The same people who brought us the raining death on Santa Monica ground squirrels, are about to exterimate cats using the same phony reasoning they used to kill the squirrels: They are vectors for rabies and Plague. Crap, they are unoriginal. They use this excuse everytime they want to kill something.
This is from Stray Cat Alliance.
http://www.straycatalliance.org/sca_knabe_dec08.html
Dear Felines Friends:
As many of you have been following, LA County Animal Control has been ordered by County Supervisor Don Knabe's office to get rid of over 100 fixed, healthy stray and feral cats living peacefully on the abandoned grounds of Rancho Los Amigos. They give ridiculous reasons like the plague and rabies, both of which the County's own veterinarian has stated basically these disease do not exist in cats in California.
The country has fenced off the abandoned buildings where the cats have lived for years. They have boarded up some areas and are planning on boarding up some more. The County gives ridiculous excuses, i.e. they will leave 2 holes not boarded up for the cats to escape but the truth is we don't know if those holes are accessible to all places.
Please read the blog for more information and a statement by Dr Patricia Meredith, MD, PhD on this misleading medical information.
http://ranchocats.blogspot.com/
PLEASE call the Office of Don Knabe and politely ask them to work with TNR groups to have the cats co-exist and to stop the non sense of trapping and killing the cats.
http://www.knabe.com/
Tel: 213-974-4444 Fax: 213-626-6941
Please do NOT let the Office of Don Knabe send you to Animal Control. Animal Control is ONLY taking orders from Don Knabe's office. ONLY public pressure will stop this slaughter.
I just spoke to the office and the nice lady said the same old same old. Then she said she would give my message to Aaron Navarez. I said he is Animal Control and has NO power and to PLEASE pass my message to someone who works directly with Mr Knabe. She said she would try but Officer Navarez just called me back. We have to get through to people who can do something.
PLEASE call and get all your friends to call too but please read the blog first.
This blog will be updated daily.
Please contact us at info@straycatalliance.org after you have contacted County Supervisor Knabe's office so that we can keep track of correspondence.
My comment:
This is definitely a situation calling for civil disobedience--of couse I am not advocating it--but if I were, it would be in this situation.
I am sure many of you out there feel the same way. Time to get some wire cutters and crowbars to remove boarding.
Here is the URL for numerous photos of what Knabe is doing.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32986567@N04/?saved=1
Here are more specific employees and emails in Knabe's Office to email and talk to. I guess this situation would be at the Downey fieild office, so call there.
http://www.knabe.com/staff.html
Chick's Audit of the Shelter Construction Projects
Hot off the press, Chick's Audit of the Prop F shelter construction projects.
http://itisnotreal.com/ChickRevisedAudit.pdf
http://itisnotreal.com/ChickRevisedAudit.pdf
Great Work By Animal Cruelty Task Force
17 Dogs Saved from Dog-Fighting Ring
The LAPD's Animal Cruelty Task Force announced today a successful break up of a profitable dog fighting ring in South LA. Since February 2007, detectives have looked into the location on the 600 block of West 85th Street where they say they found "mistreated dogs living in horrendous conditions at the residence" along with "equipment used in the training, breeding and exercising of the animals." 17 dogs in all were rescued and two men have already been arrested, tried and convicted.
Click on the address above, and it goes to google maps, which also provides a street view. You can click on that to see what the actual location looks like.
The LAPD's Animal Cruelty Task Force announced today a successful break up of a profitable dog fighting ring in South LA. Since February 2007, detectives have looked into the location on the 600 block of West 85th Street where they say they found "mistreated dogs living in horrendous conditions at the residence" along with "equipment used in the training, breeding and exercising of the animals." 17 dogs in all were rescued and two men have already been arrested, tried and convicted.
Click on the address above, and it goes to google maps, which also provides a street view. You can click on that to see what the actual location looks like.
Life After Daisy
Since Daisy died we have room for one more kitty at our house.
I found a new street kitty near where I feed, alone and living in a tree. At first I thought she was a kitten because she was so small.
Feeling her, I realized she was skin and bones and maybe an older cat with kidney failure. I started feeding her alone; she was not part of any colony and apparently stayed alive by eating some hard kibble left each night by someone feeding a small groups of cats a half block away.
Since she was so small she got only the leftovers.
At first she did not eat much of the canned food I gave her, but as she got stronger she is eating more and more, now close to three 6 oz. cans a day. She has become a real lover ball and I am making room for her by installing a temporary isolation cage for her in the garage.
I think she is pretty old, although each day she seems healthier and healthier.
After she comes in and settles down, I'll take her to a vet for blood tests and whatever else she needs and then introduce her to the two other cats. I'd like to give her a year or two of love before she dies.
I found a new street kitty near where I feed, alone and living in a tree. At first I thought she was a kitten because she was so small.
Feeling her, I realized she was skin and bones and maybe an older cat with kidney failure. I started feeding her alone; she was not part of any colony and apparently stayed alive by eating some hard kibble left each night by someone feeding a small groups of cats a half block away.
Since she was so small she got only the leftovers.
At first she did not eat much of the canned food I gave her, but as she got stronger she is eating more and more, now close to three 6 oz. cans a day. She has become a real lover ball and I am making room for her by installing a temporary isolation cage for her in the garage.
I think she is pretty old, although each day she seems healthier and healthier.
After she comes in and settles down, I'll take her to a vet for blood tests and whatever else she needs and then introduce her to the two other cats. I'd like to give her a year or two of love before she dies.
A Dance of Compassion
I feed one colony of 5 cats. All cats are fixed. There is one inconstant visitor who I don’t know is fixed or not, and may be part of a colony around the corner about 1/2 block away. I generally feed around 10 pm. I sneak in and out when possible. But I have been doing this for 6 years and everyone knows I do it, including several residents who express how unhappy they are with me.
One night two weeks ago, I went around the corner of the alley where I feed, where there are 5 houses across the street from the schoolyard. I stayed there for an hour and a half. I repeated the process two times more over the next two weeks at slightly different times to better watch what was going on. I watched over periods from 9 pm to 11:30.
What I saw was amazing.
Each night I saw an average of 11-12 cats in the alley with 6 houses on each side, and one short block of five houses around the corner, across from the school yard. My stable colony of 5 may have had as many as 6 additional visitors over 3-4 nights. They came in after the colony fed, and usually there was no food left over, but they came anyway.
During that same period I saw 4 feeders feeding this group of 12 even though 3 feeders (including me) fed the alley cats at different times and 2 fed the schoolyard cats at different times. Therefore, at some colonies 3 feeders were feeding at different times, and at the schoolyard site, 2. One one feeder overlapped the two colonies. Each had their own section or neighborhood so to speak.
One night two weeks ago, I went around the corner of the alley where I feed, where there are 5 houses across the street from the schoolyard. I stayed there for an hour and a half. I repeated the process two times more over the next two weeks at slightly different times to better watch what was going on. I watched over periods from 9 pm to 11:30.
What I saw was amazing.
Each night I saw an average of 11-12 cats in the alley with 6 houses on each side, and one short block of five houses around the corner, across from the school yard. My stable colony of 5 may have had as many as 6 additional visitors over 3-4 nights. They came in after the colony fed, and usually there was no food left over, but they came anyway.
During that same period I saw 4 feeders feeding this group of 12 even though 3 feeders (including me) fed the alley cats at different times and 2 fed the schoolyard cats at different times. Therefore, at some colonies 3 feeders were feeding at different times, and at the schoolyard site, 2. One one feeder overlapped the two colonies. Each had their own section or neighborhood so to speak.
Most feeders left a fairly small amount of food, not nearly enough to sustain the colony alone. Perhaps they would have left a lot more as I fed first and fed well.
I went with one of the alley feeders one night 6 months ago to see what she did. She fed 13 different colonies. At 2 locations, at least one other feeder fed them at different times. She did not practice TNR but assisted when some TNR group volunteered to help them. I was amazed to find at one location ,at the back of a large parking lot with two restaurants, they (she and another "cat lady") had a permanent feeding station which they claimed had been there for 10 years. One of the cats allegedly had been there for that entire time.
I know of a fifth feeder in the same area who is mostly retired from feeding, and had also fed those same alley cats in the past. She still fed other colonies out of the immediate area and also nearer her house.
I am sure I missed both some cats and perhaps a feeder. Some cats appeared to be indoor-outdoor house cats out for additional feed. Many were fairly tamed .
A black cat observed in both locations may have been "community" between the 2 colonies or there were 2 different black cats. I think there were two.
Who could know the true number without tagging and trapping?
It is obvious from the short observation that the number of cats on the streets on LA must be astronomical and the number of feeders far, far higher than anyone imagined. There was about 1 feeder for every 3-4 cats, and about 1 outdoor cat for every 1-2 households.
I have no idea how representative this is of the residential city overall.
Given that LA has about 4,000,000 people and 1,800,000 households, there may be as many as 1.2 million street cats, housed, strays and ferals in residential areas. I think Merritt Clifton would guesstimate a far lower figure and the Stray Cat Alliance about 3,000,000.
My "guestimate" does not take into account blocks where there are people with "too many" cats, feral and inside/outside domesticated cats. If 1 block in 10 has someone with 25 cats, this would substantially increase the number of outdoor cats. My guess is that there are households where there is an outdoor population of 6-7 cats every 2-3 blocks.
How many residential blocks are there in LA? Then again, there are all the non-residential blocks with supermarkets and restaurants that attract cats, and how many are fed in parks?
Given these observations and calculations, there is no way that street cats will ever be brought to zero as long as so many feeders and cats are on the streets without a massive TNR effort. Even with a massive effort, progress, according to the literature, will be very slow.
Given that only a small percentage of feeders actually also practice TNR, there are always kittens being born, but from what I hear, there is a high mortality rate.
Knowing these people and their attitudes, even if feeding were made illegal, the feeders would continue to feed—no matter what.
I cannot see any solution to ending the pain of cats living in the streets other than an oral vaccination/chemical treatment that lasts a few years. Oral vaccinations, or chemical methods, could either by pill, or included in food. If the latter, there needs to be a chemical/vaccine with a wide latitude of toxicity.
I saw an estimate that anywhere from 5-10% of housed cats become strays each year, and colonies add about 16% new cats each year due to these new strays. I think LAAS guesstimates there are 700,00 housed cats in the city, making about 50,000 new cats added each year, even while many colony cats die from injury, disease or starvation.
TNR efforts would need to continue for years, albeit at a diminishing rate, until it gets down to about 5-10% of what it is now. A high percentage of the new strays are already sterilized.
I was most amazed to observe the psychology of feeders. They will stop at nothing to continue to feed and protect colony cats, despite neighbor harassment, intimidation, official intimidation by Animal Services or police, or even lack of transportation. Nothing stops them.
I was also amazed by the “dance” of the cats and their feeders, with schedules, cat migrations to feeding stations and between sites at various times, and the bondings and behaviors occurring between the cats and their caretakers. Many feeders zip and and out to avoid contact with hostile residents or hiding from them that a colony exists and is being sustained in their midst. Others stay with a colony long enough to pet or play with the cats.
Animal people are the most amazing—if not always rational--people in the world. They are an essential and unrecognized component of the conscience of Los Angeles. Legal and legislative efforts to control feeding would be ignored and a new class of misdemeanor criminals would be born.
