Parks Moves to Investigate Animal Services

We all know something is very wrong with Animal Services; we have been yelling about it long enough.

It appears that Councilmember Bernard Parks wants to appear to be concerned and has asked for the real shelter numbers (It appears he may doubt the Boks' numbers) and to find out whether our allegations that shelter conditions and warehousing are contributing to the increased "death by cage" rates.

December 11, 2007


According to a recent Daily News article, the number of dogs and cats dying from sickness, injury or natural causes in Los Angeles animal shelters has more than doubled in the past year.

A city report found that in the year ending in October, animal deaths, for reasons other than euthanasia, rose from 1,462 to 3,312 - a 127% increase.

Animal shelter critics attribute the spike in kennel deaths to disease, fighting, injuries and neglect as a result of overcrowding. They also accuse the shelters of warehousing pets in a crude attempt to slow instances of euthanasia and to satisfy the City's "no-kill" mandate established in 2003.

In contrast, animal shelter officials attribute the losses to a recent effort to save animals with serious maladies or older pets that in previous years would have been euthanized.

The City is now completing a $160 million makeover of its seven shelters. With the large amount of funding being invested in animal shelters, the City needs to address the increasing number of animal deaths in City animal shelters.

I THEREFORE MOVE that the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA) report on the increase of animal deaths at City animal shelters; such eport to include, but not limited, to the following:
Reconciling the various reports dealing with the cause of animal deaths in Los Angeles animal shelters;

. Reporting on the feasibility of obtaining access to recent statistics on all impounded animals, their health status, treatment and disposition; and
. Providing an objective analysis as to the issues raised, and possible solutions to the issue of animal deaths in City animal shelters.

Bernard Parks,

Councilmember, Eighth District

Sounds good, doesn't it? But where will the CAO and CLA get their numbers, from Ed Boks maybe?

I hope somebody petitions both these persons to involve the animal community when they look at our allegations and our analyses of Boks' numbers. Most of us have stopped because the numbers get more and more bizarre.

Even then don't hold your breath. After I complained to the Supervisors about Mayeda in August, they sent me Mayeda's response in the form of a letter wherein she repeated her lies. One of the Supervisors even sent her back a note saying, "Good letter!"

If Parks is serious, he will name one of Boks' critics as an observer of the investigative process. If Parks is serious and wants to run for Mayor, what better an issue to pick than Villaraigosa backs boobs because he is one. He could also take a crack at Bratton about the Animal Cruelty Task Force.


Anonymous said...

Great Job! The worst councilmember, the laughing stock of city government, the totally ineffectual asshole Honorable "Bitter Bernie" is harassing city workers again. This is a break from his attacks on the police officers.

Do you have any idea how disliked he is by everyone except for the dolts who vote for him?

Sheesh, next you'll be bragging that Osama Bin Ladin likes Mason.

Anonymous said...

Boks will lie to the investigators just like he lied about the last motions. They made a motion to investigate the vet situation. Boks told them everything was fine and they believed it. Later Boks admitted there was a "vet crisis" at the time.

They made a motion to discuss the treatment of volunteers. Again Boks told City Council that all was fine. They made another motion to talk about the Call Center. Boks didn't even respond, no one cares.

Public Safety committee was supposed to investigate Animal Services as ordered by Laura Chick because the annual report said live release would go down. Boks then changed the report to say live release will go up. Nothing ever happened.

Bernard Parks went to the CHULA convention. He spoke better than Villaraigosa, knew the issues a lot better. In fact, Villaraigosa was the worst speaker at the convention. He didn't know the issues at all. We voted for him just because we thought he had the best chance of winning. Villaraigosa doesn't give a hoot about animals or people who like animals.He just wanted our campaign donations and votes.

Anonymous said...

"Joseph Stalin" reminds me of somebody...hmm...EB, perhaps? but you mean "Josef", right?

Too bad its Parks as he is the most reviled of Council members-- So was the motion carried?

Are there any supporters of the so-called General Mis-manager anymore? Any? Let them stand and be counted, anonymously, of course!

Anonymous said...

I never liked him because he was responsible for taking away the desirable South L.A. shelter location for political gain, but THIS, I like. I hope it is a true objective investigation somehow, someway.

Anonymous said...

