.
Regarding Winograd’s prescription for No-Kill in Redemption, I have some comments.
As he says, Redemption it is mostly a history book. Out of the 226 pages, only 10 (195 to 2004) actually outline the no-kill blueprint in a very sketchy way. He makes other recommendations in other parts of his book, such as refusing cats brought in in traps and not renting out traps, which are policies not mentioned in the blueprint, but are policies implemented by Boks over a year ago.
LAAS has increased “marketing” with improved access to photos and descriptions of animals as well as where they are located on its expanded website. In fact, it is from information posted on this site we were able to determine he was warehousing animals.
LAAS does have an expanded medical care program just as I pointed out in my post on how Dr. Rao took care of the injured cat I brought in. Of course I did mention that LAAS killed over 1,000 turtles, and Mason’s kittens were not treated. So this is a mixed claim of increased care by Boks. But merely to say it needs to be expanded is not enough.
Boks’ promised partnership with Western University of course was a joke as Dan Guss, and others pointed out.
Nowhere does Nathan address how to get rid of bad employees. He only mentions that his protégé shelter directors did that. How do you do it in strong union and civil service environments? This is not mentioned in his blueprint.
Nathan’s blueprint is not complete, comprehensive or detailed to really be a blueprint.
I say all this not so much as a defense of Boks, but a recognition of the problems that a new shelter director will face, whether it be a Winograd trained person or not. You know, I think any prospect needs to be given a playbook of the apparent problems to be encountered before he or she starts, including a walk around of the six shelters, and then the candidate would have to present reasonable proof that he or she had the expertise to solve those problems or to demonstrate those were indeed, not the problems that needed to first be resolved. That is, what is universally accepted as problems are often actually a symptom of problems not recognized.
What Nathan can best do is come in and clearly point out what is broken and tell the City what has to be done. If the city does not give Boks’successor carte blanche to implement those solutions, the new director will fail. Also, he can help find a successor given the slim chance that Villaraigosa will listen to him or anyone.
Winograd is not a silver bullet. The attitude towards volunteers will be difficult to change unless lots of heads roll. How to do that? Getting employees to better take care of the animals when they don’t want to work and oppose any attempt to make that happen is an operations problem. Involving the community when staff does not want to involve themselves is a problem.
Stuckey only managed to get one employee fired in his year on the job. I think it is up to us and any new director to involve to community in getting rid of bad eggs by constantly ragging on them forcing the union and Personnel to build a case against the employee that will force terminations.
.
I think Mike Bell’s Citizen Oversight Committee is an idea that should have been implemented to assist any GM to get rid of bad employees. I think Villaraigosa needs to empower a Commission he has robbed of any power and are now mostly Boks’ rubber stamps. Atake quit minutes before she would have been fired by Villaraigosa because she complained too much. Riordan was removed as president by Blackman because she was maneuvering to actually get things done in terms of positive change.
I think Butcher definitely has to go and a more change-oriented union head replace her and everyone demand that an obstructionist union head NOT be appointed.
If it is not already the case, a Councilmember needs to act as a liaison between Council and Animal Services directly as opposed to the umbrella public safety department. This should be someone who actually loves animals.
This is my blueprint.
Boks' Response to Winograd
.
From Boks' blog:
Recently there has been a little buzz in the animal welfare community about a relatively new “No Kill Equation” for local government animal care and control agencies. This prescription claims to be a revolutionary formula for achieving "no-kill." In fact, the "No-Kill Equation" is neither new nor revolutionary but is actually comprised of ten common sense, long-standing practices embraced and implemented by LA Animal Services to one degree or another.
Over the coming couple of weeks I will share one No-Kill Equation recommendation followed by an outside perspective on how LA Animal Services has been addressing the same issue for, in some cases, many years.
The Ten "No-Kill Equation" Recommendations are:1. Feral Cat TNR Program2. High Volume/Low-Cost Spay/Neuter3. Rescue Groups4. Foster Care5. Comprehensive Adoption Program6. Pet Retention7. Medical and Behavioral Rehabilitation8. Public Relations/Community Involvement9. Volunteers10. A Compassionate Director.
Ed's right you know. Winograd's prescription is old news in terms of its recommended programs, and LAAS has purportedly engaged in many of these programs over the years and has continued. In fact, Nathan lauds LA's spay/neuter programs in the 70s and 80s.
Currently it appears that at least 8,000 spay/neuters will be done in-house this coming calendar year between Rao and the ever so expensive Eric, the Millionaire, Jones. There are still the almost 40,000 spay/neuter certificates to be given out as last year. LA has been no slouch when it comes to a spay/neuter program.
But Boks has failed miserably in his volunteer program, and while foster care has improved, it is only because it went from nothing to a bit of something. The foster program does not compare to San Francisco or Philly where they save over 85% of the neonatal kittens.
The LAAS adoption program is pretty good but lacks any permanent off site adoption facility and I am sure he will tell us why that didn't happen such as permit problems or other bureaucratic crap--and it may be true. I don't know. I just know they are not there and he said there would be--to me.
His relationship with rescue groups can't be that good because for the last 2 years, rescues have taken out fewer animals than the year before he came.
I think most of the problem arises from a staff that hates the public, fosters, volunteers and Boks himself, and whose hostile attitude is supported by the unions. But Ed has not found a way to change that attitude or get rid of the deadbeats.
He has failed at enlisting community involvement and instead has raised the wrath of that community because of his arrogance, obtuseness and grandiosity. There is no room in LAAS for anyone except Ed and his ideas.
Lastly is Nathan's rule that you need a compassionate director. Perhaps by some extreme stretch Ed can be called compassionate, but Winograd forgot to say "competent" director. It is not that Ed does not know what to do, but he has failed to actually do it, mostly because of personality problems and the union and the people who work for the shelters. One person I know who has worked in the shelters for years says there are some very, very bad people working there.
I do not think Winogard has anything new to offer LA in terms of programs. Ed is trying to do them but has not succeeded to the degree we will reach no kill by 2038. I think what Winograd can do is inspire the community and get a director who can actually motivate and energize the community and thereby sweep even the worst deadbeats to get with the program or be ostracized by the employees and volunteers who embrace it. Ed is not a leader, it is not in his personality structure--just as I do not have leadership qualities in my make up. I am more of a loner, media and research type. But Ed is an entertainer; LAAS needs leadership.
What I have heard are disturbing rumors that kittens go straight from intake to the bump room and are never given impound numbers. This is a fear I have had since the kitten neonatal impound numbers took an unprecedented and dramatic decline in May through November that saved Boks' bacon so to speak and helped his numbers immensely.
I wish I could prove this right or wrong. It is just hard to believe Ed would do this for his numbers. How could anyone?
.
From Boks' blog:
Recently there has been a little buzz in the animal welfare community about a relatively new “No Kill Equation” for local government animal care and control agencies. This prescription claims to be a revolutionary formula for achieving "no-kill." In fact, the "No-Kill Equation" is neither new nor revolutionary but is actually comprised of ten common sense, long-standing practices embraced and implemented by LA Animal Services to one degree or another.
Over the coming couple of weeks I will share one No-Kill Equation recommendation followed by an outside perspective on how LA Animal Services has been addressing the same issue for, in some cases, many years.
The Ten "No-Kill Equation" Recommendations are:1. Feral Cat TNR Program2. High Volume/Low-Cost Spay/Neuter3. Rescue Groups4. Foster Care5. Comprehensive Adoption Program6. Pet Retention7. Medical and Behavioral Rehabilitation8. Public Relations/Community Involvement9. Volunteers10. A Compassionate Director.
------------------
Ed's right you know. Winograd's prescription is old news in terms of its recommended programs, and LAAS has purportedly engaged in many of these programs over the years and has continued. In fact, Nathan lauds LA's spay/neuter programs in the 70s and 80s.
Currently it appears that at least 8,000 spay/neuters will be done in-house this coming calendar year between Rao and the ever so expensive Eric, the Millionaire, Jones. There are still the almost 40,000 spay/neuter certificates to be given out as last year. LA has been no slouch when it comes to a spay/neuter program.
But Boks has failed miserably in his volunteer program, and while foster care has improved, it is only because it went from nothing to a bit of something. The foster program does not compare to San Francisco or Philly where they save over 85% of the neonatal kittens.
The LAAS adoption program is pretty good but lacks any permanent off site adoption facility and I am sure he will tell us why that didn't happen such as permit problems or other bureaucratic crap--and it may be true. I don't know. I just know they are not there and he said there would be--to me.
His relationship with rescue groups can't be that good because for the last 2 years, rescues have taken out fewer animals than the year before he came.
I think most of the problem arises from a staff that hates the public, fosters, volunteers and Boks himself, and whose hostile attitude is supported by the unions. But Ed has not found a way to change that attitude or get rid of the deadbeats.
He has failed at enlisting community involvement and instead has raised the wrath of that community because of his arrogance, obtuseness and grandiosity. There is no room in LAAS for anyone except Ed and his ideas.
Lastly is Nathan's rule that you need a compassionate director. Perhaps by some extreme stretch Ed can be called compassionate, but Winograd forgot to say "competent" director. It is not that Ed does not know what to do, but he has failed to actually do it, mostly because of personality problems and the union and the people who work for the shelters. One person I know who has worked in the shelters for years says there are some very, very bad people working there.
I do not think Winogard has anything new to offer LA in terms of programs. Ed is trying to do them but has not succeeded to the degree we will reach no kill by 2038. I think what Winograd can do is inspire the community and get a director who can actually motivate and energize the community and thereby sweep even the worst deadbeats to get with the program or be ostracized by the employees and volunteers who embrace it. Ed is not a leader, it is not in his personality structure--just as I do not have leadership qualities in my make up. I am more of a loner, media and research type. But Ed is an entertainer; LAAS needs leadership.
What I have heard are disturbing rumors that kittens go straight from intake to the bump room and are never given impound numbers. This is a fear I have had since the kitten neonatal impound numbers took an unprecedented and dramatic decline in May through November that saved Boks' bacon so to speak and helped his numbers immensely.
I wish I could prove this right or wrong. It is just hard to believe Ed would do this for his numbers. How could anyone?
.
All the Rest of the "Evidence" in the Mason Case Disappears!
.
All the rest of the evidence in the Mason case has disappeared, the City Attorney will not talk to him and Linda Ortega, one of the arresting officers cannot be reached and her supervisor has not returned Mason's calls. Is this a Kafka novel??
When Mason was busted all of his traps and cages were confiscated and they were not listed on the list of confiscated items sent to him by the police department. There were 15-20.
At first he was told by staff at West Valley that they were there and at South LA. They were not. Then he was told they were at East Valley, he went there and they were not. Then he was told they would be delivered to West Valley and they would be taken over to his house. Ron told them, "thanks but no thanks," and that he'd pick them up at West Valley. They were not there. This chase has gone another since October 11. Finally, yesterday Lt. Boswell informed Ron that they had no idea where his traps and cages were.
All the rest of the "evidence" has disappeared.
I already told you Deputy City Attorney Cocek, who will be prosecuting Mason's case has never returned Mason's phone calls. He went and talked to another Deputy City Attorney and told him that Linda Ortega, one of the arresting officers had never returned any of his phone calls. he was told then to ask for a supervisor. No supervisor would talk to him as they "were out of the office." Apparently none ever returned to the office because none ever returned his calls.
Since Mason is a suspect in a possible 597(B) charge, you'd think as least one of the investigating detectives would want to talk to him since he is eager to talk to them.
Now even the cages have disappeared. Perhaps Mason will now disappear so he can't talk to anyone else.
In any event, you get to watch the Mason bust at 2:00pm and 10:00 pm on City Channel 35. Maybe they will show Muffin being strangled or all the extremely unhealthy kittens. Remember, Boks said all of the kittens were killed because they were irremediably suffering. However, I saw with my own eyes kittens who appeared bright eyed when I was at his house a few days later and the Daily News photos show many apparently healthy cats and kittens.
In my mind the only criminals in this case are Boks, Boswell, Ortega, Cocek and maybe a few other raiders. I like Dr. Rao and will not consider him to be a criminal, but doubt that he found the kittens actually irremediably suffering.
.
All the rest of the evidence in the Mason case has disappeared, the City Attorney will not talk to him and Linda Ortega, one of the arresting officers cannot be reached and her supervisor has not returned Mason's calls. Is this a Kafka novel??
