Boks failure to do his job of impounding and placing unweaned cats and dogs is paying off in terms of fewer animals killed. Of course, they may be dying on the streets now. We no longer have any accountability.
THE JUNE STATS FOR UNWEANED KITTENS AND PUPPIES HAVE NOT BEEN PUBLISHED YET ON THE LAAS WEBSITE. THE REASON IS THAT IT MAKES VERY CLEAR THAT MOST OF THE IMPROVEMENT IN DIMINISHED ANIMALS KILLED IS DUE TO TURNING AWAY ANIMALS, NOT INCREASED ADOPTIONS, NEW HOPE, FOSTER, ETC. THESE PLAY A MINOR ROLE.
Euth was down 1,093 for April-June of this year for unweaned cats and dogs (dogs are always a very small number compared to cats), but impounds from refusing animals were down 674. AND, 291 of the impounded kittens in May/June were never accounted for in the statistical outcomes. They check in, but they don't check out. 291 and 674 is 965 which explains almost all of the decreased killing of neonatals.
Adoptions were up 136 from a year ago, but down 1 from two years ago. LAAS did a poor job last year under his reign.
New Hope was down 76 from a year ago and 285 from 2 years ago. Guess New Hopes don't like working with the new LAAS.
The one bright spot is fosters, which are up 235 form a year ago and 257 from 2 years ago. For this, a yea.
LAAS is killing 1,400 fewer neonates than 2 years ago, but intake is also down 1,267 animals, explaining almost all of the fewer animals killed.
Moral of the story: the more animals turned away, the fewer euthanized. Of course, as I said before, I agree with this policy even though we don't know how many lives it saves or not, and it is a cheap way of improving Boks numbers: just don't do your job and then brag about how little you did.
"Moral of the story: the more animals turned away, the fewer euthanized. Of course, as I said before, I agree with this policy even though we don't know how many lives it saves or not, and it is a cheap way of improving Boks numbers: just don't do your job and then brag about how little you did."
That's perfect! That is exactly what he's doing. Maybe the fire dept shouldn't respond to any fires. Then it would look like there were fewer fires, they saved money and fewer firemen were injured, just because they didn't do their job.
Post a Comment