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.
By the way, Dr. Cynthia Hockman's photo is on the front page of this Daily News story.