When Mason was busted all of his traps and cages were confiscated and they were not listed on the list of confiscated items sent to him by the police department. There were 15-20.
At first he was told by staff at West Valley that they were there and at South LA. They were not. Then he was told they were at East Valley, he went there and they were not. Then he was told they would be delivered to West Valley and they would be taken over to his house. Ron told them, "thanks but no thanks," and that he'd pick them up at West Valley. They were not there. This chase has gone another since October 11. Finally, yesterday Lt. Boswell informed Ron that they had no idea where his traps and cages were.
All the rest of the "evidence" has disappeared.
I already told you Deputy City Attorney Cocek, who will be prosecuting Mason's case has never returned Mason's phone calls. He went and talked to another Deputy City Attorney and told him that Linda Ortega, one of the arresting officers had never returned any of his phone calls. he was told then to ask for a supervisor. No supervisor would talk to him as they "were out of the office." Apparently none ever returned to the office because none ever returned his calls.
Since Mason is a suspect in a possible 597(B) charge, you'd think as least one of the investigating detectives would want to talk to him since he is eager to talk to them.
Now even the cages have disappeared. Perhaps Mason will now disappear so he can't talk to anyone else.
In any event, you get to watch the Mason bust at 2:00pm and 10:00 pm on City Channel 35. Maybe they will show Muffin being strangled or all the extremely unhealthy kittens. Remember, Boks said all of the kittens were killed because they were irremediably suffering. However, I saw with my own eyes kittens who appeared bright eyed when I was at his house a few days later and the Daily News photos show many apparently healthy cats and kittens.
In my mind the only criminals in this case are Boks, Boswell, Ortega, Cocek and maybe a few other raiders. I like Dr. Rao and will not consider him to be a criminal, but doubt that he found the kittens actually irremediably suffering.
.
Boks is Taking on Winograd
.
Boks is taking on Winograd's 10 step program to No-Kill. Today's segment on his blog investigates Nathan's claim that TNR is necessary to come to no-kill, and Boks says we are doing that, but there are obstacles. God, it is almost as if I read Boks' mind this morning when I argued the reasons why TNR is so hard to implement in LA due to bureaucracy and environmental groups' opposition.
http://www.laanimalservices.blogspot.com/
In any event, it appears the job to implement TNR and No-Kill will be up to Boks' successor.
.
Boks is taking on Winograd's 10 step program to No-Kill. Today's segment on his blog investigates Nathan's claim that TNR is necessary to come to no-kill, and Boks says we are doing that, but there are obstacles. God, it is almost as if I read Boks' mind this morning when I argued the reasons why TNR is so hard to implement in LA due to bureaucracy and environmental groups' opposition.
http://www.laanimalservices.blogspot.com/
In any event, it appears the job to implement TNR and No-Kill will be up to Boks' successor.
.
What If We Get Someone Worse Than Boks?
.
What I am about to say will be unpopular with the animal community, but I say it because I am afraid for the animals, given how close we are to getting rid of Boks.
What if we get someone worse than Boks? Imagine the horror if we got another Mayeda or Mayeda herself? Villaraigosa has shown a remarkable ability to ignore the LA animal community and has even considered the possibility of asking Mayeda to replace Stuckey.
I think the overwhelming consensus of our community is to bring in Winograd to consult and help pick a successor as he did in Philly when he picked Tara Derby and within seven months cut killing in half. This would be my choice too.
But it is obvious from a previous insider commenter that Villaraigosa will ignore the community on this tactic to reach no kill; he will pick another Bozo with immaculate shelter credentials; no doubt about that. Tony has no imagination; he only wants to play safe to protect his reputation.
I have read most of Redemption now and it is clear that Boks has tried to implement most of Winograd’s recommendations, but to no avail. He has not and likely cannot. Council, civil service and the union have blocked his attempts to reform, he keeps tripping on his tongue, lies far too much, and pretends no-kill is here even with a 46% death rate.
For example, Nathan recommends a comprehensive TNR program. However, just to make that a city policy, LAAS has had to perform a CEQA study of the effects of such a program in order to convince Council to make TNR the City’s policy. This has been going on for well over a year with no end in sight. There is a lot of opposition from many environmental groups that have their own, contrary goals.
In an act both of courage and self-protection, and also by the Commissions demand, Boks hired a consultant (Erica Meadows; I don’t know her qualifications) to examine LAAS’s volunteer program which had fallen apart disastrously by 2006. Her report really damns department staff from top to bottom, including Boks himself.
Boks published the results at:
http://laanimalservices.org/PDF/commission/2007/121007agd.pdf.
This is one paragraph of the Meadows report regarding her assessment of the volunteer program.
Respect - Ms. Meadows stated there appears to be a total lack of respect, integration and understanding of the Volunteer Program within the entire structure of LAAS – and at all levels from within the individual shelters, to the top levels of administration.
She made the following recommendations: assign volunteers to the Administrative Division; allocate a budget; provide adequate supervision; and amend the grievance procedures to extend to the General Manager. The lack of respect is a serious problem that must be changed. There may be better ways to address the respect issue.
The GM’s report that published Meadows' results also talks about changes made—this may all be bull, and you need to tell me if the changes actually took place.
May I make a suggestion? Like I said, I am afraid Tony will bring in a worse Bozo out of his sheer incompetence or spite, and will refuse to bring Winograd in. Remember, according to Bickhart, Winograd was offered a consulting contract before Boks was hired but did not bother to submit a proposal; this may or may not be true. Ask Nathan.
I think we ought to allow Boks one chance to save his job or at least delay his departure while he applies for a job in Cleveland (Which soon would become the largest adoption agency in the world), and that is for him to be humble for a change, swallow his pride and agree to bring in Winograd to consult and to publish Winograd’s findings no matter what they are. He has expressed to me he’d rather die that to allow this to happen. So be it. It would be his choice.
If Boks can find $20,000 to pay a “friend” Pia Salk to consult, he can find $120,000 to hire Winograd to do a four month study. $120,000 is not unreasonable for a consultant of Winograd’s status, as it would amount to about $130/hour, only $30 and hour more that an unqualified Pia made.
This will never happen, but the alternative is the get rid of Boks immediately because he cannot, or will not do what is necessary to defeat opposition to implementing no-kill by Council or the union and to work with the Commission.
.
What I am about to say will be unpopular with the animal community, but I say it because I am afraid for the animals, given how close we are to getting rid of Boks.
What if we get someone worse than Boks? Imagine the horror if we got another Mayeda or Mayeda herself? Villaraigosa has shown a remarkable ability to ignore the LA animal community and has even considered the possibility of asking Mayeda to replace Stuckey.
I think the overwhelming consensus of our community is to bring in Winograd to consult and help pick a successor as he did in Philly when he picked Tara Derby and within seven months cut killing in half. This would be my choice too.
But it is obvious from a previous insider commenter that Villaraigosa will ignore the community on this tactic to reach no kill; he will pick another Bozo with immaculate shelter credentials; no doubt about that. Tony has no imagination; he only wants to play safe to protect his reputation.
I have read most of Redemption now and it is clear that Boks has tried to implement most of Winograd’s recommendations, but to no avail. He has not and likely cannot. Council, civil service and the union have blocked his attempts to reform, he keeps tripping on his tongue, lies far too much, and pretends no-kill is here even with a 46% death rate.
For example, Nathan recommends a comprehensive TNR program. However, just to make that a city policy, LAAS has had to perform a CEQA study of the effects of such a program in order to convince Council to make TNR the City’s policy. This has been going on for well over a year with no end in sight. There is a lot of opposition from many environmental groups that have their own, contrary goals.
A Winograd successor would be faced with the same obstacles. Nathan, Friedman and Tara Deby do not think a self-protective union to be an insurmountable problem. But as Bickhart has said, no one outside knows how hard it is to get anything by City bureaucrasy. More than one Commisioner has said the same.
In many situations, because of the roadblocks imposed by the bureaucracy and the union, Ed has attempted to go around those blockages and do it without union or council sanctions, and we have keel-hauled him once he is discovered so great is our eagerness to get rid of him. But Ed is not too bright. He publicly announces his attempts to go around Council. That is a dumb move.In an act both of courage and self-protection, and also by the Commissions demand, Boks hired a consultant (Erica Meadows; I don’t know her qualifications) to examine LAAS’s volunteer program which had fallen apart disastrously by 2006. Her report really damns department staff from top to bottom, including Boks himself.
Boks published the results at:
http://laanimalservices.org/PDF/commission/2007/121007agd.pdf.
This is one paragraph of the Meadows report regarding her assessment of the volunteer program.
Respect - Ms. Meadows stated there appears to be a total lack of respect, integration and understanding of the Volunteer Program within the entire structure of LAAS – and at all levels from within the individual shelters, to the top levels of administration.
She made the following recommendations: assign volunteers to the Administrative Division; allocate a budget; provide adequate supervision; and amend the grievance procedures to extend to the General Manager. The lack of respect is a serious problem that must be changed. There may be better ways to address the respect issue.
The GM’s report that published Meadows' results also talks about changes made—this may all be bull, and you need to tell me if the changes actually took place.
May I make a suggestion? Like I said, I am afraid Tony will bring in a worse Bozo out of his sheer incompetence or spite, and will refuse to bring Winograd in. Remember, according to Bickhart, Winograd was offered a consulting contract before Boks was hired but did not bother to submit a proposal; this may or may not be true. Ask Nathan.
I think we ought to allow Boks one chance to save his job or at least delay his departure while he applies for a job in Cleveland (Which soon would become the largest adoption agency in the world), and that is for him to be humble for a change, swallow his pride and agree to bring in Winograd to consult and to publish Winograd’s findings no matter what they are. He has expressed to me he’d rather die that to allow this to happen. So be it. It would be his choice.
If Boks can find $20,000 to pay a “friend” Pia Salk to consult, he can find $120,000 to hire Winograd to do a four month study. $120,000 is not unreasonable for a consultant of Winograd’s status, as it would amount to about $130/hour, only $30 and hour more that an unqualified Pia made.
This will never happen, but the alternative is the get rid of Boks immediately because he cannot, or will not do what is necessary to defeat opposition to implementing no-kill by Council or the union and to work with the Commission.
.
MAYEDA'S SLAUGHTERHOUSES-ammended
.
I promised not to go after Mayeda until Boks was done. But what can I do? Knowledge of the County horrors is spreading everywhere.
Below is an email forwarded to me (I am beginning to feel like ADL).
Furthermore, during this past weekend, volunteers photographed medications that should have been administered to the animals carelessly strewn on the shelter floor.
Yet another dog dead in its kennel.
We implore the media, state, and federal government to investigate and report on the Department's abuse of the public trust. Photos demonstrating Department misconduct and mismanagement can be downloaded at
http://strongcoders.com/LACDACC/LACDACC.zip.
Among other things, the Department has engaged and continues to engage in the following violations of Department policy and procedure and/or state law and/or federal law. * Use and possession of illegal substances on County property (Federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §§841, et seq.,; California Uniform Controlled Substances Act, Health & Safety Code §§11350, et seq.; LACDACC Substance Abuse Policy HR270)
* Causing unnecessary suffering, sickness, and death due to the foregoing violations (Civil Code §§1834, 1846, 2080; Pen. Code §597; LACDACC Code of Conduct; LACDACC Maintenance of Animal Health Policy OPK140; LACDACC Sick and Injured Animals Policy OPF180)
* Not providing animals requiring veterinary/medical care with veterinary/medical care or stopping veterinary/medical care when veterinary/medical care is still required (Civil Code §§1834, 1846; LACDACC Maintenance of Animal Health Policy OPK140; LACDACC Sick and Injured Animals Policy OPF180)
* Routine failure to provide adequate nutrition, shelter, exercise and water and to treat animals kindly and humanely (Civil Code §§1834, 1846, 2080; Pen. Code §597; LACDACC Code of Ethics; LACDACC Maintenance of Animal Health Policy OPK140; LACDACC Kennel Responsibilities - General Duties Policy OPK130)
* Killing animals without first engaging in reasonable efforts to identify and locate the animal's owner or make the animal available for adoption to the public (Civil Code §§1834.4, 1846, 2080; Pen. Code §§597f, 597.1; LACDACC Euthanasia Policy OPK120; LACDACC Impounded Animals with Traceable Identification Policy OPG150)
There are a lot of more citations I have not attached because of space.
