water. Naturally they did not receive medical care.
This is a far worse situation than with Mason where they were fed, given shelter and water and given some medical care—maybe not up to the high Fatal Plus care of Animal Services.
Apparently 40 plus cats were thus rescued alive. We will know after 4 days how many are still alive, whether it is Animal Services’ 35% or a much higher percentage, such as 85% from Stray Cat Alliance. This is a unique situation where we can compare Animal Services’ kill rate of killing “hoarder” animals with that of a compassionate private organization with compassionate volunteers.
This will be a true test of Animal Services’ competence and compassion.
Donation info is on the link above.
http://www.straycatalliance.org/northridge.html
.
In the last post I showed that Animal Services killed 65% of Mason’s cats in an alleged “hoarder” raid. I said this is a sample of the real death rate in LA’s (Boks) shelters.
This is true only if the sample is representative. Boks will say it is not, that Mason’s cats were in much worse health than average, and that is why he killed almost 50% more.
We know that is crap.
So, let’s see how a real rescue organization handles an alleged hoarder situation.
Yesterday I go an email from Cristi Metropole’s Stray Cat Alliance.
http://www.straycatalliance.org/northridge.html
They went to a rescue on a call about a hoarder in Northridge—the same area Mason lives in--about a large number of ill and dying cats in a house owned by an ill 80 year old woman. There were over 41 cats there. One was found dead, one died during treatment on the spot.
The cats had not been fed in days nor given water. Naturally they did not receive medical care.
This is a far worse situation than with Mason where they were fed, given shelter and water and given some medical care—maybe not up to the high Fatal Plus care of Animal Services.
Apparently 40 plus cats were thus rescued alive. We will know after 4 days how many are still alive, whether it is Animal Services’ 35% or a much higher percentage, such as 85% from Stray Cat Alliance. This is a unique situation where we can compare Animal Services’ kill rate of killing “hoarder” animals with that of a compassionate private organization with compassionate volunteers.
This will be a true test of Animal Services’ competence and compassion.
Donation info is on the link above.
http://www.straycatalliance.org/northridge.html
.
What is the Real Kill Rate in LA's Animal Shelters?
.
As the writer of a previous post pointed out, the real kill rate in Boks’ shelters is euthanasia + died in shelter + missing. This number is a couple of thousand higher than Boks’ numbers show.
Once Boks allegedly gained control of impound and disposition numbers, they began to fluctuate wildly as he, “adjusted them for accuracy.” Then the kill stats plummeted.
Early in 2006, Boks began stuffing the shelters with animals that brought the euthanasia rate down significantly through April, but rose sharply thereafter, and at the end of the year there was no improvement over 2005.
So Ed’s figures have improved based on three factors, his ability to control the numbers, refusing kittens and pit bulls, and warehousing animals.
He did the same in NYC. The numbers posted in NYC have radically changed over the past 12 months in response to very different numbers found by Maddies’ Fund counts in NYC vs. Boks’ numbers vs. numbers supplied by the Mayor’s Alliance, which appear to be based on rabies certificate numbers supplied to the state. Boks’ 2005 figures appear to be about 11% lower than Alliance figures and have been adjusted upwards since he left showing the real drop in killing under him was 3% and 6% for 2004 and 2005.
Boks’ numbers are not to be trusted, especially since May of this year.
So how many animals do our shelters actually kill each year?
Since we cannot trust Boks’ numbers anymore, and he refuses complete access to Chameleon impound and disposition numbers, we are left with the statistician’s method: find the kill rate within a known sample of animals impounded.
How do we get this sample?
The number of animals impounded by a raid on suspected hoarders is often expressed by Boks in a press release. However, we do not know how many animals actually survived even 4 days after a raid, and he refuses access to those records under the guise that he cannot release them because the case is under investigation. He hid both the location and numbers of cats alive from those impounded from Mason for over three months.
Mason estimated he actually has seen 22 cats alive. He has subsequently been told there are no more of his cats at other shelters; therefore, 22 surviving is it.
Altogether, 64 cats were impounded including 28 kittens, but only 59 by the shelter’s count. Mason said they actually took 12 kittens before the raid but they only listed 6 on the list given to him on October 9. At least on that date they did give him a list of animals.
Therefore, out of the 64 (or 59) cats taken, 22 are left alive.
Therefore, anywhere from 37 to 42 cats were killed immediately after impound, and I assume within a day or two instead of the Hayden Act mandated 4 days. I assume this is why Boks is hiding Chameleon documentation.
This yields a real kill rate of between 63% and 66%, or about 43% more than Boks claims are his kill figures for cats (45%).
The kill rate for kittens is much higher. Of 28 impounded, 25 were killed for a kill rate of 89%, worse even than LA County.
Boks may claim that Mason’s cats were in worse shape than an average sample of cats coming in. That’s bull. Does he really expect us to believe that all of the kittens and cats coming in from owner release, feral kittens and old cats were much healthier than Mason’s when he was feeding them, giving water, shelter and medical treatment? Are ferals in the street or parking lot, as well as sick and old cats surrendered in any better shape than Mason’s?
Did not Lt. Boswell say Mason’s cats had food, water and shelter—everything they needed, and that’s why the cats sought out his property?
So Boks can dance and dance with numbers all he wants, but we have a large sample of cats where the kill rate is far higher than Boks' claimed numbers.
This means we have an objective way to check Boks’ numbers: check the kill rate of cats and dogs taken during alleged hoarder raids.
Mr. Boks. Please get your records in order because you can expect Requests for Public Records on all animal busts during 2007. Then we will know your true kill rate.
.
As the writer of a previous post pointed out, the real kill rate in Boks’ shelters is euthanasia + died in shelter + missing. This number is a couple of thousand higher than Boks’ numbers show.
Once Boks allegedly gained control of impound and disposition numbers, they began to fluctuate wildly as he, “adjusted them for accuracy.” Then the kill stats plummeted.
Early in 2006, Boks began stuffing the shelters with animals that brought the euthanasia rate down significantly through April, but rose sharply thereafter, and at the end of the year there was no improvement over 2005.
So Ed’s figures have improved based on three factors, his ability to control the numbers, refusing kittens and pit bulls, and warehousing animals.
He did the same in NYC. The numbers posted in NYC have radically changed over the past 12 months in response to very different numbers found by Maddies’ Fund counts in NYC vs. Boks’ numbers vs. numbers supplied by the Mayor’s Alliance, which appear to be based on rabies certificate numbers supplied to the state. Boks’ 2005 figures appear to be about 11% lower than Alliance figures and have been adjusted upwards since he left showing the real drop in killing under him was 3% and 6% for 2004 and 2005.