Letter to Judge McCoy
LETTER TO JUDGE MCCOY FROM A READER OF THIS BLOG:
(By the way, McCoy's email address is: mccoy@law.ucla.edu). He has not bothered to respond to my email and perhaps to the writer below.)
Dear Judge McCoy,
I’m writing to ask you to look into the disposition of a Small Claims Court case brought by a man named Ron Mason on or around November 19, 2008 and presided over by Court Commissioner Martin Green.
I have read the eyewitness account of four people who were in the courtroom (attached) and if even part of what it recounts is true I find Commissioner Green’s conduct very troubling.
Although I have attached the account for your edification I would like to draw your attention to a couple of particularly egregious allegations:
1. Commissioner Green is alleged to have said several times to Mr. Mason, “Why are you here?” It is a citizen’s right to be heard in Small Claims Court and I can see Commissioner Green’s actions here in no other light than as an attempt to intimidate and belittle Mr. Mason and his right to equal justice under the law, and to redress if his rights have been violated. A Court Commissioner, by questioning those rights, is abrogating them.
2. He referred to the cats who were killed by L.A. Animal Services as “contraband” when in fact they were evidence. I have spent time at City shelters and I know that animals seized in an investigation are supposed to be preserved – alive – as evidence. This is particularly true because since Mr. Mason was initially threatened with charges of felony animal neglect, the physical condition of the cats would have been relevant to the case.
3. Commissioner Green refused to order compensation for cat cages and medications seized (and not inventoried according to law) by LAPD, contending that the cages and medications were “used in conjunction” with the “contraband” cats who were seized, and were therefore contraband also. But the L.A. Municipal Code allows owners up to three cats, which Mr. Mason now has. Cages and medications are used in conjunction with cats, not just with “contraband” cats. Any responsible cat owner has medications, and cat cages are used to trap, neuter and return feral cats, an act that is explicitly allowed in the L.A. Municipal Code (53.69, c. "The Department may also waive fees under Subsections (a) and (b) for any person or rescue organization described above, assisting the Department to safely capture an animal for the health or safety of the animal or the public, including the trapping, neutering and returning of feral cats." I do not believe Commissioner Green has the right to decide which cats need medication and cages and which don’t.
4. He repeatedly (reportedly six times) compared Mr. Mason’s seized property to the gun of a felon. This was not only false, it was slanderous, because Mr. Mason was never convicted of anything, which also calls into question how he could call the property of someone who never committed a crime “contraband.”
5. His only criterion for determining the validity of a warrant was to remark that he knew the issuing judge and she was a “good judge.” This is appalling, giving an enormous appearance of impropriety to the entire court system. Of course the warrant was issued by a judge, and yes, he might know that judge, but to openly proclaim that the fact that he knew a judge was reason enough not to question a warrant’s validity is to completely undermine the basis of our criminal system. A warrant isn’t valid because you know the issuer; it’s valid or not based on the facts, and anything less is a complete mockery of the law.
Judge McCoy, I read the account of this proceeding and felt outraged that any citizen should be treated with this degree of disrespect and disregard for his rights. Commissioner Green has openly demonstrated not only an unjust bias towards law enforcement and judicial officials; he has shown a complete contempt for people who depend upon him for a fair hearing and for justice.
I’m asking that you investigate this case, speak to Mr. Mason and the other individuals who were in court that day, along with Commissioner Green. If you find that any one of the allegations against Commissioner Green have merit, I ask that you either dismiss him or substantively discipline him for this misconduct, contempt for the public, and corruption of the law. It is our right to expect justice when we go into a Los Angeles courtroom. Mr. Mason did not receive justice from Commissioner Green, I hope he will from you and that we can be reassured that we as citizens can expect justice as well.
Thank you for your help in this matter,
(By the way, McCoy's email address is: mccoy@law.ucla.edu). He has not bothered to respond to my email and perhaps to the writer below.)
Dear Judge McCoy,
I’m writing to ask you to look into the disposition of a Small Claims Court case brought by a man named Ron Mason on or around November 19, 2008 and presided over by Court Commissioner Martin Green.
I have read the eyewitness account of four people who were in the courtroom (attached) and if even part of what it recounts is true I find Commissioner Green’s conduct very troubling.
Although I have attached the account for your edification I would like to draw your attention to a couple of particularly egregious allegations:
1. Commissioner Green is alleged to have said several times to Mr. Mason, “Why are you here?” It is a citizen’s right to be heard in Small Claims Court and I can see Commissioner Green’s actions here in no other light than as an attempt to intimidate and belittle Mr. Mason and his right to equal justice under the law, and to redress if his rights have been violated. A Court Commissioner, by questioning those rights, is abrogating them.
2. He referred to the cats who were killed by L.A. Animal Services as “contraband” when in fact they were evidence. I have spent time at City shelters and I know that animals seized in an investigation are supposed to be preserved – alive – as evidence. This is particularly true because since Mr. Mason was initially threatened with charges of felony animal neglect, the physical condition of the cats would have been relevant to the case.
3. Commissioner Green refused to order compensation for cat cages and medications seized (and not inventoried according to law) by LAPD, contending that the cages and medications were “used in conjunction” with the “contraband” cats who were seized, and were therefore contraband also. But the L.A. Municipal Code allows owners up to three cats, which Mr. Mason now has. Cages and medications are used in conjunction with cats, not just with “contraband” cats. Any responsible cat owner has medications, and cat cages are used to trap, neuter and return feral cats, an act that is explicitly allowed in the L.A. Municipal Code (53.69, c. "The Department may also waive fees under Subsections (a) and (b) for any person or rescue organization described above, assisting the Department to safely capture an animal for the health or safety of the animal or the public, including the trapping, neutering and returning of feral cats." I do not believe Commissioner Green has the right to decide which cats need medication and cages and which don’t.
4. He repeatedly (reportedly six times) compared Mr. Mason’s seized property to the gun of a felon. This was not only false, it was slanderous, because Mr. Mason was never convicted of anything, which also calls into question how he could call the property of someone who never committed a crime “contraband.”
5. His only criterion for determining the validity of a warrant was to remark that he knew the issuing judge and she was a “good judge.” This is appalling, giving an enormous appearance of impropriety to the entire court system. Of course the warrant was issued by a judge, and yes, he might know that judge, but to openly proclaim that the fact that he knew a judge was reason enough not to question a warrant’s validity is to completely undermine the basis of our criminal system. A warrant isn’t valid because you know the issuer; it’s valid or not based on the facts, and anything less is a complete mockery of the law.
Judge McCoy, I read the account of this proceeding and felt outraged that any citizen should be treated with this degree of disrespect and disregard for his rights. Commissioner Green has openly demonstrated not only an unjust bias towards law enforcement and judicial officials; he has shown a complete contempt for people who depend upon him for a fair hearing and for justice.
I’m asking that you investigate this case, speak to Mr. Mason and the other individuals who were in court that day, along with Commissioner Green. If you find that any one of the allegations against Commissioner Green have merit, I ask that you either dismiss him or substantively discipline him for this misconduct, contempt for the public, and corruption of the law. It is our right to expect justice when we go into a Los Angeles courtroom. Mr. Mason did not receive justice from Commissioner Green, I hope he will from you and that we can be reassured that we as citizens can expect justice as well.
Thank you for your help in this matter,
Major Cuts in LAAS Looming
Mayor Villaraigosa asks each dept. to take a 3% cut for the remainder of this fiscal year, and prepare a trio of new budgets for fiscal 2009-2010 for up to a 9% cut.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-labudget22-2008nov22,0,6968660.story
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-labudget22-2008nov22,0,6968660.story
Complaint Sent to Green's Superior
Dear Judge McCoy,
You may not know this but there is a constant battle over the rights of animal advocates, rescuers, homeowners and feral cat colony managers vs. the LA Animal Cruelty Task Force, and the latter's focus on busting and jailing people who have too many cats.
The ACTF was tasked with stopping animal cruelty cases, such as cock and dogfighting rings and abuse of animals in LA City.
Instead, it has focused on arresting and seizing animals of those who have too many cats and dogs. One ACTF member, Officer Munez, told me that animal "hoarding" was the Task Force's biggest problem, while another person who called the task force and complained that someone was poisoning neighborhood cats was told that even if a necropsy were performed, and poisoning was found, the Task Force did not have the manpower to investigate.
Apparently though they do have the manpower to raid little old ladies or men who have too many cats (article by Dana Bartholomew, Daily News).
Neither the little old ladies nor this man mentioned below have weapons as might persons in a cockfighting ring. Also, little old lady residents don't tend to move around to thwart being discovered as would dog fighting rings.
The specific case I have in mind is that of Ron Mason who was arrested for felony animal neglect for having too many cats on his property. The head of the Task Force at that time was Lt. Boswell, who admitted during a television interview that Mr. Mason had provided food, water and shelter. Mason had also provided medical care.
The District Attorney refused to press felony charges and the City Attorney refused to file misdemeanor animal neglect charges. Mr. Mason was not even charged, let alone tried for violation of LA MC 53.50, violation of the Kennel ordinance of having more than three cats.
51 cats were seized and about 30 killed at the shelter. Several cages, carriers and traps were also seized as he used them to trap and transport the cats to be spayed or neutered, or to a veterinarian to receive medical attention. Medications were also seized.
City TV 35 filmed the raid and at least five agencies were involved. Dana Bartholomew was present from the Daily News. Mason was arrested and jailed.
A very brief list of evidence supplied by the police listed only the medications. No cats, no traps, carriers or cages.
The head of Animal Services, General Manager Ed Boks, said about Mr. Mason in the Bartholomew article as well as on the LAAS website, that Mr. Mason was a felon and mentally ill. He also stated that conditions of probation would forbid him from having any pets. In many ways other ways, Mr. Boks, GM or LAAS, defamed Mr. Mason.
Mr. Mason recently went to Small Claims Court to obtain finances to buy new carriers, traps and cages to continue to trap and transport animals to be altered. As he does not have an operational car, he has been forced to transport the animals on buses. Without traps and carriers, the cats not seized during the October 11, 2007 raid have begun to multiply again, making him subject to further raids by the ACTF and Animal Services. Mr. Mason is unemployed and on disability. Buying a car, traps and carriers therefore was not an option.
Yesterday Mr. Mason and three other of us went before Commissioner Martin Green with Mason suing the City and Animal Services for the financial loss of 51 cats, cages, traps, carriers and medications.
As you are Commissioner Green superior, I want you to know what happened while in Green’s courtroom.
The following is a transcript of that hearing as accurately as the four of us are able to piece together. The below transcript was deemed by us to be completely accurate. The below was posted on by blog, www.laanimalwatch.blogspot.com.
I have covered this case for over a year as it is extremely important with respect to anyone who has more than three cats or dogs in the City, which is several thousand people, who are terrified of being raided, having their animals seized and killed.
This case even affects many people who foster cats given to them by Animal Services to care for prior to returning to the City shelters for adoption, and therefore have many more than three cats.
The entirety of the Mason case can be found at:
http://laanimalwatch.blogspot.com/2007/10/overview-of-mason-case.html
Animal Services has been attempting to raise the limit of cats allowed to 10. Animal Services has also supported legalizing Trap/Neuter/and Spay (of ferals). They are now doing a CEQA study to present to Council.