EMAIL, WRITE OR CALL THE COUNTY SUPERVISORS:
The supervisors' email and fax numbers are below. Knabe has a feature that allows you to ask questions and he promises to post a response on the Internet in two days.
Zev Yaroslavsky - zev@bos.lacounty.gov (213) 625-7360 fax
Yvonne B. Burke - seconddistrict@lacbos.org <seconddistrict@lacbos.org> (213) 680-3283 Fax
Michael D. Antonovich - FifthDistrict@lacbos.org (213) 974-1010 FAX
Gloria Molina molina@bos.lacounty.gov Fax: (213) 613-1739
Dan Knabe Fax: 213-626-6941 dsommers@lacbos.org http://knabe.com/askdon/askdon.html
Maybe Boks and Mayeda can share adjoining cells after being busted by the ACTF for 597(b) felony animal neglect.
Email or call the five County Supervisors. Mayeda is worse than Boks. Mention that you saw these photos and email on my blog. My statistics software shows I get a lot of hits from the County, and the more influential this site gets, the more powerful its voice for the animals.
I promised not to go after Mayeda until Boks was done. But what can I do? Knowledge of the County horrors is spreading everywhere.Below is an email forwarded to me (I am beginning to feel like ADL).
This photo is of a dead dog on top of a transport kennel with a live dog inside at a County shelter.
CLICK ON ANY PHOTO MAKES IT HUGE!
Dear Respected Members of California State and Federal Government and Members of the Press and Media: Last week, some of you reported about the horrific and senseless death of a dog impounded by the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control, under the management of Department Director Marcia Mayeda. That dog, Zephyr, died as a result of the Department's systemic neglect, mismanagement, and violations of its own policies and procedures, as well as both state and federal law. Nothing has changed.
The report about Zephyr's death, including the lack of heat at the Carson shelter, generated as outpouring of support from the humane community. People brought hundreds of blankets and towels to the shelter for the health, safety and comfort of the animals.
But, in another display of unimaginable incompetence, instead of providing those donated towels and blankets to the suffering animals, Department employees stored them outside in the rain, next to the freezer in which the bodies of dead animals (often infested with maggots) are kept. I have photographs depicting this atrocity.
The report about Zephyr's death, including the lack of heat at the Carson shelter, generated as outpouring of support from the humane community. People brought hundreds of blankets and towels to the shelter for the health, safety and comfort of the animals.
But, in another display of unimaginable incompetence, instead of providing those donated towels and blankets to the suffering animals, Department employees stored them outside in the rain, next to the freezer in which the bodies of dead animals (often infested with maggots) are kept. I have photographs depicting this atrocity.
Furthermore, during this past weekend, volunteers photographed medications that should have been administered to the animals carelessly strewn on the shelter floor.
(The photos below show filthy kennels at the Lancaster shelter)
And, not surprisingly, another dog died needlessly after being infected with a deadly disease because of the Department's simple failure to vaccinate him, as per Department policy. These and other egregious violations of Department policy and state and federal law have been repeatedly brought to the attention of Ms. Mayeda and other Department supervisors, who continue to consistently fail to hold those responsible accountable.
Yet another dog dead in its kennel.
We implore the media, state, and federal government to investigate and report on the Department's abuse of the public trust. Photos demonstrating Department misconduct and mismanagement can be downloaded at
http://strongcoders.com/LACDACC/LACDACC.zip.
Among other things, the Department has engaged and continues to engage in the following violations of Department policy and procedure and/or state law and/or federal law. * Use and possession of illegal substances on County property (Federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §§841, et seq.,; California Uniform Controlled Substances Act, Health & Safety Code §§11350, et seq.; LACDACC Substance Abuse Policy HR270)
* Causing unnecessary suffering, sickness, and death due to the foregoing violations (Civil Code §§1834, 1846, 2080; Pen. Code §597; LACDACC Code of Conduct; LACDACC Maintenance of Animal Health Policy OPK140; LACDACC Sick and Injured Animals Policy OPF180)
* Not providing animals requiring veterinary/medical care with veterinary/medical care or stopping veterinary/medical care when veterinary/medical care is still required (Civil Code §§1834, 1846; LACDACC Maintenance of Animal Health Policy OPK140; LACDACC Sick and Injured Animals Policy OPF180)
* Routine failure to provide adequate nutrition, shelter, exercise and water and to treat animals kindly and humanely (Civil Code §§1834, 1846, 2080; Pen. Code §597; LACDACC Code of Ethics; LACDACC Maintenance of Animal Health Policy OPK140; LACDACC Kennel Responsibilities - General Duties Policy OPK130)
* Killing animals without first engaging in reasonable efforts to identify and locate the animal's owner or make the animal available for adoption to the public (Civil Code §§1834.4, 1846, 2080; Pen. Code §§597f, 597.1; LACDACC Euthanasia Policy OPK120; LACDACC Impounded Animals with Traceable Identification Policy OPG150)
There are a lot of more citations I have not attached because of space.
EMAIL, WRITE OR CALL THE COUNTY SUPERVISORS:
The supervisors' email and fax numbers are below. Knabe has a feature that allows you to ask questions and he promises to post a response on the Internet in two days.
Zev Yaroslavsky - zev@bos.lacounty.gov (213) 625-7360 fax
Yvonne B. Burke - seconddistrict@lacbos.org <seconddistrict@lacbos.org> (213) 680-3283 Fax
Michael D. Antonovich - FifthDistrict@lacbos.org (213) 974-1010 FAX
Gloria Molina molina@bos.lacounty.gov Fax: (213) 613-1739
Dan Knabe Fax: 213-626-6941 dsommers@lacbos.org http://knabe.com/askdon/askdon.html
Maybe Boks and Mayeda can share adjoining cells after being busted by the ACTF for 597(b) felony animal neglect.
Email or call the five County Supervisors. Mayeda is worse than Boks. Mention that you saw these photos and email on my blog. My statistics software shows I get a lot of hits from the County, and the more influential this site gets, the more powerful its voice for the animals.
.
Criticism of No-Kill sheltering in today’s unsigned Daily News article:
.
The unintended consequences of `no kill' shelters
Article Last Updated: 12/09/2007 09:02:25 PM PST
For years, various animal-rights activists have demanded - sometimes violently - the Los Angeles animal shelters embrace a "no kill" policy. And they have largely got what they wanted - plus some unintended consequences they surely didn't.
Over the last five years, the number of animals euthanized in L.A. shelters has been cut in half, from 37,024 to 17,881. But with that gain come trade-offs.
Keeping large numbers of unadoptable pets alive means shelters will be more crowded. Animals can't be as closely monitored. Contagious illnesses will spread, and violent animals will more often prey on weaker ones.
So while euthanasia rates have gone down, animal deaths from other causes - including illness and attacks - have gone up from 1,462 to 3,312 a year, a 127 percent increase.
Some of this, to be sure, could be prevented with better management at the shelters. But some, too, is no doubt unavoidable. The more animals in a shelter - especially violent, old, sick or injured ones - the more that will eventually die in shelters.
Whether it's better for animals to die from a painful sickness, or after a vicious attack, or from old age, instead of by being painlessly put down, is a matter we'll leave for the ethicists and animal-rights champions to decide. But certainly the numbers raise the question of whether "no kill" can realistically be a goal worth pursuing.
MY RESPONSE:
Regarding the “unintended consequences of no-kill sheltering,” the author assumes LA is a model of no-kill.
This is far, far from the case. LA still has a kill or let die rate of more than 43%, and is no-kill by General Manager’s mouth only. He has claimed having led two other shelter systems nearly to No-Kill but who has utterly failed to take any of those systems anywhere near no-kill. Boks claims to be a no-kill guru which got him his job as Director of the NYC Animal Care and control, where he failed, and then as GM of LA, again where he has failed.
If you take cities that really are no-kill or almost no-kill, such as San Francisco, Charlottesville, N.C., Tompkins Co, N.Y. and a very few others, the save rate of all live animals coming into the shelter is 90% (87% S.F.). The 10% that die—that do not leave the shelter alive--are from a combination of euthanasia, fighting, disease and injury. Overcrowding is not a factor. LA kills-lets die 300% more than that with a save rate of 55%.
Ed Boks uses the excuse that the increase in death rate is due to more older and sick animals, but he allows no one to check the actual statistics regarding the condition of the animals on impound, nor the treatment received. The author must not assume that the reasons Boks cites for his failure to bring LA to no-kill are true, or that true no-kill shelters markedly increase death rates by disease and injury, therefore have caused increased suffering.
.
ANOTHER COMMENTER'S RESPONSE:
"Nokill" doesn't make more animals die. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Now Boks is blaming his failure on "nokill."
One, LA is not nokill. Two, trying to be nokill will not cause more animals to die naturally. More animals are dying from overcrowding, lack of proper care and Boks' orders.
Boks sent a memo to all employees stating that they are not allowed to euthanize animals if they are dying. He basically told them to let them die. This was right before "nokill" March. They can only euthanize for lack of space on his orders.
I feel that Boks is allowing these animals to die a slow, painful death from illness and injury to improve his numbers and to spite the activists. He is committing animal neglect, animal cruelty. He did the same in New York, and was fired. Our Mayor just doesn't care.
.
The unintended consequences of `no kill' shelters
Article Last Updated: 12/09/2007 09:02:25 PM PST
For years, various animal-rights activists have demanded - sometimes violently - the Los Angeles animal shelters embrace a "no kill" policy. And they have largely got what they wanted - plus some unintended consequences they surely didn't.
Over the last five years, the number of animals euthanized in L.A. shelters has been cut in half, from 37,024 to 17,881. But with that gain come trade-offs.
Keeping large numbers of unadoptable pets alive means shelters will be more crowded. Animals can't be as closely monitored. Contagious illnesses will spread, and violent animals will more often prey on weaker ones.
So while euthanasia rates have gone down, animal deaths from other causes - including illness and attacks - have gone up from 1,462 to 3,312 a year, a 127 percent increase.
Some of this, to be sure, could be prevented with better management at the shelters. But some, too, is no doubt unavoidable. The more animals in a shelter - especially violent, old, sick or injured ones - the more that will eventually die in shelters.
Whether it's better for animals to die from a painful sickness, or after a vicious attack, or from old age, instead of by being painlessly put down, is a matter we'll leave for the ethicists and animal-rights champions to decide. But certainly the numbers raise the question of whether "no kill" can realistically be a goal worth pursuing.
MY RESPONSE:
Regarding the “unintended consequences of no-kill sheltering,” the author assumes LA is a model of no-kill.
This is far, far from the case. LA still has a kill or let die rate of more than 43%, and is no-kill by General Manager’s mouth only. He has claimed having led two other shelter systems nearly to No-Kill but who has utterly failed to take any of those systems anywhere near no-kill. Boks claims to be a no-kill guru which got him his job as Director of the NYC Animal Care and control, where he failed, and then as GM of LA, again where he has failed.
If you take cities that really are no-kill or almost no-kill, such as San Francisco, Charlottesville, N.C., Tompkins Co, N.Y. and a very few others, the save rate of all live animals coming into the shelter is 90% (87% S.F.). The 10% that die—that do not leave the shelter alive--are from a combination of euthanasia, fighting, disease and injury. Overcrowding is not a factor. LA kills-lets die 300% more than that with a save rate of 55%.
Ed Boks uses the excuse that the increase in death rate is due to more older and sick animals, but he allows no one to check the actual statistics regarding the condition of the animals on impound, nor the treatment received. The author must not assume that the reasons Boks cites for his failure to bring LA to no-kill are true, or that true no-kill shelters markedly increase death rates by disease and injury, therefore have caused increased suffering.
.
ANOTHER COMMENTER'S RESPONSE:
"Nokill" doesn't make more animals die. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Now Boks is blaming his failure on "nokill."
One, LA is not nokill. Two, trying to be nokill will not cause more animals to die naturally. More animals are dying from overcrowding, lack of proper care and Boks' orders.
Boks sent a memo to all employees stating that they are not allowed to euthanize animals if they are dying. He basically told them to let them die. This was right before "nokill" March. They can only euthanize for lack of space on his orders.