Boks’ numbers are not to be trusted, especially since May of this year.
So how many animals do our shelters actually kill each year?
Since we cannot trust Boks’ numbers anymore, and he refuses complete access to Chameleon impound and disposition numbers, we are left with the statistician’s method: find the kill rate within a known sample of animals impounded.
How do we get this sample?
The number of animals impounded by a raid on suspected hoarders is often expressed by Boks in a press release. However, we do not know how many animals actually survived even 4 days after a raid, and he refuses access to those records under the guise that he cannot release them because the case is under investigation. He hid both the location and numbers of cats alive from those impounded from Mason for over three months.
Mason estimated he actually has seen 22 cats alive. He has subsequently been told there are no more of his cats at other shelters; therefore, 22 surviving is it.
Altogether, 64 cats were impounded including 28 kittens, but only 59 by the shelter’s count. Mason said they actually took 12 kittens before the raid but they only listed 6 on the list given to him on October 9. At least on that date they did give him a list of animals.
Therefore, out of the 64 (or 59) cats taken, 22 are left alive.
Therefore, anywhere from 37 to 42 cats were killed immediately after impound, and I assume within a day or two instead of the Hayden Act mandated 4 days. I assume this is why Boks is hiding Chameleon documentation.
This yields a real kill rate of between 63% and 66%, or about 43% more than Boks claims are his kill figures for cats (45%).
The kill rate for kittens is much higher. Of 28 impounded, 25 were killed for a kill rate of 89%, worse even than LA County.
Boks may claim that Mason’s cats were in worse shape than an average sample of cats coming in. That’s bull. Does he really expect us to believe that all of the kittens and cats coming in from owner release, feral kittens and old cats were much healthier than Mason’s when he was feeding them, giving water, shelter and medical treatment? Are ferals in the street or parking lot, as well as sick and old cats surrendered in any better shape than Mason’s?
Did not Lt. Boswell say Mason’s cats had food, water and shelter—everything they needed, and that’s why the cats sought out his property?
So Boks can dance and dance with numbers all he wants, but we have a large sample of cats where the kill rate is far higher than Boks' claimed numbers.
This means we have an objective way to check Boks’ numbers: check the kill rate of cats and dogs taken during alleged hoarder raids.
Mr. Boks. Please get your records in order because you can expect Requests for Public Records on all animal busts during 2007. Then we will know your true kill rate.
.
Animal Shelter Tells Mason to Go to Hell
.
Despite the fact det. Linda Ortega said she'd return Mason's confiscated records within a week, nothing has been returned to Ron nor has anyone told him anything about when they'd be returned.
His cages and trap still have disappeared.
Five confiscated cats supposedly at the East Valley Shelter and South LA were never brought to West Valley were Mason lives despite promises they will be. Who knows whether they are alive or dead?
Ron got three of his cats back, Muffin, Burt and Garfunkel.
They killed Johnny, the old skinny cat rummaging for food underneath the cops feet shown in the City TV35 raid. They said he was FIV.
Ron showed up with Valley Cats on Tuesday to point out which cats were his, and to for them to adopt out 6 of his cats. They were fought by LAAS staff for four hours trying to get them released because they were being suddenly held for spay/neutering even though it had been arranged to release them way ahead of time to Valley cats. However, all the cats had already been fixed.
Ron was told that as of Friday, all of his confiscated cats were being released for adoption to New Hope partners despite the fact he has not released them to LAAS. They also told him they were not going to tell him which New Hopes take the cats.
This allows them to kill the cats. Three months in small cages and now they can be killed because no one can follow where they are or who took them. Remember, Ed refused to turn over any impound records to Mason or to the public.
Boks transparency is a lie! They still have Boks' unbelievable defense of the ACTF raid on Mason's house posted on the LAAS wensite. They arrest him for a felony, kill more than half his animals, and yet no charges are ever filed against him. Still, Boks insists it was a good bust.
Mr. Boks, get prepared for a new request for public records on the Mason raid cats, including all impound, treatment and disposition information.
From one lawyer I talked to, apparently Animal Services, SPCAs, and County or Muni shelter can just get away with doing what they did to Ron: Invade his property, kill his cats, not give him a list of seized cats, not give him a postseizure hearing, not release confiscated records, not tell him the disposition of his cats, not return his traps and cages, just because they can. Who is going to stop them?
A lawsuit is expensive and the payoff minimal. They can arrest anyone they want for almost any reason as long as you cannot prove malice. They can take your animals and kill them, and after a long lawsuit, they might have to pay you $200 per animal.
Even though the hearing officer said the raid appeared staged for the media, even that does not cut much when it comes to a lawsuit.
Everyone of you out there is at risk of harrassment or worse at the hands of Boks' private police force---everyone of you, unless you can prove malice or a civil rights violation.
Astounding, isn't it?
It seems Boks and the Mayor's Office have decided to declare war on the Los Angeles Animal Community.
Ed Boks and Jim, you guys think you can get away with anything! You think you are above the law because you are the law. You break the rules of arrest, ignore penal code 597.1 even while you arrest people for alleged violations of this same code. Maybe you are for now. But get your records ready.
.
Despite the fact det. Linda Ortega said she'd return Mason's confiscated records within a week, nothing has been returned to Ron nor has anyone told him anything about when they'd be returned.
His cages and trap still have disappeared.
Five confiscated cats supposedly at the East Valley Shelter and South LA were never brought to West Valley were Mason lives despite promises they will be. Who knows whether they are alive or dead?
Ron got three of his cats back, Muffin, Burt and Garfunkel.
They killed Johnny, the old skinny cat rummaging for food underneath the cops feet shown in the City TV35 raid. They said he was FIV.
Ron showed up with Valley Cats on Tuesday to point out which cats were his, and to for them to adopt out 6 of his cats. They were fought by LAAS staff for four hours trying to get them released because they were being suddenly held for spay/neutering even though it had been arranged to release them way ahead of time to Valley cats. However, all the cats had already been fixed.
Ron was told that as of Friday, all of his confiscated cats were being released for adoption to New Hope partners despite the fact he has not released them to LAAS. They also told him they were not going to tell him which New Hopes take the cats.
This allows them to kill the cats. Three months in small cages and now they can be killed because no one can follow where they are or who took them. Remember, Ed refused to turn over any impound records to Mason or to the public.
Boks transparency is a lie! They still have Boks' unbelievable defense of the ACTF raid on Mason's house posted on the LAAS wensite. They arrest him for a felony, kill more than half his animals, and yet no charges are ever filed against him. Still, Boks insists it was a good bust.
