Lori Golden Challenges Boks and Boks Rep(lies)

.
Lori Golden of Pet Press received a letter from Ed Boks regarding her editorial from the previous issue. Ed’s response basically was that the Mason raid had nothing to do with the upcoming filming of Animal Precinct in LA.

But before I post his letter, I’d like readers to look at my January 7, 2008 post. In it is my request for public records regarding the Mason raid and Animal Precinct:

Dear Mr. 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.

In your General Manager’s September/October Report to the Animal Services Commission, you stated, “The Department has recently had conversations with the producers of the Animal Planet show “Animal Precinct” about putting together a five-show pilot that would feature the Department’s animal care centers and staff.”

As I believe there may be a relationship between the negotiations you conducted with producers of Animal Planet and Animal Precinct, and recent raids conducted by LA Animal Services, the Animal Cruelty Task Force, the LAPD and City TV, on residences and businesses during October and November of 2007, I request:
Any and all correspondence including memos and emails between Ed Boks and: The producers of Animal Planet; the producers of Animal Precinct; any staff of City TV 35; any members of the ACTF, Jim Bickhart and Jim Blackman regarding the above stated intent of having Animal Services and the ACTF being featured or viewed on any Animal Planet network show, but especially as noted in the Commission notes, LAAS being featured on one or more Animal Precinct shows.

Such emails should contain the type of activities or events that Animal Precinct would be filming, e.g., dogfighting rings, animal hoarders, per store anaimal neglect or abuses.I am especially interested in, but not limited to, correspondence or memos or email between Mr. Boks and any staff member of City TV 35 regarding taping of the raid on the home of Ron Mason on October 11, 2007. The raid has already aired and thus is in the public domain.

Linda Barth’s response data one day later, on January 8 stated:

Your request of January 7, 2008, regarding information related to correspondence between the Department'; General Manager and producers of the Animal Planet television series has been received by the custodian of records. The Department believes that additional time, in excess of the 10 days called for under the Public Records Act, will be necessary to research, collect and review all of the records requested. The Department is therefore advising you that an additional 14 days to respond to your request is necessary.

Well folks, 47 days have passed since that request; I have received nothing.

Here is Boks’ response to Lori’s editorial in the current issue of Pet Press, page 6:

Dear Lori,

“I just read your editorial on the Ron Mason case. There is one key point you bring up that needs clarification.

“No aspect of that case, from the long buildup, to the investigation, to the raid, to the videotaping, to the troubled aftermath, had ANYTHING to do with the animal planet interest in eventually doing a program on the work of the Los Angeles Animal Cruelty Task Force (ACTF). The videotaping was done by the LA’s CityView at the request of LAPD, specifically for “inside the LAPD,” the local show you reference with no prior knowledge by animal services management.

“Animal planet began talking to the city of Los Angeles (which is to say, the LAPD, LAAS and the city attorney, accompanied by the mayor’s office and council member Tony Cárdenas) about doing a show on a ACTF in the summer of 2007. They met with the City Hall officers and the ACTF, toured facilities, went on calls with the ACTF and came to their own conclusions about the viability of the concept.

“In fact, the England-based producers of “Animal Precinct” made their decision, that a preliminary green light from Animal Planet and met with Los Angeles officials to communicate that they expected to base a future “Animal Cops” or “Animal Precinct” show in Los Angeles before the Mason raid took place in November 2007. At that meeting they made it abundantly clear that they, not the city, would handle all production related activities for any program they did and they did not need or want to see any “samples” submitted by the city of Los Angeles for any reason.

“The erroneous and, I dare say, irresponsible rumor that the Mason rate was staged and taped specifically as some kind of audition for animal planet appears to have been propagated by the author of a local blog based on a dearth of hard evidence, and a lot of wild extrapolation. Unfortunately it has led to unwarranted comments by others who had no more real information on this situation to base it on than did the person who started the rumor.

"The Mason case has provided a number of important “lessons learned” for all involved on the City’s part. Perhaps it can do the same for those who write about these issues."

Ed Boks

Lori's response, which you can read for yourself in the current issue of Pet Press, was basically, “Where is the beef?” She stated, “And despite my asking Mr. Boks if the whereabouts of Mr. Mason’s cats, records and traps were “part of the important lessons learned for all involved on the City’s part,” I have received no reply." (By the way, for some of you who are humor challenged, this is sarcasm.)

Your contention the the CityView taping of the Mason raid was made at the request of the ACTF and LAPD with no prior knowledge by Animal Services management is kinda hard to believe, don't you think, as lots of dept ACOs, a dept vet and Lt. Boswell-- all department employees--were there.

They did this without your prior knowledge? They did it behind your back? Were you out applying for another job that week?