I feel that Boks is allowing these animals to die a slow, painful death from illness and injury to improve his numbers and to spite the activists. He is committing animal neglect, animal cruelty. He did the same in New York, and was fired. Our Mayor just doesn't care.
.
Redemption
.
Got to admit I don't read much anymore except for silly medical reports I have to rebut, so I never got around to reading Winograd's book, Redemption. Left me with the recognition of how little I understood about the No-Kill paradigm and the essentials for getting there. This is a must read for the LA animal community. Nathan also has a long bibliography of books and studies to be sifted through.
I have to educate myself more before I say anything about what a solution looks like or accept anyone else's analyses of why Winograd's reasoning and solutions will not in LA.
Guess I am relegated to pointing out how Boks, Mayeda and the City/County shelters have failed.
.
Got to admit I don't read much anymore except for silly medical reports I have to rebut, so I never got around to reading Winograd's book, Redemption. Left me with the recognition of how little I understood about the No-Kill paradigm and the essentials for getting there. This is a must read for the LA animal community. Nathan also has a long bibliography of books and studies to be sifted through.
I have to educate myself more before I say anything about what a solution looks like or accept anyone else's analyses of why Winograd's reasoning and solutions will not in LA.
Guess I am relegated to pointing out how Boks, Mayeda and the City/County shelters have failed.
.
Dana Bartholomew's Article is Out
.
Dana's article about LA's animal shelters is out with him presenting both our (sane, truthful, indignant) viewpoints and Bok's responses. Dana presented both sides well, maybe Boks' a bit better.
But what can I say, Boks' response sounds plausible. I said "sounds plausible" even though we know better. The general public does not.
The only way we can disprove Boks' rebuttals is by having access to all of the data from which Boks' creates his statistics and reports, and answers to our allegations. To outsiders, it would appear to be a case of he said, she said.
But Boks has refused to give Jensen much of the data he requested. I assume that data directly related to his current claims about geriatricsn and fosters as the cause of the increased died-in-shelter numbers will not be forthcoming--if at all--until after story is long gone.
To disprove Boks' spin, we would need to have stats on all impounded animals, their health status, treatment and disposition. Then we'd need a long time before Brad or anyone else of us to analyze the data and present our conclusions . Then no one would pay any attaention anyhow.
At least criticism of Boks is now mainstream media.
http://www.dailynews.com/ci_7655724
By the way, Dr. Cynthia Hockman's photo is on the front page of this Daily News story.
.
Dana's article about LA's animal shelters is out with him presenting both our (sane, truthful, indignant) viewpoints and Bok's responses. Dana presented both sides well, maybe Boks' a bit better.
But what can I say, Boks' response sounds plausible. I said "sounds plausible" even though we know better. The general public does not.
The only way we can disprove Boks' rebuttals is by having access to all of the data from which Boks' creates his statistics and reports, and answers to our allegations. To outsiders, it would appear to be a case of he said, she said.
But Boks has refused to give Jensen much of the data he requested. I assume that data directly related to his current claims about geriatricsn and fosters as the cause of the increased died-in-shelter numbers will not be forthcoming--if at all--until after story is long gone.
To disprove Boks' spin, we would need to have stats on all impounded animals, their health status, treatment and disposition. Then we'd need a long time before Brad or anyone else of us to analyze the data and present our conclusions . Then no one would pay any attaention anyhow.
At least criticism of Boks is now mainstream media.
http://www.dailynews.com/ci_7655724
By the way, Dr. Cynthia Hockman's photo is on the front page of this Daily News story.
.
Let's Find a Replacement for Boks
.
I am kind of wearing out pointing to all the stuff Boks is doing and having the Mayor standing steadfastly behind him.
I understand there has been a lot of internal criticism about Boks regarding his management style, animal cruelty and neglect in the shelters, his apparent inability to speak the truth, and his failure to perform in a leadership role at LAAS, but there are not even rumors that he would be going as there were two or three months before Stuckey left.
The LA animal community has made no effort to begin a search for a replacement as we did after Greenwalt resigned. Should Ed be fired or resign, the choice of a successor will be left entirely up to the mayor again and look what it got us last time.
There has been a constant internal criticism of us with Blackman, the mayor and Robin Kramer holding the view that no matter who they select as GM, they will be attacked. They believe they gave us who we want when they gave us Boks--an advocate of No-Kill.
We did not select Boks, the mayor did. Boks was not our choice.
When Greenwalt resigned three years ago, a sample of the animal community set up or own search committee to replace him. Mike Bell, Scott Sorentino, Tamie Bryant, Christy Metropole, David Casselman, Rich Mclellen and I along with several others whose names I caanot remember, were on it.
As part of our research I rejected Boks as a candidate because of his poor performance in Phoenix. The Bernstein Committee sent a short list to Hahn and he picked the last person on earth who should have had the job, Stukey. Then a year later Villaraigosa selected someone our committee felt could not do the job and wondering why Boks Maricopa County website statistics talked about what a huge no-kill guru he was when there was little improvement in their euth rate at all.
The LA animal community has never had a say in who was selected as GM--never. Yet the mayor and his henchmen think we are all ADL, all nutty radicals, and therefore should not be given a place at the table of choice.
I admit to being a quasi-nutty radical, if that means my life is devoted to helping animals, but my facts are right on, and I also think I am voicing the consensus viewpoint of the wider LA animal community in their desire to get rid of Boks.
But man, it is up to us to convince the mayor and henchmen that ignoring our combined will and sentiment will not bring to rest the opposition to any Bozo he might select. It is also up to us to find viable candidates to present to him an an option. We are failing miserably at this task.
.
I am kind of wearing out pointing to all the stuff Boks is doing and having the Mayor standing steadfastly behind him.
I understand there has been a lot of internal criticism about Boks regarding his management style, animal cruelty and neglect in the shelters, his apparent inability to speak the truth, and his failure to perform in a leadership role at LAAS, but there are not even rumors that he would be going as there were two or three months before Stuckey left.
The LA animal community has made no effort to begin a search for a replacement as we did after Greenwalt resigned. Should Ed be fired or resign, the choice of a successor will be left entirely up to the mayor again and look what it got us last time.
There has been a constant internal criticism of us with Blackman, the mayor and Robin Kramer holding the view that no matter who they select as GM, they will be attacked. They believe they gave us who we want when they gave us Boks--an advocate of No-Kill.
We did not select Boks, the mayor did. Boks was not our choice.
When Greenwalt resigned three years ago, a sample of the animal community set up or own search committee to replace him. Mike Bell, Scott Sorentino, Tamie Bryant, Christy Metropole, David Casselman, Rich Mclellen and I along with several others whose names I caanot remember, were on it.
As part of our research I rejected Boks as a candidate because of his poor performance in Phoenix. The Bernstein Committee sent a short list to Hahn and he picked the last person on earth who should have had the job, Stukey. Then a year later Villaraigosa selected someone our committee felt could not do the job and wondering why Boks Maricopa County website statistics talked about what a huge no-kill guru he was when there was little improvement in their euth rate at all.
The LA animal community has never had a say in who was selected as GM--never. Yet the mayor and his henchmen think we are all ADL, all nutty radicals, and therefore should not be given a place at the table of choice.
I admit to being a quasi-nutty radical, if that means my life is devoted to helping animals, but my facts are right on, and I also think I am voicing the consensus viewpoint of the wider LA animal community in their desire to get rid of Boks.
But man, it is up to us to convince the mayor and henchmen that ignoring our combined will and sentiment will not bring to rest the opposition to any Bozo he might select. It is also up to us to find viable candidates to present to him an an option. We are failing miserably at this task.
.
MASON DENIED RIGHT FOR POSTSEIZURE HEARING AND KNOWLEDGE OF HIS CATS' WHEREABOUTS
.
Accordingto the provisions of PenalCode 597, Mason should have been given notice that he could request a postsizure hearing, as well as information stating where all his cats were located In addition, this information must be made available to the public for three years after the impoundment ends. Animal Services has denied Jensen's request for public documents requesting exactly this information.
The City Attorney must supply evidence that Mason's cats did not receive veterinary care, and that care for which Mason has records, was provided by a veterinarian now working for the City who refused--allegedly--to give Mason all records of treatment provided by her.
Penal Code 597.1 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/597.1.html) This is the code covering the failure to provide veterinary care, which Boks stated was the reason the animals were impounded and several killed.
However, Mason was charged with violation of 597b, depriving animal of food, water, or shelter; causing unnecessary suffering.
Penal Code 597 covers animal abuse and cruelty. This is what it says:
(a) Every owner, driver, or keeper of any animal who permits the animal to be in any building, enclosure, lane, street, square, or lot of any city, county, city and county, or judicial district without proper care and attention is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any peace officer, humane society officer, or animal control officer shall take possession of the stray or abandoned animal and shall provide care and treatment for the animal until the animal is deemed to be in suitable condition to be returned to the owner.
When the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that very prompt action is required to protect the health or safety of the animal or the health or safety of others, the officer shall immediately seize the animal and comply with subdivision (f). In all other cases, the officer shall comply with the provisions of subdivision (g). ---
(b) The officer may likewise take charge of any animal, including a dog or cat, that by reason of lameness, sickness, feebleness, or neglect, is unfit for the labor it is performing, or that in any other manner is being cruelly treated, and provide care and treatment for the animal until it is deemed to be in a suitable condition to be returned to the owner. When the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that very prompt action is required to protect the health or safety of an animal or the health or safety of others, the officer shall immediately seize the animal and comply with subdivision (f). In all other cases, the officer shall comply with subdivision (g). ---
(d) An animal control agency that takes possession of an animal pursuant to subdivision (c) shall keep records of the whereabouts of the animal from the time of possession to the end of the animal's impoundment, and those records shall be available for inspection by the public upon request for three years after the date the animal's impoundment ended. ---
(f) Whenever an officer authorized under this section seizes or impounds an animal based on a reasonable belief that prompt action is required to protect the health or safety of the animal or the health or safety of others, the officer shall, prior to the commencement of any criminal proceedings authorized by this section, provide the owner or keeper of the animal, if known or ascertainable after reasonable investigation, with the opportunity for a postseizure hearing to determine the validity of the seizure or impoundment, or both. ---
(1) The agency shall cause a notice to be affixed to a conspicuous place where the animal was situated or personally deliver a notice of the seizure or impoundment, or both, to the owner or keeper within 48 hours, excluding weekends and holidays. The notice shall include all of the following:
(A) The name, business address, and telephone number of the officer providing the notice. ---
(B) A description of the animal seized, including any identification upon the animal.
(C) The authority and purpose for the seizure, or impoundment, including the time, place, and circumstances under which the animal was seized.
(D) A statement that, in order to receive a postseizure hearing, the owner or person authorized to keep the animal, or his or her agent, shall request the hearing by signing and returning an enclosed declaration of ownership or right to keep the animal to the agency providing the notice within 10 days, including weekends and holidays, of the date of the notice. The declaration may be returned by personal delivery or mail.
(E) A statement that the cost of caring for and treating any animal properly seized under this section is a lien on the animal and that the animal shall not be returned to the owner until the charges are paid, and that failure to request or to attend a scheduled hearing shall result in liability for this cost.
(2) The postseizure hearing shall be conducted within 48 hours of the request, excluding weekends and holidays. The seizing agency may authorize its own officer or employee to conduct the hearing if the hearing officer is not the same person who directed the seizure or impoundment of the animal and is not junior in rank to that person. The agency may utilize the services of a hearing officer
(k) Upon the conviction of a person charged with a violation of this section, or Section 597 or 597a, all animals lawfully seized and impounded with respect to the violation shall be adjudged by the court to be forfeited and shall thereupon be transferred to the impounding officer or appropriate public entity for proper adoption or other disposition.
A person convicted of a violation of this section shall be personally liable to the seizing agency for all costs of impoundment from the time of seizure to the time of proper disposition. Upon conviction, the court shall order the convicted person to make payment to the appropriate public entity for the costs incurred in the housing, care, feeding, and treatment of the seized or impounded animals. Each person convicted in connection with a particular animal may be held jointly and severally liable for restitution for that particular animal. The payment shall be in addition to any other fine or sentence ordered by the court.