Therefore, their actions, in conjunction with the ACTF and the police pose a bewildering inconsistency and/or hypocrisy by the City, Animal Services and the ACTF regarding MC 53.50 the kennel law, as well as what constitutes animal neglect.
Tamie Bryant at UCLA is familiar with all of these issues.
From my blog:
The Death Knell for Justice for LA Animal People Has Been Rung
You may not know this but there is a constant battle over the rights of animal advocates, rescuers, homeowners and feral cat colony managers vs. the LA Animal Cruelty Task Force, and the latter's focus on busting and jailing people who have too many cats.
The ACTF was tasked with stopping animal cruelty cases, such as cock and dogfighting rings and abuse of animals in LA City.
Instead, it has focused on arresting and seizing animals of those who have too many cats and dogs. One ACTF member, Officer Munez, told me that animal "hoarding" was the Task Force's biggest problem, while another person who called the task force and complained that someone was poisoning neighborhood cats was told that even if a necropsy were performed, and poisoning was found, the Task Force did not have the manpower to investigate.
Apparently though they do have the manpower to raid little old ladies or men who have too many cats (article by Dana Bartholomew, Daily News).
Neither the little old ladies nor this man mentioned below have weapons as might persons in a cockfighting ring. Also, little old lady residents don't tend to move around to thwart being discovered as would dog fighting rings.
The specific case I have in mind is that of Ron Mason who was arrested for felony animal neglect for having too many cats on his property. The head of the Task Force at that time was Lt. Boswell, who admitted during a television interview that Mr. Mason had provided food, water and shelter. Mason had also provided medical care.
The District Attorney refused to press felony charges and the City Attorney refused to file misdemeanor animal neglect charges. Mr. Mason was not even charged, let alone tried for violation of LA MC 53.50, violation of the Kennel ordinance of having more than three cats.
51 cats were seized and about 30 killed at the shelter. Several cages, carriers and traps were also seized as he used them to trap and transport the cats to be spayed or neutered, or to a veterinarian to receive medical attention. Medications were also seized.
City TV 35 filmed the raid and at least five agencies were involved. Dana Bartholomew was present from the Daily News. Mason was arrested and jailed.
A very brief list of evidence supplied by the police listed only the medications. No cats, no traps, carriers or cages.
The head of Animal Services, General Manager Ed Boks, said about Mr. Mason in the Bartholomew article as well as on the LAAS website, that Mr. Mason was a felon and mentally ill. He also stated that conditions of probation would forbid him from having any pets. In many ways other ways, Mr. Boks, GM or LAAS, defamed Mr. Mason.
Mr. Mason recently went to Small Claims Court to obtain finances to buy new carriers, traps and cages to continue to trap and transport animals to be altered. As he does not have an operational car, he has been forced to transport the animals on buses. Without traps and carriers, the cats not seized during the October 11, 2007 raid have begun to multiply again, making him subject to further raids by the ACTF and Animal Services. Mr. Mason is unemployed and on disability. Buying a car, traps and carriers therefore was not an option.
Yesterday Mr. Mason and three other of us went before Commissioner Martin Green with Mason suing the City and Animal Services for the financial loss of 51 cats, cages, traps, carriers and medications.
As you are Commissioner Green superior, I want you to know what happened while in Green’s courtroom.
The following is a transcript of that hearing as accurately as the four of us are able to piece together. The below transcript was deemed by us to be completely accurate. The below was posted on by blog, www.laanimalwatch.blogspot.com.
I have covered this case for over a year as it is extremely important with respect to anyone who has more than three cats or dogs in the City, which is several thousand people, who are terrified of being raided, having their animals seized and killed.
This case even affects many people who foster cats given to them by Animal Services to care for prior to returning to the City shelters for adoption, and therefore have many more than three cats.
The entirety of the Mason case can be found at:
http://laanimalwatch.blogspot.com/2007/10/overview-of-mason-case.html
Animal Services has been attempting to raise the limit of cats allowed to 10. Animal Services has also supported legalizing Trap/Neuter/and Spay (of ferals). They are now doing a CEQA study to present to Council.
Therefore, their actions, in conjunction with the ACTF and the police pose a bewildering inconsistency and/or hypocrisy by the City, Animal Services and the ACTF regarding MC 53.50 the kennel law, as well as what constitutes animal neglect.
Tamie Bryant at UCLA is familiar with all of these issues.
From my blog:
The Death Knell for Justice for LA Animal People Has Been Rung
The Death Knell for Justice for Animal People In LA Has Been Rung
Ron mason had his day in court today.
He sued the City in Small Claims court for the City the seizing and killing of his cats, confiscating his cages and cat medications and not having them returned.
The court Commissioner, Martin Green, found for the City on everything:
1. He said the cats were contraband because the law allowed him having only three cats, and as such they can be confiscated and killed.
2. The cages were used in conjunction with the contraband cats were therefore also contraband and need not be returned without a court order which would require Mason to hire an attorney---according to Green. He actually said, "Get a lawyer."
3. Since Mason did not have the 50 cats anymore, the medications seized were not needed, therefore the City had no reason to reimburse Mason. Green ignored Mason's statement he still had three cats for which the cages and medication could be used.
Green also specifically likened the cages to a gun used in a felony. He said it was a hyperbole, but repeated it six times, likening Mason to being a felon and the cages a gun.
He said this was hyperbole, but repeated this example 6 times.
Let's get one thing straight. The District Attorney never charged Mason with a felony. The City Attorney never charged Mason with any crime, not even the kennel law, MC 53.50. Therefore, how can the cats and cages be contraband?
I asked "Commissioner Green, "Does that mean that anyone who has more than three cats is at risk to be raided, have all their cats and cages, food, vet documents, seized and the cats killed?"
His response was, "Yes, to the fullest extent of the law."
The police investigator representing the City, of course, didn't have a copy of the warrants with him. Ron did. Green said nothing, except after reading it, he recognized the judge and said she was a good judge, therefore the warrants were in order--that is, he covered the City for the weakness of the warrants.
Green asked the City rep (a police investigator) if there was an accounting of all the seized items. The rep said when anything was seized, a complete list was given to the person arrested, but he did not produce a copy of the list, nor did the Commissioner ask for one.
Ron offered a copy of the list actually sent to him by the police department three days after the raid, and that list never mentioned the 51 seized cats as required by CA Penal Code, nor did it mention the cages.
Green said, "Why do you want me to read that?"
Over and over Commissioner asked Mason, "Why are you here? What did the City do wrong?"
Then he found for the City on everything.
So be afraid, be very, very afraid. The checks and balances on government abuse of power are gone in LA when it comes to animals.
He sued the City in Small Claims court for the City the seizing and killing of his cats, confiscating his cages and cat medications and not having them returned.
The court Commissioner, Martin Green, found for the City on everything:
1. He said the cats were contraband because the law allowed him having only three cats, and as such they can be confiscated and killed.
2. The cages were used in conjunction with the contraband cats were therefore also contraband and need not be returned without a court order which would require Mason to hire an attorney---according to Green. He actually said, "Get a lawyer."
3. Since Mason did not have the 50 cats anymore, the medications seized were not needed, therefore the City had no reason to reimburse Mason. Green ignored Mason's statement he still had three cats for which the cages and medication could be used.
Green also specifically likened the cages to a gun used in a felony. He said it was a hyperbole, but repeated it six times, likening Mason to being a felon and the cages a gun.
He said this was hyperbole, but repeated this example 6 times.
Let's get one thing straight. The District Attorney never charged Mason with a felony. The City Attorney never charged Mason with any crime, not even the kennel law, MC 53.50. Therefore, how can the cats and cages be contraband?
I asked "Commissioner Green, "Does that mean that anyone who has more than three cats is at risk to be raided, have all their cats and cages, food, vet documents, seized and the cats killed?"
His response was, "Yes, to the fullest extent of the law."
The police investigator representing the City, of course, didn't have a copy of the warrants with him. Ron did. Green said nothing, except after reading it, he recognized the judge and said she was a good judge, therefore the warrants were in order--that is, he covered the City for the weakness of the warrants.
Green asked the City rep (a police investigator) if there was an accounting of all the seized items. The rep said when anything was seized, a complete list was given to the person arrested, but he did not produce a copy of the list, nor did the Commissioner ask for one.
Ron offered a copy of the list actually sent to him by the police department three days after the raid, and that list never mentioned the 51 seized cats as required by CA Penal Code, nor did it mention the cages.
Green said, "Why do you want me to read that?"
Over and over Commissioner asked Mason, "Why are you here? What did the City do wrong?"
Then he found for the City on everything.
So be afraid, be very, very afraid. The checks and balances on government abuse of power are gone in LA when it comes to animals.
WOW!! HSUS NOW EMBRACES NO KILL!!
In a stunning turn around, HSUS Wayne Pacelle has embraced "no kill" using words almost identical to Winograd's.
In addition, two of Nathan's proteges will be speaking at speaking at the HSUS Expo next year.
Wow, what a turnaround.
From Nathan Winograd:
http://nathanwinograd.blogspot.com/
Did HSUS’ Wayne Pacelle Say “No Kill”? Yes he did, and more!
In announcing a partnership for a national advertising campaigning promoting adoptions being launched by Maddie’s Fund, HSUS, and the Ad Council, Wayne Pacelle stated:
It will make a life-saving difference in securing loving homes for untold numbers of pets and get us closer to a no-kill nation.
But, most importantly, HSUS states that the public does care and is not to blame for their killing, that killing animals in shelters is “needless,” that we can be a No Kill nation today, and that “pet overpopulation” is more myth than fact.
In language that is eerily (though excitingly) familiar to language in my book, Redemption, HSUS says:
“By increasing the percentage of people who obtain their pets through adoption—by just a few percentage points—we can solve the problem of euthanasia of healthy and treatable dogs and cats.”
“The needless loss of life in animal shelters is deplored by the American public. People deeply love their dogs and cats and feel that killing pets who are homeless through no fault of their own is a problem we must work harder to prevent. They want animals to have a second chance at life, not death by injection.”
“The needless killing of pets by animal shelters and animal control agencies comes at an enormous economic and moral cost."
This comes after announcing that staunch and unapologetic pro-No Kill advocates Susanne Kogut and Bonney Brown will be speaking at HSUS Expo 2009! Kogut runs an open admission shelter saving 93% of all dogs and 89% of all cats, while Brown has led a lifesaving initiative now saving 90% of dogs and 86% of all cats YTD.
Nonetheless, it’s way too early to uncork the champagne. As Ryan Clinton of FixAustin.org stated, “it doesn’t ask the shelters to do anything different.”
Read more at www.nokillblog.com
In addition, two of Nathan's proteges will be speaking at speaking at the HSUS Expo next year.
Wow, what a turnaround.
From Nathan Winograd:
http://nathanwinograd.blogspot.com/
Did HSUS’ Wayne Pacelle Say “No Kill”? Yes he did, and more!
In announcing a partnership for a national advertising campaigning promoting adoptions being launched by Maddie’s Fund, HSUS, and the Ad Council, Wayne Pacelle stated:
It will make a life-saving difference in securing loving homes for untold numbers of pets and get us closer to a no-kill nation.
But, most importantly, HSUS states that the public does care and is not to blame for their killing, that killing animals in shelters is “needless,” that we can be a No Kill nation today, and that “pet overpopulation” is more myth than fact.