Didn't you also outline on your truth vs. rumor defense of the raid that having CityView TV at the raid part of the department's "openness"?

Concerning the irresponsible rumor about the context of the Mason raid “propagated by an author of a local blog based on a dearth of hard evidence and wild extrapolation, which has led to unwarranted comments by others who had no more real information on this situation and did the person who started the rumor” (that would be me), my response would be:

Mr. Boks, I requested the hard evidence and real information from you on January 7. The next day you refused to give me that information until after 10 plus 14 days, or 24 days. Six weeks have gone by, double the time you asked for, and I have received none of that “hard evidence” or “real information.”

One of the ways you could have avoided any irresponsible rumor propagated by me, or unwarranted comments by others, would have been to have complied with my request for any and all “hard evidence and real information” made on January 7. Your failure to respond has led many of us to speculate about your actions and those of the ACTF in the Mason case. I still await your providing me with the hard evidence and real information in this case.

I did not just make up my allegation. Information from a credible source was passed to me that Animal Precinct was taping the show and I had to stop it before other raids, and killing like what happened to Ron Mason, took place. It was a plea for help to me to stop you from doing more of what you did to Mr. Mason.

As to whether producers made it abundantly clear at the meeting that they did not want samples, is your story, and I assume you are sticking to it. Show us the emails Mr. Boks. Make your case with something in writing.

Even in your letter to Lori Golden, I note that the timeline you refer to still makes me suspect as false your allegation that all decisions made by animal precinct, including that they “made it abundantly clear that they did not need or want to see any samples submitted by the city of Los Angeles for any reason.”

In your letter to Lori Golden you state that the Mason raid took place in November of 2007, and if anyone should know, you should, that the raid took place on October 11, two days after your General Manager’s report to the commission mentioned that you and the producers of animal precinct were recently having conversaions.

In that October 7 report you stated, “The Department has recently had conversations with the producers of the Animal Planet show “Animal Precinct” about putting together a five-show pilot that would feature the Department’s animal care centers and staff.” Well, doesn't "recently" then mean September, well after you contend everyting was a done deal during the summer, and a month before the Mason raid?

In your letter to Lori, you basically stated that everything was a done deal during the summer of 2007, when in your October General Managers report you stated that you recently had conversations with the producers of Animal Pplanet's show Animal Precinct.

Until you provide me with the hard evidence I requested, especially specific contracts, and emails to and from the City Attorney, I’ll stand by my speculation that the Mason raid was associated with Animal Planet filming in LA.

By the way Ed, as Lori mentioned, where are the records regarding Mason’s cats Brad Jensen asked for on October 30, and subsequently requested by me twice?

It is kind of hard for us to say anything about anything, Ed, when you withhold any evidence about anything, and your timeline about the Mason case and Animal Planet is so vague.

I think you are not to be trusted Mr. Boks.

Can Private Groups Run the City's Shelters?

.
I know everyone at the City will hate this idea, but it has been done in many, many cities across the country.

Can we disband the department and turn operations over to private groups?

In these other cities, they send out requests for proposals for defined services at a fixed budget.

Performance levels can be fixed and if the private group cannot meet their charged goals, they would lose the contract.

It could be done in any number of ways. One way is to have each shelter run by a different private group or cooperative of groups. Each shelter would have a separate budget determined by the usage and types and conditions of animal brought in.

All groups could be separate or there can be an oversight central command structure.

Since the dept would be disbanded, employees would be shifted to other departments, such as public relations or to the mayoral staff. Good employees would be rehired by the shelters.

Just an idea. I don't know if or how it could be implemented.
.

Stray Cat Alliance Outperforms Animal Services by 1,600%

.
On January 25 I got a notice from Cristi Metropole saying that Stray Cat Alliance had rescued 40 live cats from a "hoarder" a few days before. The cats belonged to a very ill 80-year old woman in Northride, the same area as Ron Mason, and apparently they had not eaten in days and had no water. Some cats were desperately ill.

Remember, according to Lt. Boswell, Ron's cats had been eating well, had water, shelter, and they had verified records of medical attention with vet visits; so their medical condition could not have been worse than Cristi's rescues.

On January 25, I said we have a real opportunity to compare the live save rates of a private rescue group and Animal Services. LAAS killed 65% of Ron's (57 to 63) animals within a day or two because they were ill, or in Boks' words, irremediably suffering.

A kill rate of half, 33%, would be 100% better than Animal Services, 16% would be 400% better, and 8% would be 800% better, etc.

So, what was the Stray Cat Alliance live save rate 25 days after the rescue?

ONE cat died durng treatment at the vet; 39 out of 40 survived! All the others were successfully treated.

What was the Stray Cat Alliance's live save rate?