(l) It shall be the duty of all peace officers, humane society officers, and animal control officers to use all currently acceptable methods of identification, both electronic and otherwise, to determine the lawful owner or caretaker of any seized or impounded animal. It shall also be their duty to make reasonable efforts to notify the owner or caretaker of the whereabouts of the animal and any procedures available for the lawful recovery of the animal and, upon the owner's and caretaker's initiation of recovery procedures, retain custody of the animal for a reasonable period of time to allow for completion of the recovery process.
Accordingto the provisions of PenalCode 597, Mason should have been given notice that he could request a postsizure hearing, as well as information stating where all his cats were located In addition, this information must be made available to the public for three years after the impoundment ends. Animal Services has denied Jensen's request for public documents requesting exactly this information.
The City Attorney must supply evidence that Mason's cats did not receive veterinary care, and that care for which Mason has records, was provided by a veterinarian now working for the City who refused--allegedly--to give Mason all records of treatment provided by her.
Penal Code 597.1 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/597.1.html) This is the code covering the failure to provide veterinary care, which Boks stated was the reason the animals were impounded and several killed.
However, Mason was charged with violation of 597b, depriving animal of food, water, or shelter; causing unnecessary suffering.
Penal Code 597 covers animal abuse and cruelty. This is what it says:
(a) Every owner, driver, or keeper of any animal who permits the animal to be in any building, enclosure, lane, street, square, or lot of any city, county, city and county, or judicial district without proper care and attention is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any peace officer, humane society officer, or animal control officer shall take possession of the stray or abandoned animal and shall provide care and treatment for the animal until the animal is deemed to be in suitable condition to be returned to the owner.
When the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that very prompt action is required to protect the health or safety of the animal or the health or safety of others, the officer shall immediately seize the animal and comply with subdivision (f). In all other cases, the officer shall comply with the provisions of subdivision (g). ---
(b) The officer may likewise take charge of any animal, including a dog or cat, that by reason of lameness, sickness, feebleness, or neglect, is unfit for the labor it is performing, or that in any other manner is being cruelly treated, and provide care and treatment for the animal until it is deemed to be in a suitable condition to be returned to the owner. When the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that very prompt action is required to protect the health or safety of an animal or the health or safety of others, the officer shall immediately seize the animal and comply with subdivision (f). In all other cases, the officer shall comply with subdivision (g). ---
(d) An animal control agency that takes possession of an animal pursuant to subdivision (c) shall keep records of the whereabouts of the animal from the time of possession to the end of the animal's impoundment, and those records shall be available for inspection by the public upon request for three years after the date the animal's impoundment ended. ---
(f) Whenever an officer authorized under this section seizes or impounds an animal based on a reasonable belief that prompt action is required to protect the health or safety of the animal or the health or safety of others, the officer shall, prior to the commencement of any criminal proceedings authorized by this section, provide the owner or keeper of the animal, if known or ascertainable after reasonable investigation, with the opportunity for a postseizure hearing to determine the validity of the seizure or impoundment, or both. ---
(1) The agency shall cause a notice to be affixed to a conspicuous place where the animal was situated or personally deliver a notice of the seizure or impoundment, or both, to the owner or keeper within 48 hours, excluding weekends and holidays. The notice shall include all of the following:
(A) The name, business address, and telephone number of the officer providing the notice. ---
(B) A description of the animal seized, including any identification upon the animal.
(C) The authority and purpose for the seizure, or impoundment, including the time, place, and circumstances under which the animal was seized.
(D) A statement that, in order to receive a postseizure hearing, the owner or person authorized to keep the animal, or his or her agent, shall request the hearing by signing and returning an enclosed declaration of ownership or right to keep the animal to the agency providing the notice within 10 days, including weekends and holidays, of the date of the notice. The declaration may be returned by personal delivery or mail.
(E) A statement that the cost of caring for and treating any animal properly seized under this section is a lien on the animal and that the animal shall not be returned to the owner until the charges are paid, and that failure to request or to attend a scheduled hearing shall result in liability for this cost.
(2) The postseizure hearing shall be conducted within 48 hours of the request, excluding weekends and holidays. The seizing agency may authorize its own officer or employee to conduct the hearing if the hearing officer is not the same person who directed the seizure or impoundment of the animal and is not junior in rank to that person. The agency may utilize the services of a hearing officer
(k) Upon the conviction of a person charged with a violation of this section, or Section 597 or 597a, all animals lawfully seized and impounded with respect to the violation shall be adjudged by the court to be forfeited and shall thereupon be transferred to the impounding officer or appropriate public entity for proper adoption or other disposition.
A person convicted of a violation of this section shall be personally liable to the seizing agency for all costs of impoundment from the time of seizure to the time of proper disposition. Upon conviction, the court shall order the convicted person to make payment to the appropriate public entity for the costs incurred in the housing, care, feeding, and treatment of the seized or impounded animals. Each person convicted in connection with a particular animal may be held jointly and severally liable for restitution for that particular animal. The payment shall be in addition to any other fine or sentence ordered by the court.
(l) It shall be the duty of all peace officers, humane society officers, and animal control officers to use all currently acceptable methods of identification, both electronic and otherwise, to determine the lawful owner or caretaker of any seized or impounded animal. It shall also be their duty to make reasonable efforts to notify the owner or caretaker of the whereabouts of the animal and any procedures available for the lawful recovery of the animal and, upon the owner's and caretaker's initiation of recovery procedures, retain custody of the animal for a reasonable period of time to allow for completion of the recovery process.
Mayeda killed almost 30,000 Cats in 2005
.
Look at the chart below. In 2005 LA County impounded 35,817 cats. 29,558 were killed or died in shelter; only 6,259 left the shelters alive.
The live save rate for cats was only 17.5%. The death rate was 82.5%. These are from the County's own statistics. Fewer than 1 out of 5 walked out alive. The worst performance of any large shelter system in the country bar none.
Look what else the chart shows: only 1% was placed with rescues!!! 1% compared with 12% for LAAS and we know how poorly LAAS is doing.
Click on chart for a larger image
Mayeda said 89% of adoptable cats were adopted. Jees, she makes Boks look like a piker both in killing and lying about it.
Look at the chart below. In 2005 LA County impounded 35,817 cats. 29,558 were killed or died in shelter; only 6,259 left the shelters alive.
The live save rate for cats was only 17.5%. The death rate was 82.5%. These are from the County's own statistics. Fewer than 1 out of 5 walked out alive. The worst performance of any large shelter system in the country bar none.
Look what else the chart shows: only 1% was placed with rescues!!! 1% compared with 12% for LAAS and we know how poorly LAAS is doing.
Click on chart for a larger image
Mayeda said 89% of adoptable cats were adopted. Jees, she makes Boks look like a piker both in killing and lying about it.
VIDEO OF PUPPY FROZEN TO DEATH AT THE CARSON SHELTER
It has been hard to stifle myself when it comes to Marcia Mayeda, head of LA County's Animal Care and Control, but this is something the Supervisors need to know about and make her accountable. What a piece she must be.
The link below is to a video about the ten month old puppy, Zephyr, who was frozen to death at the County's Carson shelter. It is not easy to watch or listen to.
MASON'S VET NOW WORKS FOR BOKS AND IS INVOLVED IN THE CASE
.
Cynthia Hockman (Hockaman?) who is the newest Animal Services vet whom I met at the West Valley shelter on the opening day last week, is Ron Mason’s former vet, and the person who refused to turn some of his cats’ medical records over to him after the October 11, 2007 bust!!! I mistakenly referred to her as Cynthia Hoffman in a previous post.
Hochman went immediately from her job as vet at Holiday Humane where she was Mason’s vet, to being the newest vet added to Animal Services about three weeks after the ACTF busted Mason. Hochman was Ron Mason’s vet!!
Mason now believes Hochman may have been the vet that turned him in to the ACTF!! Now she is part of the team gathering evidence to convict Mason. Mason said he was never going to mention anything about Hochman until now that she is working for the same organization that busted him.
Man, is this ever a conflict of interest and most definitely a breach of medical ethics and probably the law. This whole case gets more and more twisted and sicker by the minute.
Cynthia used to give Mason bottles of Amoxi medication to Mason, both with and without tags on them prior to the bust. This is the medication that ACTF confiscated from him and which will have her name on as Mason’s vet!!! No wonder the evidence has disappeared; apparently they are covering Hockman’s butt.
About two weeks before the bust, an employee from Holiday Humane called Mason and told him that he better hide his cats, that something was up. Mason was warned that something was coming down from someone who worked with Hochman. This is while she was still working as the main vet for Holiday Humane.
Immediately after the bust, Mason went to Holiday Humane and requested copies of his vet records from Hockman who was still employed there at that time. At this time Hockman told Mason she wished she had never met him and that she was two weeks away from starting her new job and she was afraid of losing it, apparently because ACTF had seized both the tagged and illegally untagged Amoxi she gave Mason, and I assume she wrote that down in the medical records. At that time, Mason did not know that that new job she was talking about was as a vet for LAAS.
Hochman refused to give Mason any medical records more than three years old, saying the law did not require Holiday Humane to keep records longer than that, and refused to give Mason the older records which she still had in her possession. Why?Mason said he had medical records going back five or more years, which she refused to give them to him.
She also, according to Mason, told him not to bring his cats to Holiday Human for shots anymore, but that he should take them to shot clinics at Red Barn on Topanga.
My God, what a confused mess we have here. Mason’s own vet was involved in the bust Mason that I assume was to make the ACTF and Boks look good, and likely to make an audition tape for the Animal Precinct TV program--or at least she knew about it while still his vet.
On top of that, no one from the downtown City Attorney’s Office will talk to Mason, because “The case is still under investigation.” Jeez, one would expect investigating detectives to talk to someone that was a suspect. So why are they refusing to talk to a suspect?
Therefore, Mason went to the North Valley City Attorney’s Office where he talked to Mike Sheehan, who is a Deputy City Attorney in the Criminal Division. He told Mason to call Linda Ortega, the detective who had told Mason two days before the bust that they (ACTF and LAAS) can take whatever they want from him, anytime they want from him. She is also the one shown holding the orange and white cat, Johnny in the Daily News pictures. This is the geriatric cat that apparently was euthanized even though confiscated veterinary records—according to Mason—will show was old but healthy.
Sheehan told Mason that if Ortega won’t talk to him, he needs to demand he talk to her supervisor and then they will have to talk to him.
Regarding Johnny the elderly cat, Mason was given an Order to Comply by Animal Services in July that he take Johnny to a vet because he looked ill. They had previously given him a similar order in mid-2006, with which he did comply and took Johnny to his vet. Guess who it was? Cynthia Hockman! Both times Hockman wrote on the Orders to Comply that Johnny was old but healthy for his age. This is probably the “very elderly cat” I was told was euthanized at West Valley who supposedly was put on life support by Dr. Rao.
In the meantime, all requests to find out where his cats are have been unanswered, including Brad Jensen’s request for public documents. Lt. Troy Boswell said he won’t tell Mason anything about the cats but that he should consider turning over ownership to LAAS. Imagine that, Boswell wants Mason to surrender his beloved cats, who are also evidence animals that prove he was taking care of them, so that LAAS can do whatever they want with them. Of course, this assumes any are still alive.
This is getting sicker and sicker. Did Cynthia Hochman, along with Troy Boswell and the ACTF/Boks, knowing that Mason was an easy target, someone whom they were in constant contact with and one of whom had been treating his cats for five years, set Mason up? Is this why Hockman said she wished she had never met Mason and was worried about her new job with LAAS and probably feeling guilty because of her part in the bust?
Remember in Boks news release still on the LAAS website, that he said a "small amount of Amoxi" had been confiscated? He sure didn't mention it had been prescribed by one of his own hired, but not eyet started vets.
Is this one of the reasons that the Mason case has gone underground?
What more interesting information is going to come out now?
From the Veterinary Medical Board:
Licensee Name:
HOCKMAN CYNTHIA LEE DVM
License Type:
VETERINARIAN
License Number:
14409
Expiration Date:
August 31, 2008
Issue Date:
June 08, 2001
Licensee Name:
HOLIDAY HUMANE SOCIETY VETERINARY CLINIC
Guess how much Cynthia was making at Holiday Humane? $104,451!! She told me she took a pay cut because she could help so many more animals than at Holiday Humane--and also to ream Mason.