In language that is eerily (though excitingly) familiar to language in my book, Redemption, HSUS says:
“By increasing the percentage of people who obtain their pets through adoption—by just a few percentage points—we can solve the problem of euthanasia of healthy and treatable dogs and cats.”
“The needless loss of life in animal shelters is deplored by the American public. People deeply love their dogs and cats and feel that killing pets who are homeless through no fault of their own is a problem we must work harder to prevent. They want animals to have a second chance at life, not death by injection.”
“The needless killing of pets by animal shelters and animal control agencies comes at an enormous economic and moral cost."
This comes after announcing that staunch and unapologetic pro-No Kill advocates Susanne Kogut and Bonney Brown will be speaking at HSUS Expo 2009! Kogut runs an open admission shelter saving 93% of all dogs and 89% of all cats, while Brown has led a lifesaving initiative now saving 90% of dogs and 86% of all cats YTD.
Nonetheless, it’s way too early to uncork the champagne. As Ryan Clinton of FixAustin.org stated, “it doesn’t ask the shelters to do anything different.”
Read more at www.nokillblog.com
Cat Killing Up 30.5% for Past 12 Months
.
For the past 12 months compared to the same 12 month interval last year, cat intake is up 20% but killing is up 30.5%! That is, killing is rising MUCH faster than intakes. Cat adoptions are up 19%. They would have to increase 250% to offset the killing.
Dog intake is up 18%, and adoptions up 28%. Even with adoptions up, killing was 22% higher than the year before.
Killing for the category of All Other Animals increased 56% while intakes increased only 7%.
That is, the killing increase is 700% higher than the percentage intake! Intake went from 7,950 to 8,499 (549 animals or 7% increase), while killing went from 2,313 to 3,619 (56% increase).
Another way of saying it, for every 1 additional animal brought in, an additional 2.4 were killed.
http://laanimalservices.org/about_stats_dept.htm
For the past 12 months compared to the same 12 month interval last year, cat intake is up 20% but killing is up 30.5%! That is, killing is rising MUCH faster than intakes. Cat adoptions are up 19%. They would have to increase 250% to offset the killing.
Dog intake is up 18%, and adoptions up 28%. Even with adoptions up, killing was 22% higher than the year before.
Killing for the category of All Other Animals increased 56% while intakes increased only 7%.
That is, the killing increase is 700% higher than the percentage intake! Intake went from 7,950 to 8,499 (549 animals or 7% increase), while killing went from 2,313 to 3,619 (56% increase).
Another way of saying it, for every 1 additional animal brought in, an additional 2.4 were killed.
http://laanimalservices.org/about_stats_dept.htm
LA Puppies for Obama
.
Los Angeles Animal Services has offered 2 black poodle puppies to Obama. They are hypoallergenic and are shelter dogs.
Can you imagine how many dogs' lives will be saved over the next few years as people want to do just as Obama has done? Tens of thousands.
I, and several other people have tried to contact various Obama sources to make this happen. Please, everyone use your own method to get to Obama to make it happen.
I have a very good contact number but don't want to post it because some people might use the number to try to poison Boks in Obama's eyes. This is far too important a life-saving opportunity for LA and shelter animals across the country to be ruined by someone who wants to attack Boks.
http://cbs2.com/video/?id=82645@kcbs.dayport.com
I will give those who want this number privately upon emailing me.
edwardmuzika@sbcglobal.net
Los Angeles Animal Services has offered 2 black poodle puppies to Obama. They are hypoallergenic and are shelter dogs.
Can you imagine how many dogs' lives will be saved over the next few years as people want to do just as Obama has done? Tens of thousands.
I, and several other people have tried to contact various Obama sources to make this happen. Please, everyone use your own method to get to Obama to make it happen.
I have a very good contact number but don't want to post it because some people might use the number to try to poison Boks in Obama's eyes. This is far too important a life-saving opportunity for LA and shelter animals across the country to be ruined by someone who wants to attack Boks.
http://cbs2.com/video/?id=82645@kcbs.dayport.com
I will give those who want this number privately upon emailing me.
edwardmuzika@sbcglobal.net
DAISY
Click on photo to Enlarge
Many years ago when I lived in Santa Monica, I knew this very unique woman, Wilma Lusk.
Wilma worked as a receptionist for many years for Ken Jones. Wilma got to be a good friend of mine and taught me a lot about cats.
Wilma died in 1998 a few weeks after Christmas. Wilma's life revolved around cats and she would foster and place hundreds over the years. Kerima and I got 3 from Wilma, a Calico named Malita who died 4 years ago, Dustin, our cancer kitty, and Daisy, his sister.
Daisy died today about 4 pm of kidney failure. She had been on a IV drip for three days at Adler's Clinic in Reseda. She went downhill from the moment we took her in. We took her home last night because she looked so miserable in the vet's cage. She stayed with us for 18 hours and then died peacefully. She never went into a coma. I wish we had done that with Gracie, who was sinking away peacefully, but she died in a cage at Adlers', and not at home.
Daisy had a grade II/IV heart murmur most of her life and possibly died from a heart attack.
.
This is the third cat of ours to die in 20 months at Adler's Clinic: Gopi, Gracie and now Daisy. All three had been on IV fluids.
.
Unfortunately there are always stray cats out there that need loving owners, so we have had no difficulty finding "replacements."
.
We can never "replace" any of them, but there are a lot of needy kitties out there.
.
Her brother and Kali are saying their goodbyes.
.
Life sucks.
Long Article on Winograd
.
This is a long to a very long and negative article about Nathan. It is far too long for this blog.
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/issue/story?oid=oid%3A696455
This is a long to a very long and negative article about Nathan. It is far too long for this blog.
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/issue/story?oid=oid%3A696455
My Opinion About TNR
.
There is a lot to be said for those who oppose TNR on moral grounds, i.e., feral cats live a short and sometimes brutal life and they deserve better. I think this is a universal wish by rescuers, and those of the general public that actually think about it--which are many.
We all wish they all had homes, but sometimes just the massiveness of the problem and the suffering makes all of us wonder whether we are not just chipping away at a granite mountain with a toothpick.
On the other hand, many who oppose TNR are those who just don't like cats or bird-types, or nature freak environmentalists that think native species are more important than cats, donkeys, wild horses, etc..
Lots of "experts" from CA Fish and Game provide lots of irrelevant data that supports their opinion that unhoused cats should be captured and killed.
They content TNR does not work because people dump their animals at colony locations.
They ignore the fact dumping will always take place whether there are colonies or not, and cats will always be getting lost. It is estimated that 5% of the housed cats become strays each year. TNR has to cope with that steady influx of animals as well as the non-sterilized cats already in the colonies.
Personally, I think the only real solution is to prohibit cat ownership. Those who already have homes can stay with their owners for life. Most people do not deserve to have cats, dogs, rabbits or turtles. They don't deserve to have children either.
TNR could continue on the unhoused cats, and the numbers of incoming cats would decrease each year, meaning TNR would become very effective.
I might say the same about dogs, rabbits, birds, turtles, etc.
Only special people should be allowed to have animals, but there is no way you can legislate certain people to have them and others not.
Why should so many animals suffer when only a smaller percentage of people (maybe 25%) can really afford to take care of their animals, and also have the heart to take care of and share a life with them.
.
There is a lot to be said for those who oppose TNR on moral grounds, i.e., feral cats live a short and sometimes brutal life and they deserve better. I think this is a universal wish by rescuers, and those of the general public that actually think about it--which are many.
We all wish they all had homes, but sometimes just the massiveness of the problem and the suffering makes all of us wonder whether we are not just chipping away at a granite mountain with a toothpick.
On the other hand, many who oppose TNR are those who just don't like cats or bird-types, or nature freak environmentalists that think native species are more important than cats, donkeys, wild horses, etc..
Lots of "experts" from CA Fish and Game provide lots of irrelevant data that supports their opinion that unhoused cats should be captured and killed.
They content TNR does not work because people dump their animals at colony locations.
They ignore the fact dumping will always take place whether there are colonies or not, and cats will always be getting lost. It is estimated that 5% of the housed cats become strays each year. TNR has to cope with that steady influx of animals as well as the non-sterilized cats already in the colonies.
Personally, I think the only real solution is to prohibit cat ownership. Those who already have homes can stay with their owners for life. Most people do not deserve to have cats, dogs, rabbits or turtles. They don't deserve to have children either.
TNR could continue on the unhoused cats, and the numbers of incoming cats would decrease each year, meaning TNR would become very effective.
I might say the same about dogs, rabbits, birds, turtles, etc.
Only special people should be allowed to have animals, but there is no way you can legislate certain people to have them and others not.
Why should so many animals suffer when only a smaller percentage of people (maybe 25%) can really afford to take care of their animals, and also have the heart to take care of and share a life with them.
.
A Time for Civil Disobedience?
From the LA Times, both their animal blog by city hall sycophant, Carla Hall.
County says Rancho Los Amigos cats
must go
October 24, 2008
The colony of cats -- some feral, some friendly strays -- wandering the grounds near the old buildings on the campus of the Rancho Los Amigos National Rehabilitation Center have stoked controversy for months. The cats have devoted caretakers -- they provide the food the felines above were snacking on in March -- and they have detractors, who said the cats were using the sand box of a nearby child-care center as a litter box and posing other health problems.
Los Angeles County, which owns the property, plans to raze the old buildings to make way for a high-tech data center. Early this year, county officials agreed to let a Downey nonprofit, Fail-Safe 4 Felines, embark on an ambitious project to trap and neuter the 150 or so cats and relocate them.
But, now, the county has decided the cats must go as soon as possible. For one thing, the trapping, neutering, and releasing approach didn't appear to be succeeding. The feline population count has gone up to 200, according to county officials. And in August, said county public health spokeswoman Sarah Kissell, "we found evidence of five new litters." Additionally, public health inspectors found fleas, flies and feces -- all associated with the cats -- near several buildings, including a children's day care center.
In a letter to the county, a public health official said feral cats had been associated with organisms that cause human diseases such as rabies and typhus.
Rabies?
"It's rare, but it has occurred," said Dr. Jonathan Fielding, director of the L.A. County Department of Public Health. Fielding said the decision to tell the county to remove the cats immediately was seriously considered.
"We're all animal lovers," he said. "These aren't steps that are taken lightly."
"This is kids over cats, plain and simple," said Supervisor Don Knabe -- whose district includes the Rancho Los Amigos property -- in a statement. He has urged members of the public who want to help the cats to e-mail Animal Care and Control at animalinfo@animalcare.lacounty.gov.
L.A. County's Department of Animal Care and Control will trap the cats and move them to its animal shelter in Downey. The shelter will assess the cats to see which can be adopted out. Feral cats -- which are extraordinarily difficult to incorporate into homes -- sometimes can be placed in barns and equestrian centers that have rat problems. (Ferals are great at making rats vanish from the premises.)
"We notified several of the feline groups about what we were doing and asked them to help us rather than fight us on this," said David Sommers, a spokesman for Knabe's office.
County Animal Care and Control officials said, in an Oct. 22 letter to the director of Fail-Safe 4 Felines, that the group had failed to meet its commitment to find homes for the cats. One of the affectionate ones is pictured right.