Mr. Boks, get prepared for a new request for public records on the Mason raid cats, including all impound, treatment and disposition information.
From one lawyer I talked to, apparently Animal Services, SPCAs, and County or Muni shelter can just get away with doing what they did to Ron: Invade his property, kill his cats, not give him a list of seized cats, not give him a postseizure hearing, not release confiscated records, not tell him the disposition of his cats, not return his traps and cages, just because they can. Who is going to stop them?
A lawsuit is expensive and the payoff minimal. They can arrest anyone they want for almost any reason as long as you cannot prove malice. They can take your animals and kill them, and after a long lawsuit, they might have to pay you $200 per animal.
Even though the hearing officer said the raid appeared staged for the media, even that does not cut much when it comes to a lawsuit.
Everyone of you out there is at risk of harrassment or worse at the hands of Boks' private police force---everyone of you, unless you can prove malice or a civil rights violation.
Astounding, isn't it?
It seems Boks and the Mayor's Office have decided to declare war on the Los Angeles Animal Community.
Ed Boks and Jim, you guys think you can get away with anything! You think you are above the law because you are the law. You break the rules of arrest, ignore penal code 597.1 even while you arrest people for alleged violations of this same code. Maybe you are for now. But get your records ready.
.
Mysterious Disappearing Kittens & Pits
.
Checking Boks 2007 statistical summary, he claims a 9% reduction in killing, about 4,200.
Because Died in Shelter from fighting and disease was up 650, the real reduction in death was 3,550.
How did he do this?
Kittens and Pit Bulls disappeared!
These are the cat and dog categories where the highest euthanasia rates occur.
According to the statistics, they just stopped coming into the shelter after April at anyway near historical records or trends.
Even while the overall impound numbers dropped only 1%,
neonatal kitten impounds dropped by 33%, the most incredible drop in the history of LAAS!
Pit Bull impounds dropped 16%, the most incredible drop in the history of LAAS!
Unweaned Pit Bulls dropped 22%, the most incredible drop in the history of LAAS!
These "disappeared" animals account for 92% of the decreased euthanasia numbers claimed by Boks.
What do I mean "disappeared?"
First, 2007 was a bumper kitten season. No other shelter system in the area claimed even a 5% drop in cat impounds. They don't break it down into kitten vs. adults so the comparison is not complete. Yet, Animal Services impounded 33% fewer, 2,400!
Either they were refused or they were taken to the back room and euthanized immediately, or possibly given over to rescues or the public before being impounded.
There is NO OTHER EXPLANATION. Boks does not even try to explain it, even though this is the beginning and end of his alleged success. Could it be that it rained kittens and pits all around Southern California but not in LA city itself? I think not..
The real world just doesn't work this way.
The same holds true for pit bulls and pit bull puppies.
92% of Boks success is not explained.
He says the foster program, but that only explains 2.5% of the decrease in killing.
He says increased adoptions, but adoptions were up by only 2.4%.
New Hope? New Hope adoptions were down 3.5%.
So why were kittens and pit bulls down an unprecedented number? Fate? Kismet? Chance?
Dogs impounds actually went up 7%.
Where did the kittens and pit bulls disappear to? Where did the 3,300 animals go?
Please tell us this Mr. Boks.
.
Checking Boks 2007 statistical summary, he claims a 9% reduction in killing, about 4,200.
Because Died in Shelter from fighting and disease was up 650, the real reduction in death was 3,550.
How did he do this?
Kittens and Pit Bulls disappeared!
These are the cat and dog categories where the highest euthanasia rates occur.
According to the statistics, they just stopped coming into the shelter after April at anyway near historical records or trends.
Even while the overall impound numbers dropped only 1%,
neonatal kitten impounds dropped by 33%, the most incredible drop in the history of LAAS!
Pit Bull impounds dropped 16%, the most incredible drop in the history of LAAS!
Unweaned Pit Bulls dropped 22%, the most incredible drop in the history of LAAS!
These "disappeared" animals account for 92% of the decreased euthanasia numbers claimed by Boks.
What do I mean "disappeared?"
First, 2007 was a bumper kitten season. No other shelter system in the area claimed even a 5% drop in cat impounds. They don't break it down into kitten vs. adults so the comparison is not complete. Yet, Animal Services impounded 33% fewer, 2,400!
Either they were refused or they were taken to the back room and euthanized immediately, or possibly given over to rescues or the public before being impounded.
There is NO OTHER EXPLANATION. Boks does not even try to explain it, even though this is the beginning and end of his alleged success. Could it be that it rained kittens and pits all around Southern California but not in LA city itself? I think not..
The real world just doesn't work this way.
The same holds true for pit bulls and pit bull puppies.
92% of Boks success is not explained.
He says the foster program, but that only explains 2.5% of the decrease in killing.
He says increased adoptions, but adoptions were up by only 2.4%.
New Hope? New Hope adoptions were down 3.5%.
So why were kittens and pit bulls down an unprecedented number? Fate? Kismet? Chance?
Dogs impounds actually went up 7%.
Where did the kittens and pit bulls disappear to? Where did the 3,300 animals go?
Please tell us this Mr. Boks.
.
Too Bad No One Cares But Us
.
An excellent article on the Internet below. Too bad no one cares except us.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/23/18474388.php
The Los Angeles Department of Animal Services just released their annual report for 2007. At first glance it seems euthanasia went down. If one looks at the actual underlying numbers, things couldn't be further from the truth. Thousands of animals were merely refused at the door and thousands more died from neglect.
The Los Angeles Department of Animal Services just released their annual report for 2007. At first glance it seems euthanasia went down. If one looks at the actual underlying numbers, things couldn't be further from the truth. Thousands of animals were merely refused at the door and thousands more died from neglect.
The annual report states that cat and dog euthanasia decreased by 22% or 4,429 fewer died than in 2006. That sounds wonderful but unfortunately it's not true. There are many disingenuous ways to make euthanasia appear to go down, and "NoKill" Director Ed Boks uses all of them.
The main way the euthanasia number appeared to go down was by refusing the animals most likely to be euthanized. That would be feral cats and nursing kittens. For each feral cat or nursing kitten you refuse, the euthanasia number goes down by that exact amount.
In 2006 Ed Boks said he needed to "fine tune" the population during the "annual spring/summer crush of neonatal turn-ins." He started an official animal refusal policy. The public ranted on Craig's list about the Department refusing to take in feral cats and kittens. These animals ended up unsterilized on the streets to make even more kittens next year.