Cynthia Hockman (Hockaman?) who is the newest Animal Services vet whom I met at the West Valley shelter on the opening day last week, is Ron Mason’s former vet, and the person who refused to turn some of his cats’ medical records over to him after the October 11, 2007 bust!!! I mistakenly referred to her as Cynthia Hoffman in a previous post.
Hochman went immediately from her job as vet at Holiday Humane where she was Mason’s vet, to being the newest vet added to Animal Services about three weeks after the ACTF busted Mason. Hochman was Ron Mason’s vet!!
Mason now believes Hochman may have been the vet that turned him in to the ACTF!! Now she is part of the team gathering evidence to convict Mason. Mason said he was never going to mention anything about Hochman until now that she is working for the same organization that busted him.
Man, is this ever a conflict of interest and most definitely a breach of medical ethics and probably the law. This whole case gets more and more twisted and sicker by the minute.
Cynthia used to give Mason bottles of Amoxi medication to Mason, both with and without tags on them prior to the bust. This is the medication that ACTF confiscated from him and which will have her name on as Mason’s vet!!! No wonder the evidence has disappeared; apparently they are covering Hockman’s butt.
About two weeks before the bust, an employee from Holiday Humane called Mason and told him that he better hide his cats, that something was up. Mason was warned that something was coming down from someone who worked with Hochman. This is while she was still working as the main vet for Holiday Humane.
Immediately after the bust, Mason went to Holiday Humane and requested copies of his vet records from Hockman who was still employed there at that time. At this time Hockman told Mason she wished she had never met him and that she was two weeks away from starting her new job and she was afraid of losing it, apparently because ACTF had seized both the tagged and illegally untagged Amoxi she gave Mason, and I assume she wrote that down in the medical records. At that time, Mason did not know that that new job she was talking about was as a vet for LAAS.
Hochman refused to give Mason any medical records more than three years old, saying the law did not require Holiday Humane to keep records longer than that, and refused to give Mason the older records which she still had in her possession. Why?Mason said he had medical records going back five or more years, which she refused to give them to him.
She also, according to Mason, told him not to bring his cats to Holiday Human for shots anymore, but that he should take them to shot clinics at Red Barn on Topanga.
My God, what a confused mess we have here. Mason’s own vet was involved in the bust Mason that I assume was to make the ACTF and Boks look good, and likely to make an audition tape for the Animal Precinct TV program--or at least she knew about it while still his vet.
On top of that, no one from the downtown City Attorney’s Office will talk to Mason, because “The case is still under investigation.” Jeez, one would expect investigating detectives to talk to someone that was a suspect. So why are they refusing to talk to a suspect?
Therefore, Mason went to the North Valley City Attorney’s Office where he talked to Mike Sheehan, who is a Deputy City Attorney in the Criminal Division. He told Mason to call Linda Ortega, the detective who had told Mason two days before the bust that they (ACTF and LAAS) can take whatever they want from him, anytime they want from him. She is also the one shown holding the orange and white cat, Johnny in the Daily News pictures. This is the geriatric cat that apparently was euthanized even though confiscated veterinary records—according to Mason—will show was old but healthy.
Sheehan told Mason that if Ortega won’t talk to him, he needs to demand he talk to her supervisor and then they will have to talk to him.
Regarding Johnny the elderly cat, Mason was given an Order to Comply by Animal Services in July that he take Johnny to a vet because he looked ill. They had previously given him a similar order in mid-2006, with which he did comply and took Johnny to his vet. Guess who it was? Cynthia Hockman! Both times Hockman wrote on the Orders to Comply that Johnny was old but healthy for his age. This is probably the “very elderly cat” I was told was euthanized at West Valley who supposedly was put on life support by Dr. Rao.
In the meantime, all requests to find out where his cats are have been unanswered, including Brad Jensen’s request for public documents. Lt. Troy Boswell said he won’t tell Mason anything about the cats but that he should consider turning over ownership to LAAS. Imagine that, Boswell wants Mason to surrender his beloved cats, who are also evidence animals that prove he was taking care of them, so that LAAS can do whatever they want with them. Of course, this assumes any are still alive.
This is getting sicker and sicker. Did Cynthia Hochman, along with Troy Boswell and the ACTF/Boks, knowing that Mason was an easy target, someone whom they were in constant contact with and one of whom had been treating his cats for five years, set Mason up? Is this why Hockman said she wished she had never met Mason and was worried about her new job with LAAS and probably feeling guilty because of her part in the bust?
Remember in Boks news release still on the LAAS website, that he said a "small amount of Amoxi" had been confiscated? He sure didn't mention it had been prescribed by one of his own hired, but not eyet started vets.
Is this one of the reasons that the Mason case has gone underground?
What more interesting information is going to come out now?
From the Veterinary Medical Board:
Licensee Name:
HOCKMAN CYNTHIA LEE DVM
License Type:
VETERINARIAN
License Number:
14409
Expiration Date:
August 31, 2008
Issue Date:
June 08, 2001
Licensee Name:
HOLIDAY HUMANE SOCIETY VETERINARY CLINIC
Guess how much Cynthia was making at Holiday Humane? $104,451!! She told me she took a pay cut because she could help so many more animals than at Holiday Humane--and also to ream Mason.
Mayor's Alliance in NYC Says Boks Fudged the Numbers
.
An email was sent to the Mayor's Alliance in NYC that exercised some control over AC&C while Boks was there.
I have heard that Boks had people sign a form in NY saying that their pets could be euthanized. It was probably an owner requested euthanasia form so he wouldn't have to count them. I had heard that they would take these animals, kittens and feral cats, to the back to be euthanized instantly.
(Comment: I think that is what Boks planned to do with that new form found in SLA. It was an owner requested euthanasia form in disguise.)
This is the response from Elen Celnik from the NYC Mayor's Alliance who had very different numbers than Boks:
"As you noted yourself, the difference between our data and AC & C charts is related to owner requested euthanasia. AC & C, does not include information related to intake of owner requested euthanasia. AC & C tries not put down a healthy or at times treatable owner request, but they do not count them in their intake.
"Unfortunately owner requested healthy and treatable dogs and cats still get killed if there is no space. Our reporting [The Mayor's Alliance versus Boks' Maddies-supplied numbers] does include owner requested euthanasia. By leaving the number out, it can provide for a loophole to appear like the euth number decreases, while in fact owner requested euth can increase based on policy decisions or ways in which intake is documented. (So much for Chameleon!)
"As to the previous Executive Director, Mr. Boks, we cannot speak for how he arrived at his percentages during his tenure ---- it was never clear. So as to the difference between his claims and the data you have, I can only state that the numbers speak for themselves.
"Using percentages, I have found can be very deceiving. One can say adoptions increased 100% in a a year, but when they were down to nothing that’s really easy to do. I just looked at this report for NYCACC for 2006. It says the Animal Alliance is the author."
This shows that euthanasia was 51% in 2006. Attached is that report. Also attached are charts that NYCACC made. They show a euth rate of 44%. However, the real rate was was 68% in 2003, 66% in 2004 and 60% in 2005.
My comment: Is this how Boks dramatically decreased kitten euthanasia by going directly to the Bump Room and never impounded? Our previous conjecture is that he was refusing kittens. Maybe he was just killing them.
.
An email was sent to the Mayor's Alliance in NYC that exercised some control over AC&C while Boks was there.
I have heard that Boks had people sign a form in NY saying that their pets could be euthanized. It was probably an owner requested euthanasia form so he wouldn't have to count them. I had heard that they would take these animals, kittens and feral cats, to the back to be euthanized instantly.
(Comment: I think that is what Boks planned to do with that new form found in SLA. It was an owner requested euthanasia form in disguise.)
This is the response from Elen Celnik from the NYC Mayor's Alliance who had very different numbers than Boks:
"As you noted yourself, the difference between our data and AC & C charts is related to owner requested euthanasia. AC & C, does not include information related to intake of owner requested euthanasia. AC & C tries not put down a healthy or at times treatable owner request, but they do not count them in their intake.
"Unfortunately owner requested healthy and treatable dogs and cats still get killed if there is no space. Our reporting [The Mayor's Alliance versus Boks' Maddies-supplied numbers] does include owner requested euthanasia. By leaving the number out, it can provide for a loophole to appear like the euth number decreases, while in fact owner requested euth can increase based on policy decisions or ways in which intake is documented. (So much for Chameleon!)
"As to the previous Executive Director, Mr. Boks, we cannot speak for how he arrived at his percentages during his tenure ---- it was never clear. So as to the difference between his claims and the data you have, I can only state that the numbers speak for themselves.
"Using percentages, I have found can be very deceiving. One can say adoptions increased 100% in a a year, but when they were down to nothing that’s really easy to do. I just looked at this report for NYCACC for 2006. It says the Animal Alliance is the author."
This shows that euthanasia was 51% in 2006. Attached is that report. Also attached are charts that NYCACC made. They show a euth rate of 44%. However, the real rate was was 68% in 2003, 66% in 2004 and 60% in 2005.
My comment: Is this how Boks dramatically decreased kitten euthanasia by going directly to the Bump Room and never impounded? Our previous conjecture is that he was refusing kittens. Maybe he was just killing them.
.
How Many People Watch This Site?
.
I have always wondered how many people actually view this site. I installed traffic software on Saturday, so it is too early to have any real knowledge about site traffic.
However, so far today (5:12 P.M.), 96 people have visited this site and have looked at about 2 posts each. The traffic prediction software predicts 2,800 visits per month viewing about 5,000 pages based on three days of data.
I have always wondered how many people actually view this site. I installed traffic software on Saturday, so it is too early to have any real knowledge about site traffic.
However, so far today (5:12 P.M.), 96 people have visited this site and have looked at about 2 posts each. The traffic prediction software predicts 2,800 visits per month viewing about 5,000 pages based on three days of data.
Exit Strategy
.
Someone said regarding Boks that if and when he goes, his replacement may be worse. That is, beware of what you wish for.
So far, despite my warnings, the animal community has not developed a strategy for finding a new GM who may or may not be better. New York has gone so far as to pick someone with no shelter experience and lots of management experience. Hahn picked Stuckey who also had management but no shelter experience. He did better than Boks in terms of lowering the euthanasia rate, but we bumped him with a united opposition and got Boks.
Do we want to do this again?
I have suggested getting the mayor to form a search committee comprised of several well-known shelter directors and maybe Winograd to help select a replacement through some sort of mayor-accepted group after Boks is booted. However, Hahn did exactly this through his non-transparent Berstein-led selection committee. We got Stuckey. ADL got rid of Greenwalt and we got Stuckey. Again ADL led the opposition against him and we got Boks.
Damn it, we have to open a serious discussion about finding a replacement or at least a replacement strategy or else we may get someone worse. If we don't have something to offer the mayor in this regard, he would not know what to do either--you leave him facing a lose-lose situation, and a win--possibly lose situation for us with no clear path for a solution.
As one reporter I know asked,"Can anyone do the job?" We have made it clear we have opposed all of the last four GMs. Can any prospect think this will not happen to them? Who would accept such a job except for a passionate local?
But there may be some outsider who is capable and willing to come. I understand Carl Friedman of the San Francisco municipal shelter system is retiring next June. He wants to go back to NYC for a period of retirement and then he said his options are open. However, he did suggest that the Animal Services' Commission should have a lead role, and this makes sense even though many of us oppose all the Commissioners.
Then there is someone like Tara Derby who has made great strides towards bringing Philadelphia to no-kill in 2-1/2 years, going from 85% kill to 60% save. Philly has a union, but no civil service because it is not a government agency, it is a private non-profit. She thinks this is not an insurmountable obstacle to getting to no-kill.
Boks has been bad-mouthing both these people to the press and the mayor's office to head off this solution. Who does the press and mayor believe, Boks or us? The mayor has rejected us as a source for information or help for him to do anything.
So far Boks is one or two steps ahead of us because he has the mayor's ear and support.
My feeling is, and my hunch is that if Boks goes, we might get someone much worse in terms of being able to make LAAS work.
If this is the case, what is the point of opposing Boks?
