What On Earth Were You Thinking Ed?

18 cats “rescued”and 14 are killed?

According to a press release today, on October 4, 2006, LAAS impounded 18 cats from a “hoarder.” All were considered very ill, 4 recovered and 14 were killed “humanely” because they did not recover from respiratory infections and skin conditions.

The woman was prosecuted, fined, sentenced to community service and put on probation.No mention was made concerning the specifics of the environment the cats were living in and why it was deemed by LAAS to constitute abuse. No mention was made of the specific illnesses these "non-treatable" cats had, or the treatments received. Were they just still sneezing or were they lying on the ground panting? Did the four ferals cat have to be killed, or was TNR not considered in her case?

Well Ed, who is a hoarder and who is a rescuer?Do 10 cats make a person a hoarder? Six? Are the “legitimate” rescuers who have 25 cats at home with four bottle babies and two getting SQ fluids for kidney failure, hoarders? Is a little old lady who has eight cats and has barely enough money to feed herself, let alone pay exorbitant vet bills, a hoarder? Or is a hoarder someone not registered as a New Hope partner but who has five cats?

What is the point of rescuing abused animals then killing 80%? This is not rescue; this is insane!

There are millions of people in third world countries living in squalor, who are starving, diseased, with parasites and skin conditions. Do you advocate we humanely euthanize them to save them from their misery? Hell, there are lots of people living diseased and in squalor on the streets downtown.

Do you advocate killing feral cats who are living in dirty, cold and dangerous alleys, or who are ill or have respiratory infections?Do you still advocate raising the household limit of three cats when someday you might decide someone is a hoarder and their animals killed because the cats are not receiving the high level of care they would receive under LAAS’s “protection” before they are killed?

I had a lady-friend, 78 years old and terminally ill, living in a HUD building, who had owned and rescued cats all her life. For her last 40 years she had maintained colonies, rescued and adopted cats out from her apartment. She had worked for vets for almost 20 years. She helped place tens of hundreds of cats just in the few years I knew her. The year she died, she still had 15 cats she was trying to adopt out, living with her in a studio apartment. She lived on $840/month. Friends helped some.

The cats all were in pretty good health despite the fact she rescued ill or otherwise non-adoptable cats, such as one with three legs and another with epilepsy. She cared more for their health than her own. Yet, she feared every knock on her door thinking it might be animal control, who might take away and destroy her cats.

Why a press release? Was the intent to send a message that LAAS is holding everyone hostage who loves animals and who has four or more? Is this the beginning of a reign of terror, holding the threat of killing loved animals if rescuers do not toe the LAAS and Boks’ line as have previous General Managers?

In the past, under Stuckey, bone fide rescuers who had never been “inspected” before, were visited as many as five times in a few months. You had LAAS “inspect” the homes of your friends in order to protect yourself from charges that you were protecting them, earning you, in my eyeys, a reputation of self-serving disloyalty.

What on earth were you thinking Ed?


Anonymous said...

I will say one thing about Stuckey. There was a guy living in an RV in Venice with 50 cats. An animal rescuer saw this and reported it to Animal Services. She offered to take the animals, get them healthy, spay neutered and adopted. Stuckey worked with her and she saved those cats. They let him keep seven I think.

Stuckey didn't go after the rescuer for having 43 sick cats. She wasn't a New Hope, Adoption Partner. Stuckey didn't go after the guy with seven still in his RV because they were healthy. He could have busted them for having over three cats, or for having an animal in a vehicle, but he didn't.

Maybe this is another reason why Boks numbers for 2006 were horrible. He just euthanized animals that could have been saved. Being NoKill is about trying all alternatives first.

This really sends a bad message to all people with over three cats or three dogs in LA. We all have to live like criminals, in secrecy. It's like hiding Jews during Nazi Germany. Our rescue kittens are little Anne Franks, who could end up dead if Boks ever shows up at their door. No wonder New Hope numbers are down.

Anonymous said...

Here's a great article on why pet limit laws are bad. They don't stop hoarding. Hoarding is a mental illness, not the result of having more than three cats. Many animals could have good homes if the limits were increased. Not every animal lover is a hoarder. Some could take care of 20 cats well, some shouldn't even be allowed one animal. It's conditions, not numbers. Please, don't bust us for numbers.


If only all of us with over three cats or dogs in great conditions had the strength to speak up instead of cowering in secrecy.

Anonymous said...

What is this? If you want unlimited cats, then you must want unlimited dogs. Can you not see that this only contributes to the overall problem? We live in a world of restraints and why is that? Because you can interfere with my freedom otherwise. Telling people they can have all the animals they want would create chaos. I have been to trailer parks where there were 700 cats running around. Is this where you want us to be? Mothers were having to use a broom to chase the cats away just to get to their cars with their children. The cats were diseased, and dying miserable deaths. And look at the cats in the shelters, the ACO's don't bring them in, people do. This shows that people are sick and tired of so many cats. Yet you want these cats to live so that they can be persecuted by the neighborhood punks. I think you are out in left field on this one.

Ed Muzika said...

What kind of logic are you using?

Who said anything about me wanting unlimited cats? Even if I did, why would that implies I wanted unlimited dogs? The press release said 18 cats and you blow that up into 700.

Are you implying that if there were no restrictions on the number of cats per household, every street would have a hoarder with 50 cats or 30 dogs?

I lived in Santa Monica for 22 years. There are no cat limits and I don't remember even one bust for hoarding.

What I am most concerned about is why did Boks issue a press release about a "hoarder" bust? Why not just do it quietly? Who is the intended target of the press release? Hoarders? Do you think because one was publically busted, all others would stop?

My other concern is the circumstances of the bust and why was TNR not used with the ferals?

If LAAS wants TNR to be a City policy, why did they not use that method?

What "upper respiratory" diseases did they have. What failed treatments did they receive? Does a skin condition warrant euthanasia? The skin condition was untreatable? What did she do to the cats that was considered abusive?

Would it not have been much better for Ed to shut up rather than invoke fear among all LA rescuers?

Would it not have been better, as a previous commenter stated, for the department to work on rehabilitating the cats with the help of rescuers and then keep quiet or else issue a press release about the compassion of LAAS?

Anonymous said...

Are colony managers and feeders all over the city now being put on notice that they can/will be busted, fined, require counseling, do community service and have their cats taken away and killed?