If you look at the statistics you will see that kitten refusal started in March. By September they were refusing almost 50% of the kittens. They refused 2,400 kittens or 33% normal intake. Oddly enough other local shelters had kitten intake go up. What was Boks' reply to the "odd" drop in kitten intake? It's just an "anomaly" he said even though he announced his refusal policy in a press release.
In Boks' report cat euthanasia went down 3,328. 2,400 of the 3,328 drop in cat euthanasia is attributed to refusing kittens. The rest can be attributed to the increase in animals dying on their own. An extra 470 cats died on their own from lack of care in 2007. 2,400 refused kittens plus 470 more died is 2,870. That would leave a 458 "decrease" in cat euthanasia. These animals were most likely the refused feral cats. He refused trapped cats saying they had no trapping permit and he refused to give them trapping permits.
Cat euthanasia didn't really go down in the real world. It would have actually gone up had he not refused animals and allowed more die. Cat and dog euthanasia combined went down 4,229. We have just explained the 3,328 decrease in cat euthanasia. Add to that an extra 188 dogs died in 2007.
To what do we attribute the rest of the decrease? If you add up all the possible outcomes for cats and dogs, i.e. adopted by the public, New Hope (given to rescue groups), stolen, euthanized, DOA, died, returned to owner, you will notice that the numbers don't add up. There are 1,500 more animals unaccounted for in 2007 than in 2006.
Boks added then deleted the "missing" category two months ago. These animals are either "missing" or still in the shelter system being warehoused. This means that things did not improve at all in 2007. The chart below shows what really happened.
http://www.geocities.com/jamesjohnkennedy/chart.jpg
At the end of Ed Boks' 2007 report he basically gives excuses for the increase in animals dying. He said more are dying because they're giving them better veterinary care instead of just killing them? He goes on to state that he's doing everything any NoKill director can to improve things. He says it's now up to the volunteers and public to break through the "wall."
Even more important than what Boks mentioned in his annual report are the things he intentionally omitted. He omitted "other" animals such as birds, hamsters, reptiles and "bunnies." These animals fared much worse in every category in 2007 than before Boks arrived in 2005. "Other" adoptions are down 50%, New Hope is down 50%, died is up five times as much. 1,500 more died! Euthanasia is the same while intake was down. "Bunny" adoptions are down, New Hope is half what it used to be, died is up 50% yet intake is the same. No wonder he didn't mention these other animals. If you add all animals, the number dying on their own has increased three fold. An extra 2,000 animals are now dying on their own, 3,351 animals total, even though total intake is down. Something is very wrong here.
Besides the actual numbers, 2007 was not a good year for the Department or Ed Boks. Boks gave his ex-girlfriend a consulting contract for $20,000. No one has even seen her report. Boks gave another female friend a consulting contract for $30,000. No one has seen that original report either. An employee summarized that report and reported nothing new. Since then the commission made a motion to make it mandatory for the commission to approve of any consultant paid over $5,000.
Boks became embroiled in the Pitbull Academy fiasco. The program itself to match parolees with pitbulls was fine but Boks started the program without any approvals from the LA Animal Services Commission, Personnel Department, Union, City Attorney or City Council. City Councilmembers scolded Boks for over an hour when they ordered him to stop the program.
Because of a Daily News article about the huge increase in animals dying the City's Chief Administrative Officer is now investigating the Department. On top of this Boks got in trouble for starting a Trap Neuter Return program without doing the mandatory environmental report. The City was just notified that it is about to be sued by a few environmental groups including Audubon because of his mistake.
City Controller Laura Chick is now auditing the financials of the Department because revenue is down and expenses up. Revenue is down because Boks gave away animals for free and didn't collect all dog license fees. Expenses are up because of the extreme warehousing of animals who need extra food and veterinary care. Audits show that Boks had these same financial problems when he worked in Arizona and New York.
The Animal Cruelty Task Force filmed a mistake filled raid which they aired on public television. They forgot to read the person their rights, destroyed some evidence, lost other evidence, forgot to show up for the hearing and killed most of the animals among other things. All charges were dropped and a lawsuit is now in the making. The Task Force will soon be on Animal Planet's "Animal Precinct" show. Hopefully they won't make these mistakes on the show and embarrass the City even more.
A recent report out of New York City where Boks worked last showed that he under reported euthanasia by 4,282 cats/dogs or 17% in 2005 alone. He stated his euth rate was 43% when he left in 2005 when it was actually over 60%. He stated his 2004 euth rate was 47% when it was really 66%. His true percentage decrease in euthanasia in New York was the lowest of any Director in the last six years.
More worrisome was the increase in owner requested euthanasia under Boks. Owner requested euthanasia went from 975 cats/dogs per year to 4,494 during his first year. One person at the Mayor's Alliance stated that this was caused by Boks' intake "methods." Boks preferred owner requested euthanasia so he wouldn't have to include it in his numbers. How many people unknowingly signed over their pet's life thinking that he or she might actually be adopted instead of just dragged to the back and killed? New York blamed Boks for the failures in New York. They have since revised his incorrect numbers.
Boks wrote a scathing affidavit for an activist group for a lawsuit against New York. He blabbed confidential information then blamed his failures on the City, Mayor, Commission and employees. That group lost the lawsuit. Boks is now blaming his failures here on the Mayor, Commission, employees, activists, the public and even kittens.
In response to these problems and more Boks has been blogging away telling everyone that he's doing everything any NoKill director can possibly do, even though he clearly is not. He's been blogging about himself in the third person saying that an unnamed "animal advocate" is now writing his blog.
In early 2006 Boks started a "fan" blog called LAAnimalFriends where he touted his "success" and attacked all naysayers. He's become his own "number one fan" again it seems. Boks performance since he arrived in Los Angeles is more than a mere disappointment.
It's become surreal that he can make so many mistakes, lie pathologically and still have a job. His lack of honest progress coupled with reports of alcoholism and sexually harassing female rescuers makes one wonder why Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa supports him.
Is Villaraigosa too busy campaigning for Hillary Clinton to even know what's happening back here in LA? This story brings an even bigger concern to mind. If this Director is allowed to lie in his reports to the public, what about the Police, Fire and other Departments? Are their reports also fabricated? Is crime really down or not? What's really happening in Los Angeles? I'm starting to wonder. You should too. James Kennedy JamesJohnKennedy@ yahoo.com
.
An excellent article on the Internet below. Too bad no one cares except us.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/23/18474388.php
The Los Angeles Department of Animal Services just released their annual report for 2007. At first glance it seems euthanasia went down. If one looks at the actual underlying numbers, things couldn't be further from the truth. Thousands of animals were merely refused at the door and thousands more died from neglect.