Is it funny to anyone else who reads this blog for info (rather than exclusively to attack Ed M.), that the rock-thrower actually ADOPTS the alias of Stalin?

Reminds me of the conservatives who say they LIKE the Colbert Report. You people really don't get irony at all, do you?

Anonymous said...

Smith seconded Parks' motion. It wasn't just Parks.

I too wasn't too keen that Parks made the shelter move to a less desirable location. I didn't like the fact that he took a furniture store by imminent domain just to give it to another furniture store owned by a friend of his.

Anonymous said...

If you guys really think the LA shelters are so bad, you should have the guts to do what some others did against the County: file a lawsuit.

But we know Muzaka knows he can't back something like that up, and that's why no one's going to do it. He admitted as much right here on the blog when he visited the West Valley shelter a few weeks ago and found it in pretty good shape, including the vet care.

He also admitted it was his first visit to a shelter in a while, which means all this criticism he's generating is being done sight unseen.

Parks can investigate all he wants, but you know he's not going to find a clear pattern of deviation from what the department reports, because there isn't one. That's why Boks agreed to an audit in 2006 and even got outside money from Best Friends to help pay for it. He's not afraid of the outside scrutiny. But Laura Chick queered the deal because she didn't want to cover as much as Best Friends wanted (and Boks was willing to go along with), even though everyone was willing to let her control the whole thing (and sorry, but audits and investigations aren't based on asking the GM questions).

Parks has been reading too many Guss and Muzaka e-mails and is just looking for another special interest issue for his Supervisor campaign in 2008. You don't even remember what he actually said at CHULA in 2005 - he actually didn't have a clue about no-kill and emphasized picking up stray dogs in South LA instead.

Further, CHULA did NOT vote for Villaraigosa, it voted for Walter Moore. So much for your credibility. Leave the revisionist history to people who know how to lie with a straight face.

Ed Muzika said...

I certainly don't think LAAS's shelters are ANYWHERE near as bad as County's. There is a world of difference. Maybe two worlds. As a matter of fact I am impressed by a lot of positive chnages going on in the shelters, but I am troubled by the degree in which they still have not improved.

I do suggest that the use of cameras and investiagtions might disclose wrongdoing or incompetence, even as the pictures of the wet and shivering puppies do indicate there are problems that need to be addressed.

The inceased death rate should also be investigated as part of an audit. I think things will improve now that we have six vets, but warehousing the animals (for example, as of today there are 1,015 dogs impounded, which is close to the maximum the system can hold (1,100 abd only if many kennels are filled with multiple puppies) probably will offset the good that more vets will provide. AND, this is the slow season. What happens in July?

In any event, I do not even disapprove of warehousing if it increases the survival rate and because of the voodoo statistics we get out of Boks we have no idea as to the real survival rate.

I see that the Mason bust should be pursued as a lawsuit just for all the procedural violations of that raid inlcuding both slander and libel on Boks' part, as well as multiple violations of procedures of PC 597.1, as well as failure to Mirandize Mason or reveal to anyone where the cats are and for proof they were as sick as Boks alleged.

I think unless these are investigated Boks will feel empowered to do whatever he wants with his private Gestopo.

Neither of Boks' audits in the past, in NYC or Phoenix, got into what Boks' critics are most concerned with: the veracity and accuracy of his statistics (as well as anything else he has ever said about being the biggest or best). He is basing claims of his success on voodoo statistics.

These were not investigated in either audit if you read them, they took the stats at face value. I believe lots of things would come out of this as both Brad and I have already uncovered when more detailed records from Chameleon were given to us for review and comment. (Brad reviewed, I commented)

As for Parks, I can't say much except that he photographs well and really has little concern for animals as demonstated by his personal eminent domain grab of the South LA shelter location.

But, Parks has stated the animal community would have extraordinary power if organized, and I support that viewpoint and what he possibly can do to make it the case. I also support any investigation into the arrest tactics and taget selection of Boks and the ACTF. Both Parks and Brenned should be interested.

Any investigation is a first step in that direction.

So what if Parks' motions are politically motivated, they coincide with my wishes too.

Yes, CHULA voted for Moore and Villaraigosa remembers that as demonstrated by his ignoring the animal community since then. But CHULA represented only a small number of the LA animal community.

Regarding Parks not having a clue about No-Kill, none of the politicians do.