97.5%!!!

.

Unbelievable isn't it? An underfunded private rescue group did almost 2,000% better than Animal Services in treating ill animals.

.

So when Boks claims to be making fantastic success at saving animals never saved before, or more animals are dying in the shelter now because they are trying to save more animals than before, know that that is not true. They are failing the animals.

.

I hope Dana Bartholomew., Rick Orlov and Carla Hall are reading this. This is a valid comparison over a similar sample or rescued cats, of what a private rescue group, without an in-house vet staff, can do versus a 300 employee department with an in-house veterinary staff of six.

.

This is the post from the Stray Cat Alliance. This shows the living conditions and gives the background of their rescue. Please send a donation. Hopfully this post will not lead to them being raided by the ACTF for being hoarders.

.

http://www.straycatalliance.org/northridge.html

.

Thoughts on the No-Kill Movement

I am starting a new blog soon called “No Kill Nation” which will investigate all aspects of the No-Kill movement. I will solicit comments for a dialogue. Unfortunately, many criticisms will be about definitions and wording, not about the need for no kill or how to attain it.

However, I’d like to offer some preliminary thoughts now.

Nathan Winograd is at the heart and soul of the No-Kill movement. He is the rally point as well as the lightening rod for criticism.

No-Kill is a revolution and we need a revolutionary leader. Winograd is our Lenin.

I will get 20 angry comments about this statement, but I stick to it.

Like Lenin, Nathan is no longer running any commune or shelter system. (Actually, Lenin isn't doing anything now. He has retired.) He is a very vocal advocate. There may be a dozen shelter managers better than he ever was.

He has a plan, but the plan, the recommendations are like those for founding a Kibbutz or commune. Whether the plan works or not is almost irrelevant; the concept of the Kibbutz or No-Kill shelter is everything.

Besides the plan published on his website and in his book, are only the slimist skeleton of a plan. If you look at his detailed analyses and recommendations for specific shelters, you find enormous depth and detail from someone with practical experience.

However, Nathan’s methods so far have a fatal flaw: How to implement his recommendations and how to sustain a no kill shelter system after the war is won.

We know with absolute certainty that no kill cannot sustain without adequate resources: money; volunteers; good and enough employees; an adequate shelter facility.

Where Nathan’s and other no kill shelters are failing is lack of resources.

Attaining no kill is like a war. It motivates energy and resources from volunteers, donors, the media, etc. But after the war is won, there is the occupation and the resources needed to sustain the occupation.

Volunteers burn out and donors disappear, or can disappear after two or three years of occupation unless the volunteer sources are supplanted or even replaced by paid employees, which means more money and sustained good management.

Winograd really doesn’t tell us how to sustain the momentum or how to get sustained government support.

Philly is having a hard time due to lack of resources and an attempted hostile takeover by the Philly SPCA. Winograd blames the failure on his chosen successors.

This can be a fatal flaw in his strategy. Rather than ask help for Philly, or to come back and help Philly, he just walks away from what could be a perceived failure of the viability of no kill. One time he actually told me he only consulted with Rancho (or Philly, I don't remeber which. I'll have to look for that email.) for a few months therefore he was not responsible for what was happening presently.

Ithaca is having trouble because local governments want services on the cheap, forcing Tompkins County shelter to eat their own resources to keep no kill alive. I can’t believe the county cannot spring for $40,000 for the entire county, or local government double their paltry support.

No kill sheltering needs a lobbyist above and beyond donations.

It is the occupation that becomes the critical factor after no kill is attained.

As long as the revolutionary leader is present, the resources will be there. But when he or she leaves, volunteer efforts and donations will disappear too. Revolutionary management needs to be replaced by good lobbyists, managers and financial guys. Nathan does not show how to maintain the gains.

He also does not address what is purportedly the biggest obstacle to attaining the original success: dealing with unions and civil service. This may be only a straw man obstacle used by Bickhart and others to explain why Boks has not achieved a substantial improvement in live save rates.

Carl Friedman says this excuse is bull; good management can surmount even these obstacles. He says he has to deal with all kinds of layers of civil service as well as seven unions, and that LA has enormous resources compared to San Francisco.

The revolution is not faltering at this point, it is just beginning. Local failures are not yet a significant point. The significant point is to create the will and hope for a no-kill nation and Nathan is doing that well despite several shelter heads literally calling him an asshole and a liar. It seems the no kill movement is filled with assholes and liars, but the same might have been said of any revolutionary leader and may be true or not.

My greatest criticism of Nathan is that he attacks shelter management with whom he has consulted and who fail to attain instant success, such as in Philadelphia. Why did he not say that Philly needs more resources? His vitriol should be directed towards real enemies of no kill, not those who have tried and failed. His attacks make him appear petty and small and we need a leader larger than that.