The Los Angeles Department of Animal Services just released their annual report for 2007. At first glance it seems euthanasia went down. If one looks at the actual underlying numbers, things couldn't be further from the truth. Thousands of animals were merely refused at the door and thousands more died from neglect.
The annual report states that cat and dog euthanasia decreased by 22% or 4,429 fewer died than in 2006. That sounds wonderful but unfortunately it's not true. There are many disingenuous ways to make euthanasia appear to go down, and "NoKill" Director Ed Boks uses all of them.
The main way the euthanasia number appeared to go down was by refusing the animals most likely to be euthanized. That would be feral cats and nursing kittens. For each feral cat or nursing kitten you refuse, the euthanasia number goes down by that exact amount.
In 2006 Ed Boks said he needed to "fine tune" the population during the "annual spring/summer crush of neonatal turn-ins." He started an official animal refusal policy. The public ranted on Craig's list about the Department refusing to take in feral cats and kittens. These animals ended up unsterilized on the streets to make even more kittens next year.
If you look at the statistics you will see that kitten refusal started in March. By September they were refusing almost 50% of the kittens. They refused 2,400 kittens or 33% normal intake. Oddly enough other local shelters had kitten intake go up. What was Boks' reply to the "odd" drop in kitten intake? It's just an "anomaly" he said even though he announced his refusal policy in a press release.
In Boks' report cat euthanasia went down 3,328. 2,400 of the 3,328 drop in cat euthanasia is attributed to refusing kittens. The rest can be attributed to the increase in animals dying on their own. An extra 470 cats died on their own from lack of care in 2007. 2,400 refused kittens plus 470 more died is 2,870. That would leave a 458 "decrease" in cat euthanasia. These animals were most likely the refused feral cats. He refused trapped cats saying they had no trapping permit and he refused to give them trapping permits.
Cat euthanasia didn't really go down in the real world. It would have actually gone up had he not refused animals and allowed more die. Cat and dog euthanasia combined went down 4,229. We have just explained the 3,328 decrease in cat euthanasia. Add to that an extra 188 dogs died in 2007.
To what do we attribute the rest of the decrease? If you add up all the possible outcomes for cats and dogs, i.e. adopted by the public, New Hope (given to rescue groups), stolen, euthanized, DOA, died, returned to owner, you will notice that the numbers don't add up. There are 1,500 more animals unaccounted for in 2007 than in 2006.
Boks added then deleted the "missing" category two months ago. These animals are either "missing" or still in the shelter system being warehoused. This means that things did not improve at all in 2007. The chart below shows what really happened.
http://www.geocities.com/jamesjohnkennedy/chart.jpg
At the end of Ed Boks' 2007 report he basically gives excuses for the increase in animals dying. He said more are dying because they're giving them better veterinary care instead of just killing them? He goes on to state that he's doing everything any NoKill director can to improve things. He says it's now up to the volunteers and public to break through the "wall."
Even more important than what Boks mentioned in his annual report are the things he intentionally omitted. He omitted "other" animals such as birds, hamsters, reptiles and "bunnies." These animals fared much worse in every category in 2007 than before Boks arrived in 2005. "Other" adoptions are down 50%, New Hope is down 50%, died is up five times as much. 1,500 more died! Euthanasia is the same while intake was down. "Bunny" adoptions are down, New Hope is half what it used to be, died is up 50% yet intake is the same. No wonder he didn't mention these other animals. If you add all animals, the number dying on their own has increased three fold. An extra 2,000 animals are now dying on their own, 3,351 animals total, even though total intake is down. Something is very wrong here.
Besides the actual numbers, 2007 was not a good year for the Department or Ed Boks. Boks gave his ex-girlfriend a consulting contract for $20,000. No one has even seen her report. Boks gave another female friend a consulting contract for $30,000. No one has seen that original report either. An employee summarized that report and reported nothing new. Since then the commission made a motion to make it mandatory for the commission to approve of any consultant paid over $5,000.
Boks became embroiled in the Pitbull Academy fiasco. The program itself to match parolees with pitbulls was fine but Boks started the program without any approvals from the LA Animal Services Commission, Personnel Department, Union, City Attorney or City Council. City Councilmembers scolded Boks for over an hour when they ordered him to stop the program.
Because of a Daily News article about the huge increase in animals dying the City's Chief Administrative Officer is now investigating the Department. On top of this Boks got in trouble for starting a Trap Neuter Return program without doing the mandatory environmental report. The City was just notified that it is about to be sued by a few environmental groups including Audubon because of his mistake.
City Controller Laura Chick is now auditing the financials of the Department because revenue is down and expenses up. Revenue is down because Boks gave away animals for free and didn't collect all dog license fees. Expenses are up because of the extreme warehousing of animals who need extra food and veterinary care. Audits show that Boks had these same financial problems when he worked in Arizona and New York.
The Animal Cruelty Task Force filmed a mistake filled raid which they aired on public television. They forgot to read the person their rights, destroyed some evidence, lost other evidence, forgot to show up for the hearing and killed most of the animals among other things. All charges were dropped and a lawsuit is now in the making. The Task Force will soon be on Animal Planet's "Animal Precinct" show. Hopefully they won't make these mistakes on the show and embarrass the City even more.
A recent report out of New York City where Boks worked last showed that he under reported euthanasia by 4,282 cats/dogs or 17% in 2005 alone. He stated his euth rate was 43% when he left in 2005 when it was actually over 60%. He stated his 2004 euth rate was 47% when it was really 66%. His true percentage decrease in euthanasia in New York was the lowest of any Director in the last six years.
More worrisome was the increase in owner requested euthanasia under Boks. Owner requested euthanasia went from 975 cats/dogs per year to 4,494 during his first year. One person at the Mayor's Alliance stated that this was caused by Boks' intake "methods." Boks preferred owner requested euthanasia so he wouldn't have to include it in his numbers. How many people unknowingly signed over their pet's life thinking that he or she might actually be adopted instead of just dragged to the back and killed? New York blamed Boks for the failures in New York. They have since revised his incorrect numbers.
Boks wrote a scathing affidavit for an activist group for a lawsuit against New York. He blabbed confidential information then blamed his failures on the City, Mayor, Commission and employees. That group lost the lawsuit. Boks is now blaming his failures here on the Mayor, Commission, employees, activists, the public and even kittens.
In response to these problems and more Boks has been blogging away telling everyone that he's doing everything any NoKill director can possibly do, even though he clearly is not. He's been blogging about himself in the third person saying that an unnamed "animal advocate" is now writing his blog.