The group's director and founder, Sheranne Jaeger, told the Downey Patriot that her group had found homes for 30 of the cats. But the arrival of kitten season along with the irresponsible dumping of house cats kept the numbers from shrinking permanently, she contends. Jaeger told the Patriot, "if we hadn't been there, there would be thousands of cats. It takes everybody to solve this and euthanasia isn't the answer."
-- Carla Hall
Story: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2008/10/the-fate-of-the.html
Photos: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cattrap30-pg,0,5391236.photogallery
I was in two similar situations in Santa Monica ten years ago.
Several colonies, contained 25-30 cats located along a 1/2 miles stretch of Palisades Park, and maintained by maybe six caretakers, were "inconvenienced" by the park being closed down, barrier twisted wire fences put up which blocked the caretakers from managing the colony, alone with no trespassing signs. Police cars went by every hour or so to make sure no one was in the park feeding the cats because the City wanted to get rid of them while they built their finest and greatest tourist amenity--a pristine park free of cats and wildlife.
They even used a defoliant to get rid of all the grasses and bushes that protected the cats.
I said "inconvenienced" because we decided to disobey the City. We cut holes in the fences, kept a keen eye for the cops, and continued feeding and caring. We moved the doghouse shelter a little further down the cliff slope where the defoliant had not reached.
This went on for a year or so.
One of the caretakers was arrested for trespassing, but when she went to court and the judge heard she had been trespassing to care take 7 cats, the judge commended her for her actions and angrily denounced the City for its actions. The cats were not in a location where they created a nuisance, and they were going under the fence to cross Ocean Ave to get food and their lives were endangered.
After that, we were less worried about the cops, and instead of coming in at 5 a.m. in the morning and 10 p.m at night, we were able to in later in the a.m. and earlier in the p.m.
This is civil disobedience.
I know many of you out there do the same thing. Bravo!!
I am not advocating civil disobedience in this situation, but I am telling you about acts of civil disobedience that have occurred elsewhere.
By the way, the head of County Health who justifies the trapping and killing of these cats is Jonathan Fielding, who also supported killing hundreds of California Ground Squirrels in that same SM park three years ago.
He said the squirrels might some day carry bubonic plague or rabies. He justified his actions by saying his vector control people knew what they were doing because they had 35 years of combined experience.
They killed them despite that fact there was no ordinance to support their killing, only their opinion they constituted a vague threat in the future.
This is Fileding's email address:
jfielding@ladhs.org
Let Jonathan know that we will oppose trapping and killing of feral cats whereever the County chooses to take such an action.
No more Jonathan!
County says Rancho Los Amigos cats
must go
October 24, 2008
The colony of cats -- some feral, some friendly strays -- wandering the grounds near the old buildings on the campus of the Rancho Los Amigos National Rehabilitation Center have stoked controversy for months. The cats have devoted caretakers -- they provide the food the felines above were snacking on in March -- and they have detractors, who said the cats were using the sand box of a nearby child-care center as a litter box and posing other health problems.
Los Angeles County, which owns the property, plans to raze the old buildings to make way for a high-tech data center. Early this year, county officials agreed to let a Downey nonprofit, Fail-Safe 4 Felines, embark on an ambitious project to trap and neuter the 150 or so cats and relocate them.
But, now, the county has decided the cats must go as soon as possible. For one thing, the trapping, neutering, and releasing approach didn't appear to be succeeding. The feline population count has gone up to 200, according to county officials. And in August, said county public health spokeswoman Sarah Kissell, "we found evidence of five new litters." Additionally, public health inspectors found fleas, flies and feces -- all associated with the cats -- near several buildings, including a children's day care center.
In a letter to the county, a public health official said feral cats had been associated with organisms that cause human diseases such as rabies and typhus.
Rabies?
"It's rare, but it has occurred," said Dr. Jonathan Fielding, director of the L.A. County Department of Public Health. Fielding said the decision to tell the county to remove the cats immediately was seriously considered.
"We're all animal lovers," he said. "These aren't steps that are taken lightly."
"This is kids over cats, plain and simple," said Supervisor Don Knabe -- whose district includes the Rancho Los Amigos property -- in a statement. He has urged members of the public who want to help the cats to e-mail Animal Care and Control at animalinfo@animalcare.lacounty.gov.
L.A. County's Department of Animal Care and Control will trap the cats and move them to its animal shelter in Downey. The shelter will assess the cats to see which can be adopted out. Feral cats -- which are extraordinarily difficult to incorporate into homes -- sometimes can be placed in barns and equestrian centers that have rat problems. (Ferals are great at making rats vanish from the premises.)
"We notified several of the feline groups about what we were doing and asked them to help us rather than fight us on this," said David Sommers, a spokesman for Knabe's office.
County Animal Care and Control officials said, in an Oct. 22 letter to the director of Fail-Safe 4 Felines, that the group had failed to meet its commitment to find homes for the cats. One of the affectionate ones is pictured right.
The group's director and founder, Sheranne Jaeger, told the Downey Patriot that her group had found homes for 30 of the cats. But the arrival of kitten season along with the irresponsible dumping of house cats kept the numbers from shrinking permanently, she contends. Jaeger told the Patriot, "if we hadn't been there, there would be thousands of cats. It takes everybody to solve this and euthanasia isn't the answer."
-- Carla Hall
Story: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2008/10/the-fate-of-the.html
Photos: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cattrap30-pg,0,5391236.photogallery
I was in two similar situations in Santa Monica ten years ago.
Several colonies, contained 25-30 cats located along a 1/2 miles stretch of Palisades Park, and maintained by maybe six caretakers, were "inconvenienced" by the park being closed down, barrier twisted wire fences put up which blocked the caretakers from managing the colony, alone with no trespassing signs. Police cars went by every hour or so to make sure no one was in the park feeding the cats because the City wanted to get rid of them while they built their finest and greatest tourist amenity--a pristine park free of cats and wildlife.
They even used a defoliant to get rid of all the grasses and bushes that protected the cats.
I said "inconvenienced" because we decided to disobey the City. We cut holes in the fences, kept a keen eye for the cops, and continued feeding and caring. We moved the doghouse shelter a little further down the cliff slope where the defoliant had not reached.
This went on for a year or so.
One of the caretakers was arrested for trespassing, but when she went to court and the judge heard she had been trespassing to care take 7 cats, the judge commended her for her actions and angrily denounced the City for its actions. The cats were not in a location where they created a nuisance, and they were going under the fence to cross Ocean Ave to get food and their lives were endangered.
After that, we were less worried about the cops, and instead of coming in at 5 a.m. in the morning and 10 p.m at night, we were able to in later in the a.m. and earlier in the p.m.
This is civil disobedience.
I know many of you out there do the same thing. Bravo!!
I am not advocating civil disobedience in this situation, but I am telling you about acts of civil disobedience that have occurred elsewhere.
By the way, the head of County Health who justifies the trapping and killing of these cats is Jonathan Fielding, who also supported killing hundreds of California Ground Squirrels in that same SM park three years ago.
He said the squirrels might some day carry bubonic plague or rabies. He justified his actions by saying his vector control people knew what they were doing because they had 35 years of combined experience.
They killed them despite that fact there was no ordinance to support their killing, only their opinion they constituted a vague threat in the future.
This is Fileding's email address:
jfielding@ladhs.org
Let Jonathan know that we will oppose trapping and killing of feral cats whereever the County chooses to take such an action.
No more Jonathan!
TNR-Gate; the Arrogant Timidity of City Hall
.
There are any number of complex reasons LA does not have a City-wide TNR policy, and among those include legal thinking deeming "feral" cats as both "wildlife" and as pets at the same time.
If they are considered wildlife, you cannot feed them; if they are considered house cats (felis Domesticus), feral or not, you cannot have more than three on any property without a license, although if you read M.C. 53.50, it is obvious that kennel refers to a business and not a private resident having four cats.
Another 53* ordinance forbids allowing owned or controlled animals to wander onto public property--UNLESS THEY ARE CATS. Their legal eagles think this ordinance has to be changed too in order to support TNR.
Then too is the issue of ownership. You own a cat if you feed it on your property for 30 days. If it is an owned cat you are obligated to take care of it with food, water, shelter. Nowhere does anyone a distinction between owning a feral cat or a house cat.
Animal Services goes further and requires medical care.
(It is another issue altogether whether anyone, including a caretaker, owns the ferals or strays they feed on public property or in supermarket parking lot.)
However, then if you have more than three "feral" or stray cats in this way, you violate the kennel law, 53.50 even though you are not keeping them for commercial purposes. If you read 53.50, it is clear that is the ordinance is for the purpose of controlling business use, not as a club to be used against old ladies or Ron Mason.
Then if forced by Animal Services to stop feeding them because either they are considered wildlife, or because should be starved out to prevent congregating in one place creating a nuisance as Office Munez of the ACTF told me, then you are committing either animal neglect or animal abandonment if they fall into the category of "dog" or "cat" as commonly used in the state Penal Code.
In any event, the lawsuit I posted yesterday by the environmental groups has led the City Attorney to deem it necessary that all of these laws be changed to specifically allow TNR as a City policy--all of them. This requires a CEQA study.
The City (i.e., the Dolt) has determined that as part of a CEQA study, the City has to study a certain number of feral colonies to see if proper TNR management causes a decrease in colony numbers.
Of course, such a study would take years, which means the CEQA would take years, which means TNR would take years.
I was told by someone in the Mayor's Office that all this had been determined by a gaggle of TNR activists and city attorneys.
The City has to go to court regarding TNR and the lawsuit, and their own attorneys have required them to play chicken so as not to give the plaintiff's such as the Audubon Society "any ammunition."
I really don't know what that means, although it does appear to mean that the City will claim it is enforcing all the above codes (Article 3, sections 53.00 and on) including on private TNR controlled colonies, even though the ordinances do not apply to feral cats except by an incredible stretch of the imagination. None of this has been court tested.
However, this tactic seems directed to pretend the City has never broken any of these stretched definition laws itself, nor encouraged TNR in any way--which they have and did.
However, they have now gone a step further, bending even more over backward, and LAAS personnel have been told to go after colonies and caretakers, so as to show the City is not ignoring the no-TNR laws, WHICH REALLY ARE NOT ANTI-TNR LAWS AND DON'T APPLY!! This directive is tantamount ro admitting the City feels those laws cover private TNR caretaking.
(LAAS has been directed not only to stop advertising TNR, but also not to help in any TNR efforts, and possibly not give out TNR S/N certificates.
ALSO, I have been told that LAAS and the ACTF will actively go after caretakers if there is a complaint, because the lawsuit has already suggested that the City is not enforcing against private TNR groups as part of their pro TNR stance. This gives Officer Munez his justification to go after 84 year old cat ladies.
I have been told no amateur is capable of grasping the broad implications and great stretch of logical thinking that has already taken place on these issues by the professional city bureaucrats and their lawyers that actually do the work. Really, this is what I was told.
I asked why is the lawsuit not merely challenged as saying the multiple 53 ordinances do not apply to private feeding of feral cats, although two of them WOULD apply to passing a Citywide official TNR ordinance allowing it. The answer was, basically, the bureaucrats and lawyers know as opposed to blogging critics and other amateurs.
If you want, given time I can lead all of you through the various steps of the lawsuit, the principals, and the legal reasoning as well as the procedural laws applying in this kind of lawsuit.