Of course there are other criticisms of Nathan, such that he allegedly plagerizes authors who are expert in areas of animal care where he is not, and his alleged propensity to threaten lawsuit at the drop of the hat. These are character flaws from my viewpoint, but not critical flaws with regard to his leadership of the no kill movement.

I do wish the various no kill leaders would engage in overt dialogue as opposed to covert attacks on each other. All aspects of no kill sheletring need to be examined in the light of public debate. I certainly would like Carl Friedman, Boks and Winogard in a series of debates or written dialogue siunce they all seem to have contempt for each other.

Just my opinion.
.

I might have to be doing some apologizing

.
I had promised to back off from the Mason case if he were allowed to get his cats back and place them himself, or at least choose what organizations could adopt out his cats. Cocek sent a memo to this effect to Dov Lesel.

Ron said Boswell told him he could choose who could adopt the cats.

Then Ron was told at the front desk of the West Valley shelter that he could only adopt the cats to New Hope partners. He asked for a list, but the woman there refused to give him one. How the hell can you beat that logic?

I went ballistic.

However--I am trying to find this out--this may have been the decision of that single employee to refuse Mason disposition of the cats, not Boswell, not Boks, and ceratinly not Cocek. I have dealt with this individual before, and she is one of the least helpful people I ever met and certainly should not be at the front desk of any shelter. I am not the first to notice this because she wears her I.D. badge on her back, not in front so that people can read her name.

I'll find out more tomorrow.

If it turns out it was not Boswell's or Boks' decision to deny Ron Mason final disposition of the cats, I will shut up and I will also apologize repeatedly.
.

LAAS and Managerial Screw Up

.
Nine people have emailed me this story.

Anonymous has explained to me what this is all about:

"When you adopt, redeem, rescue, drop off an animal from the shelter they copy your drivers license.

If you are a rescuer or volunteer they ask for your social security number and drivers license. Rescuers must also provide tax returns, tax ID numbers, home addresses, microchip information.

All of these paper documents were stored at the shelter. When they moved out of the old shelters into the new ones, they left all these confidential documents behind where anyone could go through them. There was credit card information in the files when people adopted or bought a license. Checking account information was in the files. Medical records from people bitten by dogs were in there. Complaints about barking dogs were in there.

Someone wasn't paying attention when they moved. People's identities could be stolen, checking accounts drained, credit cards maxed out. This is a major violation."

Video of this story:

http://video.knbc.com/player/?id=219794


Obviously this is what you get with a non-hands on general manager who leaves operational details to who knows whom.

But the story has little to do with the welfare of the animals in Ed's charge. The real story would be was Animal Services as inattentive of the animals as the records?

LA Leaves Residents' Private Information In Abandoned Lot

LOS ANGELES - A KNBC investigation revealed how the city of Los Angeles might have put thousands of people at risk of having their identities stolen. Investigative Reporter Joel Grover was tipped off that the city left outside, for anyone to take, boxes and boxes of confidential files on its citizens.

KNBC found private information on thousands of people sitting outside of an abandoned lot in LA -- everything you'd need to steal someone's identity, Grover reported.

"I don't want to go through it again," said Laura Weir. "Once was enough." Weir had her identity stolen once before, with thieves charging thousands of dollars in her name.

The records KNBC found contain names, driver's license numbers, dates of birth, checking account information and Social Security numbers.

"I couldn't believe it, that it was just sitting there," Weir said.

KNBC found the confidential files sitting outside two abandoned city animal shelters, one in West Los Angeles and one in Van Nuys, which the city closed nine months ago.

The city took the animals but left behind investigative files that contained sensitive information about pet owners and about people who complained about their neighbors' pets. The city also left the medical records of people bitten by animals.

"When they're through with them, they should shred them," Weir said.
In fact, the files were supposed to be destroyed, Grover reported. Now, it appears thieves have gone through the building and the boxes of documents.

"Somebody is in deep trouble," said Jay Foley, who runs the Identity Theft Resource Center. "There is a photocopy of this gentleman's driver's license, as well as his Social Security card. That's all I need to steal his identity."

Foley examined the files KNBC found, like that of Shawn Aghdassi, a pet owner and small businessman who has also had his identity stolen twice.

Aghdassi said he expected the city would be more careful with his private information. "You're supposed to trust the government," Aghdassi said.

So how does the city explain leaving this confidential information just lying around?

Ed Boks, the head of animal service, refused to talk to KNBC. But in an e-mail he said that when the city was moving to a shelter "our complete focus rested on the animals." And, as a result, paper records were not properly disposed of. He promised it would "not happen again."