In early 2006 Boks started a "fan" blog called LAAnimalFriends where he touted his "success" and attacked all naysayers. He's become his own "number one fan" again it seems. Boks performance since he arrived in Los Angeles is more than a mere disappointment.
It's become surreal that he can make so many mistakes, lie pathologically and still have a job. His lack of honest progress coupled with reports of alcoholism and sexually harassing female rescuers makes one wonder why Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa supports him.
Is Villaraigosa too busy campaigning for Hillary Clinton to even know what's happening back here in LA? This story brings an even bigger concern to mind. If this Director is allowed to lie in his reports to the public, what about the Police, Fire and other Departments? Are their reports also fabricated? Is crime really down or not? What's really happening in Los Angeles? I'm starting to wonder. You should too. James Kennedy JamesJohnKennedy@ yahoo.com
.
Distemper Outbreak in the Valley
LOS ANGELES -- San Fernando Valley dog owners should vaccinate their pets against distemper, an infectious viral disease, because of a recent outbreak among gray foxes, Los Angeles Animal Services officials said Tuesday.
Suspected cases of the disease have been discovered in foxes in Arcadia, Pasadena, Glendale and Tujunga, although there have not been any reports of dogs catching distemper from infected animals.
Canine distemper is spread through the air, infected bodily fluids, food and water. Pet owners were advised to keep their dogs inside at night, and empty food and water dishes.
"The best prevention is a distemper vaccination," said Dr. Steven Feldman, chief veterinarian with Los Angeles Animal Control. "
Suspected cases of the disease have been discovered in foxes in Arcadia, Pasadena, Glendale and Tujunga, although there have not been any reports of dogs catching distemper from infected animals.
Canine distemper is spread through the air, infected bodily fluids, food and water. Pet owners were advised to keep their dogs inside at night, and empty food and water dishes.
"The best prevention is a distemper vaccination," said Dr. Steven Feldman, chief veterinarian with Los Angeles Animal Control. "
A Summarizing Comment
.
Sometimes when I get a comment that seems especially insightful. I post it. This was sent in today below:
Chick will be auditing the financial side of the Department. She will see problems. Here are but a few:
(1) City Council approved new license canvassers. The Department started the program then ended it without City Council knowledge. Council President Eric Garcetti reprimanded Boks for ending the program without telling them. The canvassing program brings in revenue from licenses besides ensuring that animals are spayed and neutered which reduces overpopulation.
(2) In order to seem to improve statistics the Department kept animals longer, sometimes many months.In order to keep so many they overcrowded the cages. This caused the spread of disease. This did not improve their chance at adoption. This "warehousing" cost the City more money in terms of extra food, veterinary care and medicine. The Department went over their budget for food and vet care in 2006 for this reason.
(3) Director Ed Boks hired his ex-girlfriend Pia Salk to do a report on Humane LA. He gave her$20,000. No one has seen the report and there is no Humane LA program. The Commissioners were upset that he hired her without informing anyone so they made a motion that all consultants paid over$5,000 must now be approved by the commissioners.
(4) Director Ed Boks hired a friend to do a report on the volunteer department. He paid $30,000 for the report. No one has seen this report, only a summary of the report written by someone else. That summary basically told everyone what they already know about the shortcomings of the volunteer department.
(5) Employees frequently use Department supplies for their own purpose. Ex-volunteer coordinator Heidi Heubner used Department supplies, animals and volunteers to run her private Kids n Pets classes. She gave paid classes for Kids n Pets when she was supposed to be working. There are many instances of employees doing the same thing.
(6) Poor oversight of Department employees has caused a few lawsuits to be filed against the Department. One recently settled for $99,000 for sexual harassment by Commander Diliberto. Many reports of sexual harassment by Commander Diliberto were sent in before the Department was sued.Another lawsuit was recently filed by a rescuer after she was held against her will inside the shelter and had her camera physically taken away from her. Another lawsuit may soon be filed because of a false arrest by an under trained over zealous Animal Cruelty Task Force. These lawsuits could have been avoided if there was better oversight.
(7) Boks started the New Hope program which was just a new name for the old rescue partner program. He made all animals to New Hope partners free. Adoptions did not improve yet revenue was lost. He did the same thing in Arizona. After he left they went back to charging for the animals. Even though Boks knew this program failed in Arizona, he still did it in LA. He knew this incentive was failing as soon as he started it, yet he continued.
.
Sometimes when I get a comment that seems especially insightful. I post it. This was sent in today below:
Chick will be auditing the financial side of the Department. She will see problems. Here are but a few:
(1) City Council approved new license canvassers. The Department started the program then ended it without City Council knowledge. Council President Eric Garcetti reprimanded Boks for ending the program without telling them. The canvassing program brings in revenue from licenses besides ensuring that animals are spayed and neutered which reduces overpopulation.
(2) In order to seem to improve statistics the Department kept animals longer, sometimes many months.In order to keep so many they overcrowded the cages. This caused the spread of disease. This did not improve their chance at adoption. This "warehousing" cost the City more money in terms of extra food, veterinary care and medicine. The Department went over their budget for food and vet care in 2006 for this reason.
(3) Director Ed Boks hired his ex-girlfriend Pia Salk to do a report on Humane LA. He gave her$20,000. No one has seen the report and there is no Humane LA program. The Commissioners were upset that he hired her without informing anyone so they made a motion that all consultants paid over$5,000 must now be approved by the commissioners.
(4) Director Ed Boks hired a friend to do a report on the volunteer department. He paid $30,000 for the report. No one has seen this report, only a summary of the report written by someone else. That summary basically told everyone what they already know about the shortcomings of the volunteer department.
(5) Employees frequently use Department supplies for their own purpose. Ex-volunteer coordinator Heidi Heubner used Department supplies, animals and volunteers to run her private Kids n Pets classes. She gave paid classes for Kids n Pets when she was supposed to be working. There are many instances of employees doing the same thing.
(6) Poor oversight of Department employees has caused a few lawsuits to be filed against the Department. One recently settled for $99,000 for sexual harassment by Commander Diliberto. Many reports of sexual harassment by Commander Diliberto were sent in before the Department was sued.Another lawsuit was recently filed by a rescuer after she was held against her will inside the shelter and had her camera physically taken away from her. Another lawsuit may soon be filed because of a false arrest by an under trained over zealous Animal Cruelty Task Force. These lawsuits could have been avoided if there was better oversight.
(7) Boks started the New Hope program which was just a new name for the old rescue partner program. He made all animals to New Hope partners free. Adoptions did not improve yet revenue was lost. He did the same thing in Arizona. After he left they went back to charging for the animals. Even though Boks knew this program failed in Arizona, he still did it in LA. He knew this incentive was failing as soon as he started it, yet he continued.