Give me something to work with and we can start a discussion. If you are not willing to do this, I think we are lost, and the status quo is the only solution. You--YOU--cannot leave it up to Villaraigosa to make a decision if he thinks that whomever he picks will not get the same sort of reception from us as we gave to Stuckey and Boks unless that person obtains some immediate success. Even then, the most successful GM will still have snipers in the department and union itself as well as vocal locals who oppose one dog or cat who was unnecessarily killed and it becomes a cause for them. Now Villaraigosa thinks no matter whom he selects there will be no peace and no help to his electability. What options are we giving him? What clear path can we offer him? So far none--we have only given him problems.
.
Someone said regarding Boks that if and when he goes, his replacement may be worse. That is, beware of what you wish for.
So far, despite my warnings, the animal community has not developed a strategy for finding a new GM who may or may not be better. New York has gone so far as to pick someone with no shelter experience and lots of management experience. Hahn picked Stuckey who also had management but no shelter experience. He did better than Boks in terms of lowering the euthanasia rate, but we bumped him with a united opposition and got Boks.
Do we want to do this again?
I have suggested getting the mayor to form a search committee comprised of several well-known shelter directors and maybe Winograd to help select a replacement through some sort of mayor-accepted group after Boks is booted. However, Hahn did exactly this through his non-transparent Berstein-led selection committee. We got Stuckey. ADL got rid of Greenwalt and we got Stuckey. Again ADL led the opposition against him and we got Boks.
Damn it, we have to open a serious discussion about finding a replacement or at least a replacement strategy or else we may get someone worse. If we don't have something to offer the mayor in this regard, he would not know what to do either--you leave him facing a lose-lose situation, and a win--possibly lose situation for us with no clear path for a solution.
As one reporter I know asked,"Can anyone do the job?" We have made it clear we have opposed all of the last four GMs. Can any prospect think this will not happen to them? Who would accept such a job except for a passionate local?
But there may be some outsider who is capable and willing to come. I understand Carl Friedman of the San Francisco municipal shelter system is retiring next June. He wants to go back to NYC for a period of retirement and then he said his options are open. However, he did suggest that the Animal Services' Commission should have a lead role, and this makes sense even though many of us oppose all the Commissioners.
Then there is someone like Tara Derby who has made great strides towards bringing Philadelphia to no-kill in 2-1/2 years, going from 85% kill to 60% save. Philly has a union, but no civil service because it is not a government agency, it is a private non-profit. She thinks this is not an insurmountable obstacle to getting to no-kill.
Boks has been bad-mouthing both these people to the press and the mayor's office to head off this solution. Who does the press and mayor believe, Boks or us? The mayor has rejected us as a source for information or help for him to do anything.
So far Boks is one or two steps ahead of us because he has the mayor's ear and support.
My feeling is, and my hunch is that if Boks goes, we might get someone much worse in terms of being able to make LAAS work.
If this is the case, what is the point of opposing Boks?
Give me something to work with and we can start a discussion. If you are not willing to do this, I think we are lost, and the status quo is the only solution. You--YOU--cannot leave it up to Villaraigosa to make a decision if he thinks that whomever he picks will not get the same sort of reception from us as we gave to Stuckey and Boks unless that person obtains some immediate success. Even then, the most successful GM will still have snipers in the department and union itself as well as vocal locals who oppose one dog or cat who was unnecessarily killed and it becomes a cause for them. Now Villaraigosa thinks no matter whom he selects there will be no peace and no help to his electability. What options are we giving him? What clear path can we offer him? So far none--we have only given him problems.
.
National Honors for the Shelter that Killed the Most Animals in the Nation
.
I want to announce a new national honors award for the shelter system that killed the most animals in its protection in the United States during 2006. Today’s award only covers cats and dogs, but there will be new honors in the future as new facts are found:
Top killing shelter the United States:
The award for first place in killing goes to LA County’s shelter system. Last year, calendar 2006, Marcia Mayeda’s wonderful employees, which she congratulated today for adoptions, killed 44,061 cats and dogs.
This far outpaces the nation’s second place killer, Maricopa County Animal Care, with 29,916 for calendar 2006.
The third place killing award goes to our own Los Angeles Animal Services with a calendar 2006 cat and dog kill of about 18,100 (Boks numbers have a way of changing, so I’ll put it at the approximate number of 18,100 animals killed.)
Finally, lagging behind is New York City, with a fiscal year 2006-2007 kill of 16,197.
I have sited the URLs where these figures have been officially or unofficially posted previously.
Let’s hear it for Marcia!!!
LA County, 44,061 cats and dogs killed.
Maricopa County, 29,916 killed.
Los Angeles Animal Services, 18,100 killed.
New York City, 16,197 killed.
.
This is sick, isn't it. Each system brags about the the numbers they save, and hides the numbers they kill.
.
I want to announce a new national honors award for the shelter system that killed the most animals in its protection in the United States during 2006. Today’s award only covers cats and dogs, but there will be new honors in the future as new facts are found:
Top killing shelter the United States:
The award for first place in killing goes to LA County’s shelter system. Last year, calendar 2006, Marcia Mayeda’s wonderful employees, which she congratulated today for adoptions, killed 44,061 cats and dogs.
This far outpaces the nation’s second place killer, Maricopa County Animal Care, with 29,916 for calendar 2006.
The third place killing award goes to our own Los Angeles Animal Services with a calendar 2006 cat and dog kill of about 18,100 (Boks numbers have a way of changing, so I’ll put it at the approximate number of 18,100 animals killed.)
Finally, lagging behind is New York City, with a fiscal year 2006-2007 kill of 16,197.
I have sited the URLs where these figures have been officially or unofficially posted previously.
Let’s hear it for Marcia!!!
LA County, 44,061 cats and dogs killed.
Maricopa County, 29,916 killed.
Los Angeles Animal Services, 18,100 killed.
New York City, 16,197 killed.
.
This is sick, isn't it. Each system brags about the the numbers they save, and hides the numbers they kill.
.
Clarification of my Allegation of Mayeda's Fraudulence
.
Two supervisors, Yaroslavsky and Antonovich are investigating my allegations of fraud regarding Marcia Mayeda. They thought I was claiming she was lying about the numbers. I pointed out that it was Boks who claimed she was lying about numbers.
Dear Supervisors Antonovich and Yaroslavski, and Mr. Fujioka,
Two supervisors, Yaroslavsky and Antonovich are investigating my allegations of fraud regarding Marcia Mayeda. They thought I was claiming she was lying about the numbers. I pointed out that it was Boks who claimed she was lying about numbers.
Dear Supervisors Antonovich and Yaroslavski, and Mr. Fujioka,
I wish to clarify what appears to be a misinterpretation of my allegations of fraud on the part of Marcia Mayeda.
"The "snit" was the result of LA County animal control providing the City four sets of ever increasing adoption numbers while we conducted our due diligence.
"Their latest number mysteriously claimed an increase in their adoption numbers by over 6,000. This number was not released until the day after the City’s announcement that LA Animal Services is the number one pet adoption agency in the nation.
"Lacking any credible documentation to substantiate the County's claim, it was quickly dismissed.
My claim of Mayeda’s fraud is different. I stated:
“According to page 47 of the County’s 2004-2005 annual report, Marcia Mayeda claims for Animal Control:
For cats, the actual County adoption rate is 15% Claimed adoption is 89.6%
For dogs, the actual adoption rate is 31% Claimed adoption is 91%
The fraud I am pointing to is her claim of success based on a fraudulent definition of “adoptable” and her claim that she is legally forced to kill all non-adoptable animals, leading to a “justified” killing (or letting them die in the shelter) of 83% of all cats. I mean fraudulent as she has the highest kill rate of any large shelter system in the country, yet is claiming an adoption rate of almost 90%.
Then she said she legally can only adopt out "adoptable" animals. She said she must euthanize the rest legally. She said kittens/puppies under 8 weeks old are not adoptable, neither are ill or injured animals, neither are "dangerous" animals that don't pass their temperament test. That means she legally can kill 83% of cats and 46% of dogs. This makes her job easier. This is a blatant lie to deceive you from recognizing her incompetence after five years on the job.
In comparison, Los Angeles Animal Services, whose performance is a little better than average for large municipal shelters, has a euthanasia rate for cats of 57% and for dogs 27%, 20% lower in each category.
Adoptions include direct adoptions to the public and release to rescue groups called New Hope Partners.
For cats, the actual adoption rate is 50% Claimed adoption is 50%
For dogs, the actual adoption rate is 64% Claimed adoption is 64%
Are more than twice as many LA County cats too young, vicious or unadoptable compared to LA City cats? This appears to be what Mayeda is saying with her statistics and her claim that 90% of the adoptable animals are saved. This is a flat out lie.
This fraud is based solely on how the Mayeda determines an animal is not adoptable. The bases for determining whether an animal is unadoptable are: unweaned kittens and puppies, ill or injured, or behavioral problems. She provides no statistics for these categories. In other words, she is saying trust me.
The presence of behavioral problems is determined by “temperament testing.” If an animal is deemed unadoptable for any reason, including behavior, it can be killed and it would not be counted in when measuring the adoption rate. That is how she can say 90% of adoptable animals were adopted. One can make temperament testing to be extremely difficult to pass.
She quotes
“You are on solid ground in enforcing your policy of requiring a behavioral assessment of stray dogs and cats to determine the suitability of an animal for placement, and in not permitting the adoption of animals with aggressive behavior.”
Yet there is no temperament test for cats, not one. All of the temperament tests, including the most common, the Weiss Safer test, are strictly limited to dogs. The same with the other three standardized tests, they apply only to dogs.
Therefore, how can she find nearly 80% of all cats unadoptable? She is just incompetent but pleads she is forced to kill these animals because of public safety issues, which is a lie. No other major agency has such a high kill rate.
Indeed, a sizable segment of unweaned kittens and puppies, ill and injured animals are already cared for by LAAS and are adopted to the public or to rescue groups. Mayeda said she cannot even transfer most animals to rescuers, because they might pose a danger. How can a six week old kitten be a danger? She is using a dangerous dog argument to justify killing a kitten and she thinks no one can see through her argument.
I urge you not accept the fraud being perpetrated against you and the voters by Marcia Mayeda. The public thinks the County is doing well by the animals. What will happen when they find out this is not true?
.
Sick Dog Frozen to Death In County Shelter
.
Director Mayeda stated in an email dated 10/12/07 to me that the office of the CEO gave her department a budget of $5 million this year to make improvements to the shelters. No one has been able to give me any answer as to why there are no improvement made. Providing heat during the cold winter months IS part of the basic care and SHOULD be given but it has not come about.
I promised to lay off Mayeda until Boks is gone and a new GM is in. However, I received an email about a 10 month old puppy who died in an unheated kennel at the Carson "shelter," along with an urgent plea for blankets for the freezing dogs. Also, I wanted people to understand Mayeda must not become Boks replacement, as she was considered to be a replacement for Stuckey for a while.
EMAIL:
Please see the photos below and help the animals sitting at all six LA County shelters. I have tried to work with the director of LACACC and have contacted the Board of Supervisors along with the office of the CEO regarding the conditions at the LA County shelters for many months to no avail. I have been given nothing consistent nor substantial in terms of changes. All the changes that have been promised have not been implemented, the few that has aren't consistent.
I have come to the conclusion that no one in administration at the LACACC department cares and director Mayeda is still quite effective at projecting the false image that she is a competent leader of the department to the Board of Supervisors.
Director Mayeda stated in an email dated 10/12/07 to me that the office of the CEO gave her department a budget of $5 million this year to make improvements to the shelters. No one has been able to give me any answer as to why there are no improvement made. Providing heat during the cold winter months IS part of the basic care and SHOULD be given but it has not come about.
A member of\n the public and resident of LA County called the office of Yvonne Burke on 11/30/07 asking for heaters to be placed in the kennels at the Carson shelter - this person was told that she is welcomed to bring any heaters but the county will not be paying for it. Again - what happened to the $5 million dollars given by the office of the CEO?
I received a distressed phone call regarding the dog you see below yesterday evening. I drove up to Carson this morning with the hope that I can get her out and bring her to our vet for emergency care. I found her dead on the outside part of the kennel. No blanket, no heat. I have attached the photo of her laying dead in the kennel with this email so you can see what one month and 3 days being in the LA County shelter (Carson) does to a healthy, young animal. She was just 10 months old.