"The city needs to take a very strong look at the way they're handling things, the way they're doing things, to make sure this doesn't happen again," Foley said.
.

No Kill May Fail in Tompkins County

.
Nathan Winograd launched his career by taking Tompkins County to No-Kill.

One critic said she brought Tompkins County almost to no-kill before Nathan came.

Then there was the very recent article that No-Kill may fail in Tompkins County due to lack of funding from a very stingy County that ought to be ashamed of itself. If No-Kill is a failure there, it is largely the County and other contractor's fault.

Yet the question whether No-Kill is sustainable or not remains unanswered. Nathan rarely addresses the subject of sustainablity after No-Kill is achieved.

Things are fine at no-kill shelters as long as Nathan is there because of his No-Kill guru status. However, the successes do not appear to sustain after he leaves for more than a year or so. The number of agencies he has consulted with is small and we do not know whether his blueprints will work in a broader range of municipal and private shelters, and if they do not attain or sustain, why?

Donors fade into the background after the electricity of attaining No-Kill passes. Employees and volunteers burn out. Lack of Nathan's continued inspiration and presence seems to be a large part of the failures.

When No-Kill begins to fail, Nathan has historically disavowed himself from the failure by blaming the shelter for not following his recommendations, as he did with Philadelphia and Rancho Cucaminga.

Charlottesville N.C., which he was touting last year as a great success has refused to send me more detailed statistics than those posted on their website, leading me to speculate they are not doing as well this year.

This raises the question not whether No-Kill is possible, but is it sustainable without Nathan's constant presence and his guru status ability to attract volunteers and funding?

He has distanced himself from his pride and joy of 2006, Philadelphia. Will he distance himself from Charlottesville if they fall below a 90% save rate?

Nathan has yet to address issues of implementation given budget limitations, unions and civil service, and susatinability after he leaves.

Nathan is absolutely brilliant at analyzing shelter operations and how to attain optimal functioning within the constraints of budget and personnel.

Ed Boks has never seen the inside of his shelters unless Villaraigosa or the press was there. He has left it to his employees to attain No-Kill for each shelter without providing direction or plan.

Perhaps he could just refer emplpoyees to Nathan's very long and very thorough analysis and recommendations for Philadelphia to give them an idea of what has to be done and how to do it.

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/linked/paccaassessment.pdf

Nathan is unsurpassed at bringing in money and volunteers because of his no-kill guru status. But how to sustain?

http://theithacan.org/am/publish/news/200710_Changes_in_SPCA_funding_may_end_no-kill_policy.shtml

Article #1:

Changes in SPCA funding may end no-kill policy

By Samantha Allen Staff Writer October 25th, 2007

Low funding for the Tompkins County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) for its animal control services could force the county to hire a municipal shelter that will not practice the association’s “no-kill” policy.

Abigail Smith, executive director of the Tompkins County SPCA, said the county pays $1.76 per capita per year for its services under its contract — less than half of the national average of $4.00 to $6.00. Smith said the SPCA is demanding the board increase its payment for its services from $21,700 a year to $41,400 a year.

“Five years ago, the SPCA had funds in its reserves, and, considering the humane treatment of all animals in its mission, we covered the gap,” Smith said, “But I discovered that luxury doesn’t exist. The reserves are gone.”

Since 1987, the SPCA has provided animal control services for the 10 municipalities within Tompkins County under its no-kill policy, which has served as a model for other anti-euthanization SPCAs like those in San Francisco and Philadelphia, Smith said.

If funding demands are not met, Smith said, the SPCA’s contract will be dropped and it will no longer provide animal control services to Tompkins County.

Ithaca College sophomore Callie Tresser, a cat socializer at the SPCA, said dropping the contracts would be a mistake. As it stands now, Tresser says there aren’t enough funds to provide food and resources to all the cats with which she works.
“The fact that [the board isn’t] giving more money [to the cause] is awful and it’s not right,” Tresser said.

Smith said the SPCA’s national mission is the prevention of cruelty to animals. The organization’s objectives include ending overpopulation and providing humane education for the public. Smith said even if the contracts with the county are dropped, the SPCA, which currently takes in about 752 cats and 400 to 500 dogs each year, will continue to serve these primary functions.

Smith said if the municipalities, including Ithaca, Lansing and Dryden, do not comply with the SPCA’s proposed budget, a new vendor will have to provide the animal control function for Tompkins County. This could mean euthanizing the animals after a standard holding period of five to 30 days. There are few alternatives for the county that will provide animal control services under a no-kill policy, Smith said.

“If the county decides to drop the contracts, they would be eliminating that no-kill policy [that protects these strays],” Smith said. “I can’t imagine [the community wanting that].”