.
Chick to Audit LAAS-So what?
.
Unless I am missing something, the upcoming audit of Animal Services is relatively pointless from the perspective of activists. It appears Boks went over budget for medical services for the animals. He did the same in Phoenix. I think that is a good thing.
Rosendahl appears to be a little dense about all the animal issues. He is worried that not enough dogs get licensed. Why isn't he more worried about why so many animals are dying? I guess if it isn't his breeding dogs that are being killed, it is no skin off his nose.
The financial audit doesn't mean diddly. What has to be analyzed is why the volunteer programs are not working and the very, very funny numbers that have been coming out of the department since May. These among other things.
Rosendahl appears to be a little dense about all the animal issues. He is worried that not enough dogs get licensed. Why isn't he more worried about why so many animals are dying? I guess if it isn't his breeding dogs that are being killed, it is no skin off his nose.
When I lived in Santa Monica his local SM politics show went only skin deep. He never even began to make public what was going on under the cover of a bureacratic darkness. Then I thought he was just being politically correct in a SMRR controlled city hall, but maybe I was deceived; maybe Bill is just clueless.
Imagine, LAAS has an operating budget of $21,000,000 but with pensions and perks that is knocked up to $34,000,000--a 62% increase.
.
Unless I am missing something, the upcoming audit of Animal Services is relatively pointless from the perspective of activists. It appears Boks went over budget for medical services for the animals. He did the same in Phoenix. I think that is a good thing.
Rosendahl appears to be a little dense about all the animal issues. He is worried that not enough dogs get licensed. Why isn't he more worried about why so many animals are dying? I guess if it isn't his breeding dogs that are being killed, it is no skin off his nose.
The financial audit doesn't mean diddly. What has to be analyzed is why the volunteer programs are not working and the very, very funny numbers that have been coming out of the department since May. These among other things.
Rosendahl appears to be a little dense about all the animal issues. He is worried that not enough dogs get licensed. Why isn't he more worried about why so many animals are dying? I guess if it isn't his breeding dogs that are being killed, it is no skin off his nose.
When I lived in Santa Monica his local SM politics show went only skin deep. He never even began to make public what was going on under the cover of a bureacratic darkness. Then I thought he was just being politically correct in a SMRR controlled city hall, but maybe I was deceived; maybe Bill is just clueless.
Imagine, LAAS has an operating budget of $21,000,000 but with pensions and perks that is knocked up to $34,000,000--a 62% increase.
.
Boks Defense of the Mason Raid Continues. An oversight?
.
Despite the Mason case being over, with no charges ever filed by either the District Attorney or the City Attorney, Ed Boks' defense of the Mason felony animal abuse bust is still posted on the LAAS website LA Animal Services’ statement regarding a recent animal cruelty arrest. Seems kind of silly that Boks continues to defend a bust the hearing officer said appeared "staged."
Despite the Mason case being over, with no charges ever filed by either the District Attorney or the City Attorney, Ed Boks' defense of the Mason felony animal abuse bust is still posted on the LAAS website LA Animal Services’ statement regarding a recent animal cruelty arrest. Seems kind of silly that Boks continues to defend a bust the hearing officer said appeared "staged."
County Sued Again by Grillo
.
This newest lawsuit alleges the same sort of things alleged against LAAS and Bernstein, and even more. Maybe all shelter directors read from the same playbook. The allegations about euthanasia practices is most disturbing. Is Winograd a guiding hand here too?
D.E.L.T.A. Rescue v. Los Angeles County
D.E.L.T.A. Rescue filed a lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court on Monday, January 14, 2008 against Los Angeles County, Supervisor Gloria Molina, Supervisor Yvonne B. Burke, Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, Supervisor Don Knabe, Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, Department of Animal Care and Control Director Marcia Mayeda, CEO William T. Fujioka, and Auditor-Controller J. Tyler McCauley.
The 25 page complaint alleges the following:
During the past 36 months or more, Los Angeles County, Marcia Mayeda, and the Department of Animal Care and Control failed to obtain proper licenses and had and have failed and refused to maintain records for storing and dispensing controlled substances used by the Department of Animal Care and Control to euthanize and sedate animals. As a result, the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency has initiated an investigation into Los Angeles County and the Department of Animal Care and Controls euthanasia practices and has threatened the Department of Animal Care and Control and Los Angeles County with fines in the tens of millions of dollars.
In response to the Federal Drug Enforcement Agencies investigation and in response to requests made by the plaintiff to produce records under California's Public Record's Act, Marcia Mayeda and the Department of Animal Care and Control issued orders to fabricate records and destroy email and other "paper trails" concerning the Department of Animal Care and Control and Los Angeles County's non-compliance with federal and state euthanasia record keeping requirements.
The Department of Animal Care and Control does not have and is critically lacking in equipment for rendering proper medical diagnoses for animals under their care, possession, and control.
Los Angeles County and the Department of Animal Care and Control have not maintained a lawful and adequate medical treatment program.
The Department of Animal Care and Control, under the supervision of Marcia Mayeda, has engaged and continues to engage in unlawful and inhumane euthanasia practices. The Department of Animal Care and Control has sent animals to be disposed of to D & D Disposal and Rendering while they are still alive; animals are held down and stepped on while being euthanized; animals are often euthanized out in the open and in front of other animals; and tranquilizer medications are not made available to the Department of Animal Care and Control employees to administer as needed to animals before they are euthanized.
Animals with medical conditions that are easily detected with the correct type of medical equipment are being released to the public and rescue organizations undiagnosed.
The Department of Animal Care and Control routinely refuses to provide prompt and necessary veterinary care to animals as are in need of such care, refuses to undertake any reasonable efforts to make treatable animals adoptable, and refuses to allow the public or rescue organizations the opportunity to provide prompt and necessary veterinary care to such animals in need of such care.
The city of Beverly Hills, one of the cities that contracts to the Department of Animal Care and Control, has initiated an investigation thorough its code enforcement offices and conducted a surprise inspection of the Carson Animal Shelter.
A video exists which shows a shelter employee at the Baldwin Park Animal Shelter dragging a Rottweiler with a broken back across the grounds through puddles banding its head on the ground. The employee has not been terminated and/or disciplined.
An employee at the Carson Animal Shelter injected animals with cleaning solution and water in order to euthanize them. The employee ("whistleblower") who reported this was terminated and Marcia Mayeda authorized the termination.