However, this would take some heavy work on my part and I am loathe to do it unless there is a great outcry for this information.
The first step would be for you, who are interested, to read the lawsuit and ponder the bull involved.
http://itisnotreal.com/TNRLawsuit.pdf
Then read the entire Municipal Code, Section 3, article 53.00 onwards. Then tell me if you are interested and I will dig deeper.
Municipal Codes Involved:
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=amlegal:lamc_ca
What bothers me is the utter arrogance of the Mayor's Office that the public and critics are not capable of following all the deep logical and legal thinking done by their own bureaucrats and lawsuit-intolerant city attorneys.
I was even asked for the Latin name for feral cat as opposed to felis Domesticus, applied to the domesticated cat. I am sure this was sarcasm, and in response I could ask whether he thought that a cat changed species once it was outside the house for a few months.
Apparently this rational and educated bureaucrat thought "feral" meant the same thing as "wild."
What dolts.
.
There are any number of complex reasons LA does not have a City-wide TNR policy, and among those include legal thinking deeming "feral" cats as both "wildlife" and as pets at the same time.
If they are considered wildlife, you cannot feed them; if they are considered house cats (felis Domesticus), feral or not, you cannot have more than three on any property without a license, although if you read M.C. 53.50, it is obvious that kennel refers to a business and not a private resident having four cats.
Another 53* ordinance forbids allowing owned or controlled animals to wander onto public property--UNLESS THEY ARE CATS. Their legal eagles think this ordinance has to be changed too in order to support TNR.
Then too is the issue of ownership. You own a cat if you feed it on your property for 30 days. If it is an owned cat you are obligated to take care of it with food, water, shelter. Nowhere does anyone a distinction between owning a feral cat or a house cat.
Animal Services goes further and requires medical care.
(It is another issue altogether whether anyone, including a caretaker, owns the ferals or strays they feed on public property or in supermarket parking lot.)
However, then if you have more than three "feral" or stray cats in this way, you violate the kennel law, 53.50 even though you are not keeping them for commercial purposes. If you read 53.50, it is clear that is the ordinance is for the purpose of controlling business use, not as a club to be used against old ladies or Ron Mason.
Then if forced by Animal Services to stop feeding them because either they are considered wildlife, or because should be starved out to prevent congregating in one place creating a nuisance as Office Munez of the ACTF told me, then you are committing either animal neglect or animal abandonment if they fall into the category of "dog" or "cat" as commonly used in the state Penal Code.
In any event, the lawsuit I posted yesterday by the environmental groups has led the City Attorney to deem it necessary that all of these laws be changed to specifically allow TNR as a City policy--all of them. This requires a CEQA study.
The City (i.e., the Dolt) has determined that as part of a CEQA study, the City has to study a certain number of feral colonies to see if proper TNR management causes a decrease in colony numbers.
Of course, such a study would take years, which means the CEQA would take years, which means TNR would take years.
I was told by someone in the Mayor's Office that all this had been determined by a gaggle of TNR activists and city attorneys.
The City has to go to court regarding TNR and the lawsuit, and their own attorneys have required them to play chicken so as not to give the plaintiff's such as the Audubon Society "any ammunition."
I really don't know what that means, although it does appear to mean that the City will claim it is enforcing all the above codes (Article 3, sections 53.00 and on) including on private TNR controlled colonies, even though the ordinances do not apply to feral cats except by an incredible stretch of the imagination. None of this has been court tested.
However, this tactic seems directed to pretend the City has never broken any of these stretched definition laws itself, nor encouraged TNR in any way--which they have and did.
However, they have now gone a step further, bending even more over backward, and LAAS personnel have been told to go after colonies and caretakers, so as to show the City is not ignoring the no-TNR laws, WHICH REALLY ARE NOT ANTI-TNR LAWS AND DON'T APPLY!! This directive is tantamount ro admitting the City feels those laws cover private TNR caretaking.
(LAAS has been directed not only to stop advertising TNR, but also not to help in any TNR efforts, and possibly not give out TNR S/N certificates.
ALSO, I have been told that LAAS and the ACTF will actively go after caretakers if there is a complaint, because the lawsuit has already suggested that the City is not enforcing against private TNR groups as part of their pro TNR stance. This gives Officer Munez his justification to go after 84 year old cat ladies.
I have been told no amateur is capable of grasping the broad implications and great stretch of logical thinking that has already taken place on these issues by the professional city bureaucrats and their lawyers that actually do the work. Really, this is what I was told.
I asked why is the lawsuit not merely challenged as saying the multiple 53 ordinances do not apply to private feeding of feral cats, although two of them WOULD apply to passing a Citywide official TNR ordinance allowing it. The answer was, basically, the bureaucrats and lawyers know as opposed to blogging critics and other amateurs.
If you want, given time I can lead all of you through the various steps of the lawsuit, the principals, and the legal reasoning as well as the procedural laws applying in this kind of lawsuit.
However, this would take some heavy work on my part and I am loathe to do it unless there is a great outcry for this information.
The first step would be for you, who are interested, to read the lawsuit and ponder the bull involved.
http://itisnotreal.com/TNRLawsuit.pdf
Then read the entire Municipal Code, Section 3, article 53.00 onwards. Then tell me if you are interested and I will dig deeper.
Municipal Codes Involved:
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=amlegal:lamc_ca
What bothers me is the utter arrogance of the Mayor's Office that the public and critics are not capable of following all the deep logical and legal thinking done by their own bureaucrats and lawsuit-intolerant city attorneys.
I was even asked for the Latin name for feral cat as opposed to felis Domesticus, applied to the domesticated cat. I am sure this was sarcasm, and in response I could ask whether he thought that a cat changed species once it was outside the house for a few months.
Apparently this rational and educated bureaucrat thought "feral" meant the same thing as "wild."
What dolts.
.
Lori Golden Talks to Cardenas About Feral-Feeders and TNR
From Lori to me:
For what it's worth, I gave a copy of your post re: Munoz and the Animal Cruelty Task Force to Councilman Tony Cardenas last night at the Stray Cat Alliance event.
I gave it to him because he was one of the people behind the creation of the ACTF. I explained to him what has been going on re the people who feed the feral cats - I told him to look around the room - that it was filled with those very people, many of them little old ladies who, at great expense to themselves, feed and trap and pay to have those cats s/n.
I said that while I know the City does not have an official TNR policy because of environmental concerns, someone needs to call off the ACTF and LAAS - and basically tell them not to threaten these feral cat colony caretakers - that they fear for their safety and their lives.
Cardenas listened to me and took the piece of paper I gave him.... and hopefully, after he saw the story of an 85 year old lady who goes out every night to feed multitudes of cats at this event... he will read what I gave him and find some way to do something about it. Perhaps some urging from your readers to Tony Cardenas might illuminate this issue even more to him, especially since he was given an award from the Stray Cat Alliance last night.
Lori Golden
The Pet Press
It is certainly not going to hurt to contact Carenas, although given the City Attorney's gutlessness, I don't think Tony can do much.
(818) 778-4999
Fax: (818) 778-4998
cardenas@council.lacity.org
.
For what it's worth, I gave a copy of your post re: Munoz and the Animal Cruelty Task Force to Councilman Tony Cardenas last night at the Stray Cat Alliance event.
I gave it to him because he was one of the people behind the creation of the ACTF. I explained to him what has been going on re the people who feed the feral cats - I told him to look around the room - that it was filled with those very people, many of them little old ladies who, at great expense to themselves, feed and trap and pay to have those cats s/n.
I said that while I know the City does not have an official TNR policy because of environmental concerns, someone needs to call off the ACTF and LAAS - and basically tell them not to threaten these feral cat colony caretakers - that they fear for their safety and their lives.
Cardenas listened to me and took the piece of paper I gave him.... and hopefully, after he saw the story of an 85 year old lady who goes out every night to feed multitudes of cats at this event... he will read what I gave him and find some way to do something about it. Perhaps some urging from your readers to Tony Cardenas might illuminate this issue even more to him, especially since he was given an award from the Stray Cat Alliance last night.
Lori Golden
The Pet Press
It is certainly not going to hurt to contact Carenas, although given the City Attorney's gutlessness, I don't think Tony can do much.
(818) 778-4999
Fax: (818) 778-4998
cardenas@council.lacity.org
.
Lawsuit is the Reason LAAS Goes After Feral Feeders-AMMENDED!
.
Three wildlife nonprofits have gone after the City's TNR program, and forced them to do a CEQA study of a citywide TNR program.
The City Attorney requires that the Department enforce a part of the City Ordnance section about not feeding homeless cats and dogs, because such feeding also "inevitably" feeds wildlife, or they are considered an owned or controlled animal running free on public property when the ordinance specifically exempts cats.
The City has been hindered in completing a CEQA investigation because feeders will not identify their colonies. The CEQA study is for investigation of whether populations are controlled, song birds are being killed in huge numbers, urine and feces causing environmental problems.
This is a City Attorney's guideline for LAAS to follow until the TNR issue is settled, which it may never be. This is not law and I don't think there is even a precedent in California or LA City. The attorney involved is probably Dov Lesel who appears to be really, really chicken *****.
Below is a link to the lawsuit. The City and LAAS have caved on the no-feeding aspect of the lawsuit even though it has not gone before a judge.
Of course, as long as the City has an official "interpreted by Dov" policy of going after feeders/caretakers until TNR is passed, who would let anyone in the City know where their colonies are?
http://itisnotreal.com/TNRLawsuit.pdf
This is a quick post in response to an earlier comment question. Much more later.
Three wildlife nonprofits have gone after the City's TNR program, and forced them to do a CEQA study of a citywide TNR program.
The City Attorney requires that the Department enforce a part of the City Ordnance section about not feeding homeless cats and dogs, because such feeding also "inevitably" feeds wildlife, or they are considered an owned or controlled animal running free on public property when the ordinance specifically exempts cats.
The City has been hindered in completing a CEQA investigation because feeders will not identify their colonies. The CEQA study is for investigation of whether populations are controlled, song birds are being killed in huge numbers, urine and feces causing environmental problems.
This is a City Attorney's guideline for LAAS to follow until the TNR issue is settled, which it may never be. This is not law and I don't think there is even a precedent in California or LA City. The attorney involved is probably Dov Lesel who appears to be really, really chicken *****.
Below is a link to the lawsuit. The City and LAAS have caved on the no-feeding aspect of the lawsuit even though it has not gone before a judge.
Of course, as long as the City has an official "interpreted by Dov" policy of going after feeders/caretakers until TNR is passed, who would let anyone in the City know where their colonies are?
http://itisnotreal.com/TNRLawsuit.pdf
Colonies are not outlawed--they won't go after them, although now, once again, LAAS is supposed to loan out traps.
However, none of this justify's the ACTF to act against feeders or colonies, unless they are saying that compliance with a judge's order is their foremost problem. This has nothing to do with animal cruelty. ACTF is administering their own law.Here is the name and phone number of the plaintiff attorney:
Babak Naficy. Phone (805) 593-0926.There is a second phone for an Inglewood location. Tel: 310-348-8495
I suggest you read the lawsuit and think of rebuttals for every point. Then call Naficy and complain but especially Dov for being such a chicken****.It will do absolutely no good, but you'll feel better.