Cathy Valentino, town supervisor of Ithaca, said she thinks if the board decides not to continue the contract with the SPCA, other vendors would work similarly to the SPCA model.

“I think some of the [animal control vendors] that I know are very conscientious about working very hard … for the pets,” Valentino said.

Ithaca College senior Elise Huston, who interned at the SPCA last summer, said she is concerned opening a contract with a new shelter would infringe upon animal rights.

“This could have an … effect on the [entire] community,” Huston said. “I hope that [students] would come forward and speak up for the animals.”

Valentino, who currently works on a subcommittee of the Tompkins County Council of Governments, which represents the municipalities, dedicated to resolving the issue, said the SPCA’s funding increase would lead to a 2.5 percent rise in city property taxes, which she said might be too high for taxpayers.

William Burbank, a town board member, said the board could cover the costs easily with its fund balance, which is set aside for emergencies like these. He said it would not dramatically alter taxes.

“The [2.5 percent figure] doesn’t make sense,” Burbank said. “If we had to raise taxes, it would be a 1.9 percent increase in property tax … [but] we could raise it from other sources.”

The board’s budget has to be finalized by Nov. 20. Valentino said the committee has proposed a six-month extension to the SPCA but the organization has not complied. Burbank is “confident” that the budget will be configured appropriately before the deadline.

Valentino, who has received letters from community members in support of the SPCA, said the board wants to stick with the SPCA’s services, but it is the board’s responsibility to research other options.

“[We want to try to stay with the SPCA] because of the quality they give us and the reputation they have throughout the nation,” Valentino said regarding the esteemed no-kill policy. “They are an important part of the fabric of our community.”

Though Smith said she is optimistic the issue will be resolved by the start of the new year, she said she is still trying to make community members aware of the animal rights at risk if the SPCA animal control contract is dropped.

“I want [the community members] to know that [the SPCA] did everything we could to try and maintain these contracts and to continue to provide these services,” she said. “I want everyone in the community to have the opportunity to tell their town governments what they want and how they feel.”

Article #2:

No Kill Doesn't work in Tompkins Co. NY

by Lori TylerMonday Feb 18th, 2008 4:25 PM

As a previous shelter manager of a shelter Nathan Winograd "saved" and a board member of an SPCA in a neighboring community, I absolutely believe that the "No Kill" movement has failed us in Tompkins Co.- once touted as the "safest place in the US for animals"

I was the manager at the Ithaca SPCA two years before Nathan was hired. Under my management, the euthanasia rate for all animals (not just those deemed adoptable) decreased by about 50%. We were developing programs to achieve "no-kill" before he came along. In fact, the board resolved to stop euthanizing BEFORE Nathan was even working at the shelter.

What he did do was raise money and he built a new shelter (which we had already been planning and had already bought the property for). However, this shelter is not sustainable for the shelter. They cannot afford the operate it- its too big.

Now that Nathan has gone away, the donors have dwindled and they are in a danger of losing their animal control contracts as they have had to ask for large increases in money from the towns and city.

At my shelter in a neighboring county, we have been lured into "trying to keep up with the Jones'" attitude. We tried to change our euthanasia policy to be similar, but we didn't have the programs to keep the animals moving, and we ended up with a warehouse situation and we couldn't care for the number of cats in our care.

We now have more stringent euthanasia guidelines- including euthanizing for issues such as dental disease and poor socialability. "No-Kill" is a euphemism for "limited admission". Animals aren't truly safe if they are being dumped on animal control or left in the street.

I personally want to be part of an organization that accepts all homeless animals in the community and tried to help them- even if that means some will be euthanized. There are worse things in this world than euthanasia- I have seen them. I choose to euthanize over leaving an animal to suffer in a cage, starve on the street, or suffer from a treatable- yet un-affordable to care for disease.

You can limit the number of animals being euthanised in your shelter by creating programs to increase adoptions and reduce the number of animals coming in. It is not, IMO, a front-loaded proclamation- it the the result of sustainable programs within the shelter and in the community.

Once the population is stable and the community sees your results- the money will come to help you help more animals be adoptable. We are far from this in Chemung Co. It is far easier to get a cat from your neighbor than the shelter and far easier to just leave your cat to breed recklessly than get her spayed. This is where we need to work- not making sweeping proclamations about not killing animals.
.

Give Ron's Cats a Break

.
I would have let up on the Mason case had Boswell listened to Cocek who suggested to Dov Lesel that Mason should direct who got his cats. It did not happen. Ron was told he would never have anything to do with those cats again.

Mason got three back and recues took another five. About twelve remain at the West Valley shelter. Ron signed them over to Animal Services because they would not let him do anything with them and they had been jailed in small cages for over three months. For some of them, it is now over four months.