Dog In:
Dog After "Treatment" and Boarding:
I cannot sit quiet and do nothing about this. I hope that after reading this email\n below and seeing the photos of the dog - you will be just as outraged at the way in which LA County ACC treats homeless animals. I hope you will help me exact accountability AND responsibility from the LACACC department. The public needs to know how their tax dollars are being put to work (or NOT at all).
Please, help me bring about changes for the LA County Shelter animals by demanding that the people put in the positions to run the department be accountable and responsible for what they are NOT doing. I hold Marcia Mayeda and her administration solely accountable and responsible for this dog's death.
Thank you,
Cathy Nguyen
Open Letter to Marcia Mayeda
.
Ms. Mayeda,
For quite a while, I have been a critic of Ed Boks at LAAS. He uses numbers, spin and bragging to cover the failure of his department to save animals. He regularly brags about being number one in this or that on a monthly basis as you well know.
I am also aware of the even more dismal failure of your department under your management. Your poor performance outshadows any poor performance by LAAS, any day, any year. In fact, your department has the worst performance of any large public shelter I am aware of, including Maricopa County, New York city and LAAS. You kill as many cats and dogs as LAAS even impounds.
You claimed in a County annual report that you are adopting about 90% of "adoptable" animals. This claim is so out of touch with reality that rescuers laugh at you. You have failed to establish any substantive relationships with rescue groups which readily demonstrates your incompetence.
This chart shows your department's utter failure to save animals under your indifferent incompetence or to establish any significant working relationship with rescue organizations.
(Please click on the above image to see a larger picture. Only the two bottom bars count, as County and LAAS are the two large shelters.)
Your use of behavior testing is a face-saving fraud of someone too lazy or incompetent to do the job you are suposed to be doing. It allows you to kill animals freely, which makes your job easier. Impound-kill.
Then you found phony legal justification for the use of behavior testing that allows you, as is apparent in your numbers, to ignore rescue groups, saying you cannot even release those animals to rescues because they are dangerous. This does not explain how every other large system kills far fewer dogs and cats as a percentage, and most have far nore animals as a percentage released to rescue groups.
I plan to continually bring to light your outrageous and flagrant lying to the Supervisors and the public to make it appear that you making good progress towards saving lives.
Please keep watching this blog.
.
Ms. Mayeda,
For quite a while, I have been a critic of Ed Boks at LAAS. He uses numbers, spin and bragging to cover the failure of his department to save animals. He regularly brags about being number one in this or that on a monthly basis as you well know.
I am also aware of the even more dismal failure of your department under your management. Your poor performance outshadows any poor performance by LAAS, any day, any year. In fact, your department has the worst performance of any large public shelter I am aware of, including Maricopa County, New York city and LAAS. You kill as many cats and dogs as LAAS even impounds.
You claimed in a County annual report that you are adopting about 90% of "adoptable" animals. This claim is so out of touch with reality that rescuers laugh at you. You have failed to establish any substantive relationships with rescue groups which readily demonstrates your incompetence.
This chart shows your department's utter failure to save animals under your indifferent incompetence or to establish any significant working relationship with rescue organizations.
(Please click on the above image to see a larger picture. Only the two bottom bars count, as County and LAAS are the two large shelters.)
Your use of behavior testing is a face-saving fraud of someone too lazy or incompetent to do the job you are suposed to be doing. It allows you to kill animals freely, which makes your job easier. Impound-kill.
Then you found phony legal justification for the use of behavior testing that allows you, as is apparent in your numbers, to ignore rescue groups, saying you cannot even release those animals to rescues because they are dangerous. This does not explain how every other large system kills far fewer dogs and cats as a percentage, and most have far nore animals as a percentage released to rescue groups.
I plan to continually bring to light your outrageous and flagrant lying to the Supervisors and the public to make it appear that you making good progress towards saving lives.
Please keep watching this blog.
.
Mayeda Nightmare at County
.
So far as liars, frauds and Animal Shelter incompetence are concerned, Boks is minor league compared to County shelter head Marcia Mayeda. Hopefully this situation will become a political nightmare for the County after LAAS' situation is resolved. I have been reluctant to move on to the County until LAAS gets new leadership, which would set a precedent, but I've been holding back so long, it is exploding out of me.
Letter to the County Supervisors:
According to page 47 of the County’s 2004-2005 annual report, Marcia Mayeda claims for Animal Control:
Major Accomplishments 2003-2004
• Placed 91% of adoptable dogs and 89.6% of adoptable cats into new homes.
As you can see from the pie charts immediately below, this is fraud. How can killing 28,100 cats and 18,500 dogs be considered as having adopted 90% of these animals? Who can believe that 80% of the cats are too injured, too young or too aggressive to live? This is nonsense and totally incompatible with the kill and save rate of other large municipal shelters.
For cats, the actual adoption rate is 15% Claimed adoption is 89.6%
For dogs, the actual adoption rate is 31% Claimed adoption is 91%
She said she legally can only adopt out "adoptable" animals. She said she must euthanize the rest legally. She said kittens/puppies under 8 weeks old are not adoptable, neither are ill or injured animals, neither are "dangerous" animals that don't pass their temperament test. That means she legally can kill 80% of cats and 46% of dogs. This makes her job easier. This is a blatant lie to deceive you from recognizing her incompetence after five years on the job.
In comparison, Los Angeles Animal Services, whose performance is a little better than average for large municipal shelters, has a euthanasia rate for cats of 57% and for dogs, 27%, 20% lower in each category.
So far as liars, frauds and Animal Shelter incompetence are concerned, Boks is minor league compared to County shelter head Marcia Mayeda. Hopefully this situation will become a political nightmare for the County after LAAS' situation is resolved. I have been reluctant to move on to the County until LAAS gets new leadership, which would set a precedent, but I've been holding back so long, it is exploding out of me.
Letter to the County Supervisors:
According to page 47 of the County’s 2004-2005 annual report, Marcia Mayeda claims for Animal Control:
Major Accomplishments 2003-2004
• Placed 91% of adoptable dogs and 89.6% of adoptable cats into new homes.
As you can see from the pie charts immediately below, this is fraud. How can killing 28,100 cats and 18,500 dogs be considered as having adopted 90% of these animals? Who can believe that 80% of the cats are too injured, too young or too aggressive to live? This is nonsense and totally incompatible with the kill and save rate of other large municipal shelters.
For cats, the actual adoption rate is 15% Claimed adoption is 89.6%
For dogs, the actual adoption rate is 31% Claimed adoption is 91%
She said she legally can only adopt out "adoptable" animals. She said she must euthanize the rest legally. She said kittens/puppies under 8 weeks old are not adoptable, neither are ill or injured animals, neither are "dangerous" animals that don't pass their temperament test. That means she legally can kill 80% of cats and 46% of dogs. This makes her job easier. This is a blatant lie to deceive you from recognizing her incompetence after five years on the job.
In comparison, Los Angeles Animal Services, whose performance is a little better than average for large municipal shelters, has a euthanasia rate for cats of 57% and for dogs, 27%, 20% lower in each category.
Adoptions include direct adoptions to the public and release to rescue groups called New Hope Partners.
For cats, the actual adoption rate is 50% Claimed adoption is 50%
For dogs, the actual adoption rate is 64% Claimed adoption is 64%
Are more than twice as many LA County cats too young, vicious or unadoptable compared to LA City cats? This appears to be what Mayeda is saying with her statistics and her claim that 90% of the adoptable animals are saved. This is a flat out lie.
In fact, the deception has become so outrageous that Mayeda no longer lists any statistics regarding impounds or adoptions on the department’s website or in the 2005-06, or 2006- 2007 annual report. I assume they are getting worse or are improving so slowly that transparency would give activists ammunition to get rid of her.
This fraud is based solely on how the Mayeda determines an animal is not adoptable. The bases for determining whether an animal is unadoptable are: unweaned kittens and puppies, ill or injured, or behavioral problems. She provides no statistics for these categories. In other words, she is saying trust me.
The presence of behavioral problems is determined by “temperament testing.” If an animal is deemed unadoptable for any reason, including behavior, it can be killed and it would not be counted in when measuring the adoption rate. That is how she can say 90% of adoptable animals were adopted. She makes the temperament tests extremely difficult to pass.
She quotes County Counsel regarding the use of temperament testing to euthanize cats and dogs according to how she framed the question to them:
“You are on solid ground in enforcing your policy of requiring a behavioral assessment of stray dogs and cats to determine the suitability of an animal for placement, and in not permitting the adoption of animals with aggressive behavior.”
There is no temperament test for cats, not one. All of the temperament tests, including the most common, the Weiss Safer test, are strictly limited to dogs. The same with the other three standardized tests, they apply only to dogs.
Therefore, how can she find nearly 80% of all cats unadoptable? She is just incompetent but pleads she is forced to kill these animals because of public safety issues. She just doesn't know how to stop the killing.
Indeed, a sizable segment of unweaned kittens and puppies, ill and injured animals are already cared for by LAAS and are adopted to the public or to rescue groups.
Mayeda said she cannot even transfer most animals to rescuers, because they might pose a danger. How can a six week old kitten be a danger? She is using a dangerous dog argument to justify killing a kitten and she thinks no one can see through her argument.
Can anyone really believe that over 75% of the cats coming into County were too ill, injured or aggressive compared to LAAS’ 34%?
Temperament testing is universally despised by the animal community because it allows incompetent shelter directors, like Mayeda, to kill a huge number of animals and yet claim a 90% adoption rate. It also makes her job easier. She doesn’t have to deal with rescue groups or foster parents. She just kills huge numbers of animals and justifies it with lies about temperament testing.
In Los Angeles City, the Animal Care and Control department, which has far better stats than County, has been under constant attack by the animal community who are picketing the shelters, the General Manager, the Mayor and mayoral staff because he hasn’t reduced the killing enough compared to some other, more progressive cities.
For example, San Francisco, between the municipal shelter and the private shelters has a kill rate of only 13%.
The LA animal community, which is also the County animal community, has forced the retirement or firing of two previous general managers and they are working on getting the third GM fired, Ed Boks, because he has failed to improve LA’s kill/save rates in the 16 months from January 2006 through April 2007. Mayeda has had five years.
Right now Los Angles activists are focused on LA Animal Services. They recognize they must fight one battle at a time. I assume the County will be next unless Mayeda is fired and a progressive shelter director appointed who has a progressive mission—making the County shelters No-Kill.
I urge you to hire a real no-kill consultant such as Nathan Winograd (or Carl Friedman in San Francisco) who has performed such miracles of decreased killing in Philadelphia, Ithaca N.Y., Charlottesville, Reno and elsewhere. Some of his consulted shelters have kill rates as low as 8%.
I urge you not accept the fraud being perpetrated against you and the voters by Marcia Mayeda. The public thinks the County is doing well by the animals. What will happen when they find out this is not true?
--- Edward Muzika, Ph.D.
APPENDIX
San Francisco
In comparison with the County, for San Francisco Animal Care and Control, the euthanasia rate was 17% for cats and 27% for dogs. About 1/3 of their animals were transferred to private shelters where the euthanasia rate is only 9%! The combined euthanasia rate for the entire city is 13% compared to 61% for the County.
The director in San Francisco, Carl Friedman, said there was no reason that LA County should not have that same success as the San Francisco, “because they have far more resources.” His budget is $3,200,000 of which he actually spends $2.9 Million, with only 43 full-time employees. The County’s budget is about $25,000,000.
LA County has nine times the budget of SF with only six times as many animals impounded, but with a 300% higher kill rate!
Another measure of success is how many animals make it out of the shelter alive. This includes returned to owner, adopted and transferred to rescue groups.
For San Francisco
The live release rate for cats was 83%.The live release rate for dogs was 73%.The live release rate for cats and dogs is 80%.
The live release rate for cats in LA County was only 17%.
As you can see, the Adopted, Returned to Owner and Rescue Group transfers (Live Save Rate) is five times the County rate for cats (83% vs. 17%).
Does the County have proportionately five times as many unadoptable cats as San Francisco? Of course not. This is a fraud.
Philadelphia
As one final example, Philadelphia, under new progressive leadership, went from approximately 90% euthanasia in 2004, to the results for the first quarter of 2007:
Cat Euthanasia 30% compared to LA County’s 79%
Dog Euthanasia 38% compared to LA County’s 46%
Philadelphia has a budget under $3.9 million and 46 employees.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)