Dov is at: Dov.Lesel@lacity.org.Tell Dov not to be so chicken shit and caving to some lawsuit. Santa Monica failed its conscience over and over because of a VERY timid City attorney. Our's appears gutless too.
In addition, I think the City does not know how to do a CEQA because they are defining it in terms it will take years to complete; i.e., seeing the effect of TNR over a period of years.This is a quick post in response to an earlier comment question. Much more later.
There is No Law Against Feeeding "Feral Cats"
.
Animal Services and the ACTF are enforcing a law that does not exist when it comes to harassing colony feeders.
"Feral Cat" is not a legal term. In fact, the Dept. of Fish and Game refers to domestic cats as non-game animals, i.e., those that can be killed, as different from wildlife. They talk about free roaming cats as a danger to wildlife, clearly making the distinction.
The California Penal Code only says owners must take care of owned animals, and if feral are considered "owned" then the colony manager must take care of them; i.e., providing food, water, shelter and vet bills.
But, to prove a colony manager is not taking care of cats requires them to access the cat's health, which means trapping them and examining them.
If free roaming, unowned domestic cats are not fed or given water, etc., then, since they are not owned by definition, there is no obligation to provide care.
In any event, when Animal Services or the ACTF goes after a colony or feeder, they are enforcing only their opinion that these cats can be caught and killed or the feeder arrested for violation of CA PC.
Of course if the cats are on the feeder's property, then they are considered owned animals and different rules apply.
But when feeders feed cats in an alley or public property, they are not breaking any law, and neither are the cats considered animals that can be killed or even seized.
Even by the department's own definitions, "feral" or free roaming vats, unowned cats are not considered wildlife, even by their own policy or statistics.
So, if they grab you for feeding alley cats, or tell you to stop feeding on-your-own property cats, they are either breaking the law by enforcing a non-existent law, or telling you to break a CA Penal Code law requiring owners to provide food, shelter and water.
.
Animal Services and the ACTF are enforcing a law that does not exist when it comes to harassing colony feeders.
"Feral Cat" is not a legal term. In fact, the Dept. of Fish and Game refers to domestic cats as non-game animals, i.e., those that can be killed, as different from wildlife. They talk about free roaming cats as a danger to wildlife, clearly making the distinction.
The California Penal Code only says owners must take care of owned animals, and if feral are considered "owned" then the colony manager must take care of them; i.e., providing food, water, shelter and vet bills.
But, to prove a colony manager is not taking care of cats requires them to access the cat's health, which means trapping them and examining them.
If free roaming, unowned domestic cats are not fed or given water, etc., then, since they are not owned by definition, there is no obligation to provide care.
In any event, when Animal Services or the ACTF goes after a colony or feeder, they are enforcing only their opinion that these cats can be caught and killed or the feeder arrested for violation of CA PC.
Of course if the cats are on the feeder's property, then they are considered owned animals and different rules apply.
But when feeders feed cats in an alley or public property, they are not breaking any law, and neither are the cats considered animals that can be killed or even seized.
Even by the department's own definitions, "feral" or free roaming vats, unowned cats are not considered wildlife, even by their own policy or statistics.
So, if they grab you for feeding alley cats, or tell you to stop feeding on-your-own property cats, they are either breaking the law by enforcing a non-existent law, or telling you to break a CA Penal Code law requiring owners to provide food, shelter and water.
.
Reno Nevada Humane Progress
.
I talked to Bonnie Brown, director of Nevada Humane who has taken Reno to No-Kill. Bonnie is a protege of Winograd.
Nevada Humane is the private side of a cooperative agreement with the Washoe County municipal shelter, much like the San Francisco agreement between SFACC/SFSPCA.
Until June of this year they were saving about 90% of dogs and cats. June through August were bad for cats, reaching about a 20% kill rate, far, far lower than LAAS. Even then, the kill rate dropped by 35% over the year before.
In any event, except for these three months, NH/Washoe County is truly No Kill, and they have an impound rate per thousand people much larger than LA.
Bonnie's summary:
Nevada Humane Society Statistics for 2008 through July
Reduction in killing (dogs and cats combined, NHS and WCRAS combined):
• 2006: 31.7% killed
• 2007: 15.2% killed
• 2008 year to date (end of July): 10.8% killed
Current countywide save rate is 89.2% making Washoe County one of the safest in the country for homeless dogs and cats.
Increase in pet adoption at NHS (dogs and cats combined):
• 2006: 4,539
• 2007: 7,452 (Including all animals 8,030 adoptions)
• 2008 year to date (end of July): 4,365 (up 6% over 2007)
July 2008 was the best pet adoption month ever at NHS with 862 animals going to good new homes in the community. (Note: this includes all animals.)
Dramatic increase in volunteers at NHS:
• February 2007: 30
• December 13, 2007: 1,205
• August 7, 2008: 2,230 — including 679 people who have offered to provide foster care to animals in their homes.
Programs:
• Pit Bull Spay/Neuter $5 Rebate Program: 446 dogs over past 11 months
• Seniors for Seniors Pet Adoption Program (People 55+ adopt pets 6 years old or up for free.): 227 senior citizens adopted pets free this year. (We would love to get the word out about this program to increase the number of people who take advantage of it.)
• Animal Help Desk: Averaging 1,700 calls and e-mails per month. The Help Desk provides free information and assistance to people who have an animal-related problem.
• Low-cost and free spay/neuter for cats: Available through the NHS Clinic and voucher program on a sliding scale fee basis.
2008 Incoming animals, year to date: 75 more dogs, 294 fewer cats, than 2007.
NOTICE THE 679 FOSTERS.
Statistics worksheet September 2007 to August 2008:
http://itisnotreal.com/Reno2008Stats.xls
I talked to Bonnie Brown, director of Nevada Humane who has taken Reno to No-Kill. Bonnie is a protege of Winograd.
Nevada Humane is the private side of a cooperative agreement with the Washoe County municipal shelter, much like the San Francisco agreement between SFACC/SFSPCA.
I didn't ask the question before, but the combined budget of the County and Nevada Humane is about $14,000,000 a year, while LAAS, who handles three times the number of animals has an operating budget of, what is it now, $20,000,000?
However, the LAAS budget, if we include retirement and a lot of other stuff is about $35-40,000,000 I do not remember the amount anymore. I don't know whether the NH/WCACC total is the deluxe tricked out version that includes retirement, or is strictly the operational budget.
In any event, their combined budget is in the same general ballpark as LAAS, as opposed to just the operating budget of NH of about $4,000,000 as being the budget for the entire NH/Washoe County.
There is a summary of the combined kill rate immediately below and below that a link to their stats through August of this year. Bonnie said their intake has dramatically increased because of foreclosures just as Boks claims for LA. So Boks is not all wet here like I thought. The increase in kill rate has hit Reno also.Until June of this year they were saving about 90% of dogs and cats. June through August were bad for cats, reaching about a 20% kill rate, far, far lower than LAAS. Even then, the kill rate dropped by 35% over the year before.
In any event, except for these three months, NH/Washoe County is truly No Kill, and they have an impound rate per thousand people much larger than LA.
Bonnie's summary:
Nevada Humane Society Statistics for 2008 through July
Reduction in killing (dogs and cats combined, NHS and WCRAS combined):
• 2006: 31.7% killed
• 2007: 15.2% killed
• 2008 year to date (end of July): 10.8% killed
Current countywide save rate is 89.2% making Washoe County one of the safest in the country for homeless dogs and cats.
Increase in pet adoption at NHS (dogs and cats combined):
• 2006: 4,539
• 2007: 7,452 (Including all animals 8,030 adoptions)
• 2008 year to date (end of July): 4,365 (up 6% over 2007)
July 2008 was the best pet adoption month ever at NHS with 862 animals going to good new homes in the community. (Note: this includes all animals.)
Dramatic increase in volunteers at NHS:
• February 2007: 30
• December 13, 2007: 1,205
• August 7, 2008: 2,230 — including 679 people who have offered to provide foster care to animals in their homes.
Programs:
• Pit Bull Spay/Neuter $5 Rebate Program: 446 dogs over past 11 months
• Seniors for Seniors Pet Adoption Program (People 55+ adopt pets 6 years old or up for free.): 227 senior citizens adopted pets free this year. (We would love to get the word out about this program to increase the number of people who take advantage of it.)
• Animal Help Desk: Averaging 1,700 calls and e-mails per month. The Help Desk provides free information and assistance to people who have an animal-related problem.
• Low-cost and free spay/neuter for cats: Available through the NHS Clinic and voucher program on a sliding scale fee basis.
2008 Incoming animals, year to date: 75 more dogs, 294 fewer cats, than 2007.
NOTICE THE 679 FOSTERS.
Statistics worksheet September 2007 to August 2008:
http://itisnotreal.com/Reno2008Stats.xls
ACTF Policy Is To Go After Feral Colonies
.
A week ago this past Monday, I talked to an officer Munez who identified himself as being ACTF. I know this is true because I called the ACTF number and he identified himself as such.
I have not posted this before as I wanted others and the media to contact him about ACTF policy before his superiors told him to shut up.
I was calling because someone told me about a cat torturing here in the Valley.
Munez told me no one reported it.
I said I was reporting it because the people who saw the cat afterwards and took it to a vet, were feral cat people who didn't want LAAS or the ACTF to know they existed; that is, they were afraid of his task force and animal control.
His surprising response was they that had a right to be scared, as feral cat "hoarders" and feral colonies were THEIR BIGGEST PROBLEM, and that they did actively go after feeders and hoarders.
He said The only proper way to treat the feeders was to ban feeding, and the cats will go away!
I asked, "Where would they go? Tijuana?" His response was they would disperse and not be a "problem" in any specific area.
Of course, logically, if anyone feeds any of those dispersed cats, they are being just like the feeders that caused colonies to originate before. That is, new colonies would start up somewhere else involving other people and the same or other cats.
The ACTF policy is in 180 degree opposition to Boks stated pro TNR policy, and is absolutely clueless regarding how to treat animals: starve them out!
By the way, Munez said there was nothing that could be done about the cat torturing without a body!! He said they needed exidence that a torturing occurred and definitely seeing the body. As the torturing had happened two weeks before, there was no body.
The body was found at a specific address but he refused to investigate in any way without the body.
So, in summary, the ACTF goes after people who have "too many cats," or who maintain a feral colony, but they do not investigate animal torturing. Go figure.
.
A week ago this past Monday, I talked to an officer Munez who identified himself as being ACTF. I know this is true because I called the ACTF number and he identified himself as such.
I have not posted this before as I wanted others and the media to contact him about ACTF policy before his superiors told him to shut up.
I was calling because someone told me about a cat torturing here in the Valley.
Munez told me no one reported it.
I said I was reporting it because the people who saw the cat afterwards and took it to a vet, were feral cat people who didn't want LAAS or the ACTF to know they existed; that is, they were afraid of his task force and animal control.
His surprising response was they that had a right to be scared, as feral cat "hoarders" and feral colonies were THEIR BIGGEST PROBLEM, and that they did actively go after feeders and hoarders.
In other words, Madow and Mason are not isolated cases but part of a general policy. This is at complete odds with Boks stated proposal to make TNR the accepted City policy, and also at odds with the official policy of a number of major cities, including New York.
Munez said TNR does not work because it attracts other cats, possum, raccoons, etc., and they offend residents. He asked me how would I feel if someone next door had 50 cats.