Ron says there are about 12 there now. Two are up front and the rest in the evidence room with a yellow dot on their cages with an impound date of October 11.

The two up front are Hildy (renamed Henrey once his true sex was revealed) and the other Tia.

Some of the others have reverted to a semi-feral state due to being held in cages for four months. Sergio and some others at the shelter are working at resocializing them.

PLEASE ADOPT THEM, EITHER FOR YOURSELF, OR AS A FOSTER TO MAKE SURE THEY GET GOOD HOMES.

Ron has medical records on most of them. None are more than four years old.

Ron's phone number for more info:

(818) 993-6816

PS: Ron feels sorry that Boswell is taking the brunt of criticism for the raid. He said they had a couple of years working with each other and they had almost a friendship. He blames the cops that were there: Lt. Ortega, Lt. Diamico and "Jenney." He thinks Troy was just there directing Animal Sevices and is now the scapegoat.
.

Troy Boswell Fired?

.
It appears that Troy Boswell is no longer head of the Animal Cruelty Task Force.

Hopefully this was the result of the Mason case fiasco.

Now he is in charge of the Spay/Neuter Task Force and permits.

God help any 503 that Boks or Boswell does not like.

Boks = Death+ Ammended

.
One of my favorite readers left the comment below. It reflects what I feel about the Mason case, Boks, Boswell and Bartholomew. (The Three Bs). Actually Dana and I get along well. I just disagree with him 100% about what happened to Mason.

By the way, this is day 9 of my third Request for Public Records regarding all information, medical records, lab results, photographs and euthanasia information of all the cats seized fron Mason and killed that same day. These were evidence animals and required a judge's order to be destroyed.

I have to check with Brad Jensen whether he received the requested info by snail mail, but I doubt it. I'll bet they have NOTHING in terms of medical records, lab tests, photos or reasons for killing the cats. They just did it without a second thought.

Preliminary Chameleon info shows only one cat to have been irremediably suffering, not 25 as Boks alleged. Maybe that is why Boks took down his libelous post about Mason almost a month after he was cleared, because it stated 25 cats were killed because they were irremediably suffering.

It appears Boks is going to tough it out and just refuse to respond. He just killed the cats for no reason that first day and maybe a total of 40. Boks/Boswell never gave Mason the legally required (PC 597.1) Postseizure Hearing where the case for seizure is made along with a mechanism to get his property--the cats--back, or at least deciding their disposition.

Boks basically has said to all of us and Mason, "Fuck you. I can do anything I want because the Mayor backs me, Bickhart defends me and Mason does not have a lawyer." The Daily News does not appear to care either.

Remember, Ron Mason is Everyman; he represents all of us in the animal community who are at risk of repraisal if we do anything that displeases Boks, Boswell, the ACTF, etc. They can say anything they want and the media will dutifully repeat the City's libelous claims.

THE COMMENT:

Thanks for the Mason story.

Sure doesn't rise to the level of what Dana Bartholomew promised, which was to "write a story" once the case was decided one way or the other. This isn't a followup, and it doesn't address the myriad of civil rights violations Boks perpetrated against Ron Mason, including lying about him on an offical city website.

This is just CYA on the part of the Daily News, and completely lame at that. Dana and his bosses better hope Mason doesn't get a lawyer.The one thing I hope WE take away from this is that this whole incident was a blatant attempt by Boks to curry favor and rehab his irretrievably lost reputation with the rescue community.

He deliberately went after a white man (not what he thinks WE will perceive as a victim), he overtly states that Ron was breeding cats, which he knew was false because he had all Ron's spay/neuter paperwork. He charges a felony (and don't give me "the City Attorney brings the charges -- look at the videotape and see what Boswell says), even though since LAAS has had a relationship with Ron for years.

If he HAD been perpetrating felony abuse they would have been negligent in not getting him sooner.He kills a bunch of cats he knew weren't sick, including the original six kittens who were the bogus premise for the bust.And when the City Attorney won't go along with this baseles pile of garbage "case," he continues to twist the knife in Ron to the bitter end, in violation of his agreement with Ed M., and for NO other reason than to vent his spite because oops! it turned out Ron wasn't the friendless patsy Boks thought he was.

Let's remember just who we're dealing with. Let's remember that he's no better than Mayeda, he just has a smaller playing field. But he kills cats for spite.

ANOTHER READER JUST LEFT ANOTHER COMMENT THAT NEEDS POSTING
.
FTR I posted the Mason "follow up" story.

I didn't see it in the paper. I had to pay for the article in the archives.

It was a small part of the "around the valley" section where they had five tiny stories strung together. It was buried in the paper. Mason has not been exonerated.