Animals are wrongfully euthanized because the Department of Animal Care and Control employees fail to check records to indicate the correct animals are being euthanized. In addition, animals are wrongfully euthanized because employees do not scan for microchips before euthanasia.
D.E.L.T.A. Rescue has complained to the Board of Supervisors for years. Their concerns have been validated and conditions have worsened. Los Angeles County, the Board of Supervisors, William T. Fujioka, and J. Tyler McCauley are not responding adequately and/or responsibly.
During the past 36 months, D.E.L.T.A. Rescue publicized the inhumane conditions at the Los Angeles County shelters and Los Angeles County's practice of supplying euthanized animals for the purpose of rendering them into animal feed and other commercial product. The Defendants, in turn, have targeted and retaliated against D.E.L.T.A. Rescue and its President, Leo Grillo.
Marcia Mayeda and the Department of Animal Care and Control have failed to conform with state and federal law while charging for services to the cities they contract with that are not actually provided. The Department of Animal Care and Control and Los Angeles County routinely overcharge and/or undercharge their contract cities.
Marcia Mayeda, the Department of Animal Care and Control, and its managers and other employees routinely destroy and/or fabricate records for the purpose of obstructing justice, depriving persons of their property, and/or for obtaining and spending public funds under false pretenses.
The amount of money represented by Marcia Mayeda and the Department of Animal Care and Control to the County, State, and contract cities that have been spent on the care and treatment of animals in the County's shelter on an annual basis is far in excess of the money actually spent on the animals and may have been overstated by millions of dollars. Los Angeles County, Marcia Mayeda, and the Department of Animal Care and Control routinely seek to redeem expenses from citizens of Los Angeles Counties whose animals have been impounded by the County and the Department which have not actually been incurred by the Department.
.
This newest lawsuit alleges the same sort of things alleged against LAAS and Bernstein, and even more. Maybe all shelter directors read from the same playbook. The allegations about euthanasia practices is most disturbing. Is Winograd a guiding hand here too?
D.E.L.T.A. Rescue v. Los Angeles County
D.E.L.T.A. Rescue filed a lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court on Monday, January 14, 2008 against Los Angeles County, Supervisor Gloria Molina, Supervisor Yvonne B. Burke, Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, Supervisor Don Knabe, Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, Department of Animal Care and Control Director Marcia Mayeda, CEO William T. Fujioka, and Auditor-Controller J. Tyler McCauley.
The 25 page complaint alleges the following:
During the past 36 months or more, Los Angeles County, Marcia Mayeda, and the Department of Animal Care and Control failed to obtain proper licenses and had and have failed and refused to maintain records for storing and dispensing controlled substances used by the Department of Animal Care and Control to euthanize and sedate animals. As a result, the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency has initiated an investigation into Los Angeles County and the Department of Animal Care and Controls euthanasia practices and has threatened the Department of Animal Care and Control and Los Angeles County with fines in the tens of millions of dollars.
In response to the Federal Drug Enforcement Agencies investigation and in response to requests made by the plaintiff to produce records under California's Public Record's Act, Marcia Mayeda and the Department of Animal Care and Control issued orders to fabricate records and destroy email and other "paper trails" concerning the Department of Animal Care and Control and Los Angeles County's non-compliance with federal and state euthanasia record keeping requirements.
The Department of Animal Care and Control does not have and is critically lacking in equipment for rendering proper medical diagnoses for animals under their care, possession, and control.
Los Angeles County and the Department of Animal Care and Control have not maintained a lawful and adequate medical treatment program.
The Department of Animal Care and Control, under the supervision of Marcia Mayeda, has engaged and continues to engage in unlawful and inhumane euthanasia practices. The Department of Animal Care and Control has sent animals to be disposed of to D & D Disposal and Rendering while they are still alive; animals are held down and stepped on while being euthanized; animals are often euthanized out in the open and in front of other animals; and tranquilizer medications are not made available to the Department of Animal Care and Control employees to administer as needed to animals before they are euthanized.
Animals with medical conditions that are easily detected with the correct type of medical equipment are being released to the public and rescue organizations undiagnosed.
The Department of Animal Care and Control routinely refuses to provide prompt and necessary veterinary care to animals as are in need of such care, refuses to undertake any reasonable efforts to make treatable animals adoptable, and refuses to allow the public or rescue organizations the opportunity to provide prompt and necessary veterinary care to such animals in need of such care.
The city of Beverly Hills, one of the cities that contracts to the Department of Animal Care and Control, has initiated an investigation thorough its code enforcement offices and conducted a surprise inspection of the Carson Animal Shelter.
A video exists which shows a shelter employee at the Baldwin Park Animal Shelter dragging a Rottweiler with a broken back across the grounds through puddles banding its head on the ground. The employee has not been terminated and/or disciplined.
An employee at the Carson Animal Shelter injected animals with cleaning solution and water in order to euthanize them. The employee ("whistleblower") who reported this was terminated and Marcia Mayeda authorized the termination.
Animals are wrongfully euthanized because the Department of Animal Care and Control employees fail to check records to indicate the correct animals are being euthanized. In addition, animals are wrongfully euthanized because employees do not scan for microchips before euthanasia.
D.E.L.T.A. Rescue has complained to the Board of Supervisors for years. Their concerns have been validated and conditions have worsened. Los Angeles County, the Board of Supervisors, William T. Fujioka, and J. Tyler McCauley are not responding adequately and/or responsibly.
During the past 36 months, D.E.L.T.A. Rescue publicized the inhumane conditions at the Los Angeles County shelters and Los Angeles County's practice of supplying euthanized animals for the purpose of rendering them into animal feed and other commercial product. The Defendants, in turn, have targeted and retaliated against D.E.L.T.A. Rescue and its President, Leo Grillo.
Marcia Mayeda and the Department of Animal Care and Control have failed to conform with state and federal law while charging for services to the cities they contract with that are not actually provided. The Department of Animal Care and Control and Los Angeles County routinely overcharge and/or undercharge their contract cities.
Marcia Mayeda, the Department of Animal Care and Control, and its managers and other employees routinely destroy and/or fabricate records for the purpose of obstructing justice, depriving persons of their property, and/or for obtaining and spending public funds under false pretenses.
The amount of money represented by Marcia Mayeda and the Department of Animal Care and Control to the County, State, and contract cities that have been spent on the care and treatment of animals in the County's shelter on an annual basis is far in excess of the money actually spent on the animals and may have been overstated by millions of dollars. Los Angeles County, Marcia Mayeda, and the Department of Animal Care and Control routinely seek to redeem expenses from citizens of Los Angeles Counties whose animals have been impounded by the County and the Department which have not actually been incurred by the Department.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)