He said The only proper way to treat the feeders was to ban feeding, and the cats will go away!
I asked, "Where would they go? Tijuana?" His response was they would disperse and not be a "problem" in any specific area.
Of course, logically, if anyone feeds any of those dispersed cats, they are being just like the feeders that caused colonies to originate before. That is, new colonies would start up somewhere else involving other people and the same or other cats.
The ACTF policy is in 180 degree opposition to Boks stated pro TNR policy, and is absolutely clueless regarding how to treat animals: starve them out!
By the way, Munez said there was nothing that could be done about the cat torturing without a body!! He said they needed exidence that a torturing occurred and definitely seeing the body. As the torturing had happened two weeks before, there was no body.
The body was found at a specific address but he refused to investigate in any way without the body.
So, in summary, the ACTF goes after people who have "too many cats," or who maintain a feral colony, but they do not investigate animal torturing. Go figure.
.
Villaraigosa Says He Will Not Fire Boks
.
I received this email from Brad Zinsmaster:
On 9 September, the Los Angeles City Council was flooded with disgruntled employees and other individuals that were in attendance to speak against Ed Boks and the conditions at the Los Angeles Animal Services shelters and to express a vote of "no confidence" for the General Manager. A motion was taken to continue this matter in a hearing to be held by the Personnel Committee at a later date.
On 7 October, Councilmember Dennis Zine held a Personnel Committee hearing to further address all related matters. For three and a half hours, speaker after speaker came to the microphone to inform the committee of the poor management by Ed Boks and the conditions in the shelters in the City of Los Angeles. Very serious issues were addressed. Ed Boks was not in attendance.
As a result of the above hearing, the Mayor was supposed to meet with Ed Boks to specifically address the concerns expressed at the hearing. Since I did not see anything further in any of the online documents related to File #08-2377 indicating follow-up action, I decided to make a phone call to the Mayor's office.
I was transferred to several different departments before I finally got to speak with Aaron Gross. He is the individual tasked with handling the Council Relations for the Mayor.
Per my conversation with Mr. Gross this afternoon, "The Mayor has no intention of removing him (Ed Boks)."
I received this email from Brad Zinsmaster:
On 9 September, the Los Angeles City Council was flooded with disgruntled employees and other individuals that were in attendance to speak against Ed Boks and the conditions at the Los Angeles Animal Services shelters and to express a vote of "no confidence" for the General Manager. A motion was taken to continue this matter in a hearing to be held by the Personnel Committee at a later date.
On 7 October, Councilmember Dennis Zine held a Personnel Committee hearing to further address all related matters. For three and a half hours, speaker after speaker came to the microphone to inform the committee of the poor management by Ed Boks and the conditions in the shelters in the City of Los Angeles. Very serious issues were addressed. Ed Boks was not in attendance.
As a result of the above hearing, the Mayor was supposed to meet with Ed Boks to specifically address the concerns expressed at the hearing. Since I did not see anything further in any of the online documents related to File #08-2377 indicating follow-up action, I decided to make a phone call to the Mayor's office.
I was transferred to several different departments before I finally got to speak with Aaron Gross. He is the individual tasked with handling the Council Relations for the Mayor.
Per my conversation with Mr. Gross this afternoon, "The Mayor has no intention of removing him (Ed Boks)."
LEGISLATIVE & INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONSAaron Gross, Council Legislative Deputy ............... 213 978-0681
More on Michelson's $75 Million
.
http://mail.google.com/mail/#inbox/11d0ba3c793b9797
Inventor Michelson offers $75M for a way to sterilize pets
By Sharon L. Peters, Special for USA TODAY
A very rich, very impatient retired surgeon wants the pet overpopulation solved.
So Gary Michelson has put a hard-to-ignore enticement on the table: $75 million.
The person or group that comes up first with a safe, one-time non-surgical means to sterilize male and female cats and dogs gets $25 million, Michelson's non-profit Found Animals Foundation will announce today at the National Spay/Neuter Conference in Chicago. And up to $50 million more will be available to support the research of one or several individuals who come forward with plausible approaches.
"No one will stop what they're doing and turn their attention to this problem for $10 million. That's not enough," says Michelson, 59, a retired Los Angeles orthopedic surgeon who invented and patented hundreds of surgical instruments, won an infringement case in 2005 and landed at No. 317 on Forbes' 400 Richest Americans list last month.
Animal lover Michelson is convinced, like most animal-welfare experts, that if unwanted litters never materialized, U.S. shelters wouldn't be euthanizing 4 million to 6 million animals a year.
He "absolutely" believes that the $25 million carrot, coupled with the cash grants to spur research, will prompt sufficient activity that an affordable non-surgical sterilant will be on the market within 10 years.
The solution may originate from any of several arenas — from human or animal researchers who are endocrinologists, neuroscientists, reproductive biologists, molecular technology experts, or even pharmacology specialists.
"We're completely agnostic regarding the approach," says foundation executive director Aimee Gilbreath. "We'll consider anything. We really believe if cutting-edge technologies are applied we can solve this."
The foundation is partnering with the Alliance for Contraception in Cats and Dogs, a non-profit that for eight years has pressed for non-surgical approaches to pet sterilization, believing that millions more pets would be sterilized if there were a non-surgical alternative. "This is huge for our cause," says alliance president Joyce Briggs.
It is estimated that nearly 73% of dog owners and 86% of cat owners now spay or neuter their pets. But the rest mostly seem inclined to keep things as they are. The very notion of surgery is off-putting or scary to some of them, many of whom worry about anesthesia, experts say. Sterilization can cost $150 or more per animal and requires a substantial time commitment as the owner must transport the animal to a vet and return hours later, a journey of many miles in rural areas.
Also, surgery is cumbersome "in the field," where groups attempt to conduct on-site mobile sterilizations in neighborhoods or communities where a high percentage of pets are known to be producing litters year after year.
A quick, reliable, life-of-the-pet sterilant "would completely change" the way sterilization-focused non-profit groups spend their time and resources, says Tonja Robertson, founder of Spay/Neuter Indiana Pets. She and three other volunteers devoted nearly 600 hours from April 1 to Sept. 30.
They spread the spay/neuter word in grocery-store parking lots in rural, low-income southern Indiana. They distributed discount sterilization vouchers and, three times a month, transported a dozen or more pets to a veterinarian, then picked them up after the surgery (200 miles in all).
That resulted in 205 cats and 38 dogs being fixed. "If we could have a quick, non-surgical method," Robertson says, "we'd set up once a week in areas of need, get the job done, and we could redirect our efforts to adoption or cruelty."
Michelson's foundation has put together a review board of experts from several disciplines and will add more if proposals from unexpected arenas arrive. The board will meet in January to consider which proposals will receive a first-stage grant.
To those who object to his channeling so much money to help animals when there are so many human problems to be solved, Michelson has a simple answer: his medical research foundation, which has funded more than $110 million in research and discovery, most of it related to hereditary diseases.
He offers no apologies for his pet program.
Animals are "helpless. They depend on humans for a good life," says Michelson, who shares his home with two rescued pit bulls and a runt-of-the-litter whippet.
It's unclear how veterinarians will react to whatever alternative sterilization method might emerge from the contest as they will want to assess its safety and effectiveness, says Gail Golab of the American Veterinary Medical Association. But, she says, her group is on record as supporting efforts to non-surgically sterilize dogs and cats.
http://mail.google.com/mail/#inbox/11d0ba3c793b9797
Inventor Michelson offers $75M for a way to sterilize pets
By Sharon L. Peters, Special for USA TODAY
A very rich, very impatient retired surgeon wants the pet overpopulation solved.
So Gary Michelson has put a hard-to-ignore enticement on the table: $75 million.
The person or group that comes up first with a safe, one-time non-surgical means to sterilize male and female cats and dogs gets $25 million, Michelson's non-profit Found Animals Foundation will announce today at the National Spay/Neuter Conference in Chicago. And up to $50 million more will be available to support the research of one or several individuals who come forward with plausible approaches.
"No one will stop what they're doing and turn their attention to this problem for $10 million. That's not enough," says Michelson, 59, a retired Los Angeles orthopedic surgeon who invented and patented hundreds of surgical instruments, won an infringement case in 2005 and landed at No. 317 on Forbes' 400 Richest Americans list last month.
Animal lover Michelson is convinced, like most animal-welfare experts, that if unwanted litters never materialized, U.S. shelters wouldn't be euthanizing 4 million to 6 million animals a year.
He "absolutely" believes that the $25 million carrot, coupled with the cash grants to spur research, will prompt sufficient activity that an affordable non-surgical sterilant will be on the market within 10 years.
The solution may originate from any of several arenas — from human or animal researchers who are endocrinologists, neuroscientists, reproductive biologists, molecular technology experts, or even pharmacology specialists.
"We're completely agnostic regarding the approach," says foundation executive director Aimee Gilbreath. "We'll consider anything. We really believe if cutting-edge technologies are applied we can solve this."
The foundation is partnering with the Alliance for Contraception in Cats and Dogs, a non-profit that for eight years has pressed for non-surgical approaches to pet sterilization, believing that millions more pets would be sterilized if there were a non-surgical alternative. "This is huge for our cause," says alliance president Joyce Briggs.
It is estimated that nearly 73% of dog owners and 86% of cat owners now spay or neuter their pets. But the rest mostly seem inclined to keep things as they are. The very notion of surgery is off-putting or scary to some of them, many of whom worry about anesthesia, experts say. Sterilization can cost $150 or more per animal and requires a substantial time commitment as the owner must transport the animal to a vet and return hours later, a journey of many miles in rural areas.
Also, surgery is cumbersome "in the field," where groups attempt to conduct on-site mobile sterilizations in neighborhoods or communities where a high percentage of pets are known to be producing litters year after year.
A quick, reliable, life-of-the-pet sterilant "would completely change" the way sterilization-focused non-profit groups spend their time and resources, says Tonja Robertson, founder of Spay/Neuter Indiana Pets. She and three other volunteers devoted nearly 600 hours from April 1 to Sept. 30.
They spread the spay/neuter word in grocery-store parking lots in rural, low-income southern Indiana. They distributed discount sterilization vouchers and, three times a month, transported a dozen or more pets to a veterinarian, then picked them up after the surgery (200 miles in all).
That resulted in 205 cats and 38 dogs being fixed. "If we could have a quick, non-surgical method," Robertson says, "we'd set up once a week in areas of need, get the job done, and we could redirect our efforts to adoption or cruelty."
Michelson's foundation has put together a review board of experts from several disciplines and will add more if proposals from unexpected arenas arrive. The board will meet in January to consider which proposals will receive a first-stage grant.
To those who object to his channeling so much money to help animals when there are so many human problems to be solved, Michelson has a simple answer: his medical research foundation, which has funded more than $110 million in research and discovery, most of it related to hereditary diseases.
He offers no apologies for his pet program.
Animals are "helpless. They depend on humans for a good life," says Michelson, who shares his home with two rescued pit bulls and a runt-of-the-litter whippet.
It's unclear how veterinarians will react to whatever alternative sterilization method might emerge from the contest as they will want to assess its safety and effectiveness, says Gail Golab of the American Veterinary Medical Association. But, she says, her group is on record as supporting efforts to non-surgically sterilize dogs and cats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)