Poster one, who is policing the police, exactly. There was an article in the Times last week about LAPD. They investigate themselves when there are excessive force complaints. Guess what? In every investigation, they get rid of evidence, change what witnesses said and they find no excessive force. Amazing. Our government is so effed up.

Newspapers and Their Reporters

.
There is no such thing as investigative reporting regarding any City/County department unless one offical, such as the Mayor or Supervisor, decides to criticize a department or another city official as Villaraigosa did with the Delgadillo in order to divert press attention from his love life.

The town's newspapers, from the Times to the Daily News to the various Breezes ALWAYS take the side of the official explanations. They may mention "animal activist" groups claim... But they almost never do any investigative reporting. They just report what each side says and you'll find the official government side has about three times as much copy as the "activist" complaints. The reporter never investigates for him or herself. They may interview a few other sources--rarely--to fill out a story, but when it comes to LAAS or County, they never request public records to investigate allegations for themselves. If they do, they are not telling us about it.

One of the few exceptions to this rule is CityBeat when it comes to LAAS. They began nailing Boks within months after he started. I wish I knew then what I know now.

The other newspapers owe their access to city hall's good graces, which disappears if a reporter criticizes a city or county operation without the Mayor or Supervisor taking the lead. AND, the mayor and supervisor will without fail stand behind the "findings" of their pretend investigations, led by their own staffers, replete with altered records.

They will not endanger their city contacts, even when they know they are lying, because they are media whores. As someone I knew in Santa Monica government said, staffers lie from top to bottom as easily as they breathe air, not because they have to, so much as it is part of the culture. It is a culture of lying just as in LA and County.

There is no such thing as reporter integrity in this town when it comes to city hall or the county, and there certainly is no investigative reporting.

The same holds true with TV news. One reporter wanted to air a story of his findings of animal neglect and overcrowding in LA's shelters. ABC management cancelled the project.

The closest you get to investiagtive reporting re LA animal issues are the blogs and some of the animal newspapers.. We may get it wrong sometimes, but that is because no one in government is sharing information. City hall and the BOS are black boxes. The only information to come out are half truths, spins and lies. Once in a while you have a whistleblower that makes change happen by providing evidence of incompetence or downright fraud.

Jim Bickhart often says get your facts straight or no one will belive you. But Jim, who is going to give us the stright facts? You; Boks chief apologist?

Look at the Mason case. He was skewered by Dana Bartholomew as well as City TV and the LAAS website. Dana claims to have written a "short" followup, but no one mentions that Mason was arrested, his cats and cages seized, 65% of the cats killed based on fraudulent evidence, and no charges ever were brought against him because there was no case. No one has told the truth about Mason. True, as a viewer claims, I never saw Dana's alleged followup either.

Again, the Blogger spellchecker is not working.

Mayeda Blames Rescuers

The Daily Breeze today:

A 10-month-old puppy who died at Los Angeles County's animal shelter in Carson did not freeze to death, as animal rights activists have claimed, but died from complications from an upper respiratory infection, county officials claim in a report that will be discussed by the Board of Supervisors today.

But county officials conceded that a staffing shortage at the shelter likely prevented the puppy from receiving all of the antibiotics it needed.

Responding to a request by the Board of Supervisors for an investigation, Mayeda and county CEO William Fujioka prepared a report denying the charge that Zephyr died from pneumonia caused by exposure to the cold.

"The charge was false, but unduly alarmed a number of well-meaning people," according to the report.

The report notes, however, that a staffing shortage caused Zephyr to miss "a couple" doses of antibiotics while she was being treated a second time for an upper respiratory infection. She did not respond to treatment, her condition worsened and she died, according to the report.

According to the report, the staffing shortage had been fixed, with two new registered veterinary technicians hired at Carson.

The report recommends that the county spend $313,000 to refurbish the Carson Animal Shelter as well implement a several procedural improvements, some of which have already been put in place.

Most notably, the Department of Animal Care and Control reviewed its policy of allowing volunteers to "hold" an animal -- preventing the animal from being euthanized with the understanding that it will be soon be adopted.

Zephyr, who died after five weeks at the Carson shelter, had been on hold for a full month.

"The Department has corrected this abuse of the system by insisting the animals be removed in a timely manner," that is, within several days, according to the report.

This is a crock as we all know. Zephyr missed " a couple of doses of anitbiotics" and died? I'd like to see her medical records before they altered them.

Now Mayeda blames rescuers too, and, as they allege, she is punishing them. Now more animals will be killed because they cannot be put on hold for mnore than a week. Was Zephyr on hold for a month?

Mayeda Says After 6-1/2 Years On the Job, She is Just Getting Started

.
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.

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.
.

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

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
.

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.

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.

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.
.

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.

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."

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
.

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.
.