Carson Animal Shelter Candlelight Vigil, April 5

Carson Animal Shelter Candlelight Vigil

Carson Animal Shelter216 West Victoria StreetGardena, CA 90248

During fiscal year 2007, the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control killed 52,800 of the 85,975 animals they impounded. That’s a 61.4% kill rate. Those animals deserve to be more than just a statistic. Join us in remembering the animals killed by the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control in a candlelight vigil on

Saturday, April 5, 2008 from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM at the Carson Animal Shelter.

On Sunday, April 6, 2008, Los Angeles County shelters will be closed to the public, and that is when the most killing will take place. This candlelight vigil will also remember those animals that will be killed on Sunday.

The candlelight vigil will feature speakers who had animals that they were going to rescue or adopt needlessly killed by the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control and those who had animals they were going to rescue or adopt die at a Los Angeles County shelter due to the neglect of the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control.

If you’d like to speak at the candlelight vigil or to RSVP, contact Ryan Olshan at


The Trailboss said...

So tell me, what were your plans to do with the 52,800 animals that were not to be put to sleep? Let's here a good answer for that. And don't say adopt them out. I work at an animal shelter and cry everytime that we put animals to sleep. I know there do in LA too. It's not the shelters you need to go after, it's the general public that is so irresponsible in continuing to let their pets breed. I think you need to start reading at the beginning, not at the end of the book. Let's work "together" and try to end this problem.

Anonymous said...

Commenter #1: If you look at Ryan Olshan's blog today:( see the story about the volunteer who came out during last Saturday's demonstration to deny the events that were being protested and, when shown the alive-and-dead pictures of Zephyr reportedly said, "Shit happens," I doubt you would think this woman shed a tear for any animal- and she's a VOLUNTEER.

A two-second look at Olshan's blog and you would see that paid shelter staff routinely flout LACDACC policies by taking website pictures of animals forced to the ground with catch-poles, looking both scared and dangerous in their one photo-chance to appeal to the adopting public. The first thing you'll see is a website photo of a terrier where you can't even see the dog's face, but you can very clearly see the feces and urine surrounding him. Great chance they gave that dog.

If you just briefly look at the video and photos in the documentation for the lawsuit against LACDACC you will, I hope, throw up. Just as you should reading about the staff member who shoots euthanasia poison into pigeons, then lets them go to see how far they fly before they drop to the ground, dead.

So, commenter #1, you may be doing what you can to help animals, but it is well-documented that LACDACC staff and management do not do even do the barest minimum. They do not cry when animals die, they try to find new and fun ways to hurt and kill them, like the video of a staff member dragging a Rottweiler with a broken back on the ground (this staff member is reportedly back at work at the shelter), and another staff member who kills animals by injecting them with cleaning fluid and air bubbles.

No one is saying all 52,800 could have been saved. But without Marcia Mayeda, the documentedly incompetent, lying and truly uncaring Director of LACDACC (for six and a half years, mind you) and her pack of bootlickers, a lot more could have been saved.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Bill. And who will take the place of Marcia and Boks? How many directors has LA gone through in the past few years? And it seems each time you get a worst one than before. Stop the animals from coming into the shelters, that solves a major portion of the problem. That's where to begin.

Anonymous said...

So, who is going to tun the "stop the animals from coming into the shelters" campaign? Willie Nelson, Bill Clinton or Ed Boks and Marcia Mayeda?

So how is that different?

Also, it is so, so, so so easy to say stop them from coming in, but how is that different from "stop the killing?"

How do you stop them from coming in? Strays, owner turn-ins, feral, kittens?

Spay neuter? We already have that to the tune of 40,000 vouchers last year and now 3 spay/neuter surgeries opening at the shelters.

Talking to owners not to turn in their cats and dogs? Are they not doing that now--at least to an extent?

Refuse to take in animals? Boks has been doing that since April.

So how are you going to stop more animals coming in using the same management, staff and directors already in place? Close the shelters altogether? That would stop the killing.

Anonymous said...


Are you saying that all 52,800 killed would have to be killed anyway? That despite 350 employees and $27,000,000 you still have to kill 70%?

This is idiocy. LAAS kills 44% and it is in exactly the same situation as County.

Mayeda is so incompetent she can't even perform as well as Boks.

You are saying it can never get better. It has always been this way and always will.

Anonymous said...

No Kidding commenter's #1 and #4.

It doesn't sound like some people others ever had hands on experience working in the trenches.

I don't see how they can argue with the people who have seen all the homelessness and suffering, and the torture that the ANIMALS have to undergo at the hands of the people who try to dump them at the shelters and then are turned back when they don't want them in the first place, or can't afford to keep up with their care.

What are you going to do with all the idiots who adopt when the animals are rolly-polly and cute?

You need to bash their faces in when they can't keep it up and they allow their animals to breed and breed, then they dump 'em. IT's the "lucky" ones who make it into the shelters.

People who neglect and abuse them and don't get caught, but won't take them to the vet or to the shelter and just let them rot away in some dingy yard all tied up and caged during inclement weather don't give a shit. Like the central americans down the street from me.

It's the PEOPLE NOT THE ANIMALS who need to be taken into the shelters!

Feeders who breed stray animals and then walk away when they can't afford to keep it up, or their place has gone to shit having so many animals their walking on crap inside and outside of their living spaces and never as much as took advantage of the free clinics or spay neuter services NEED TO GO TO THE SHELTER and BE EUTHANIZED!

Then the half-million animals who were euthanized at the shelters due to owner responsibility can all find happy loving homes.

They're all out there. Just go knocking on every door on every block and change the law to go from the 3-animal limit to the 40 animal limit.

See how well they'll be cared-for then. Not one will be ever abused or neglected, you can be sure of that.

Everybody can flock to the shelter and adopt at least 35 animals if they'ver already got 5 at home. Then everybody has a chance.

Get the kids to adopt, especially the central americans like the ones down the street who caged up their two large dogs in their back yard for a year.

Give 'em 20 dogs and 20 cats each. If you have a family of 10, then you got 40 animals x 10 people.


Forget the medical care and irresponsibility aspect.
If they can't commit for life, then just euthanize the people and start over again.

At least there will be adoption turn-overs going on all the time.

Then the city can make big bucks writing citations for all the neglect the animals will be subject to.

$500 citations for each animal that has been trashed in the yard, or has trashed the new home through no fault of its own, and has no ongoing medical care.

If you multiply the $500 by 40 animals per household at the least, you've got quite a revenue!

Then you gotta pay the ACTF to go out on a regular basis to inspect the situation too, so that's a step in the right direction.

Get the task force really busy and bring in the revenue for the sake of the animals already in the shelters.

Some of these commenters have not been out to peole's homes in South LA -- Reseda, East Los Angeles, Compton, Hawthorne, and the ones' living in the back alleys carrying their poor homeless dogs cause they're homeless too.

Lets adopt a whole bunch of animals to the homeless people. That way, the world is their home, and they'll keep the indigent people warm and comforted.

Give 'em a little more hope.

There are definitely ways to increase adoptions of the thousands of animals that have died.

Don't forget to say a prayer for each and every one of them during the vigil. Don't forget the Rosaries and the Our Fathers.

They'll hear your warm thoughts of love and compassion on their way to God's open arms.

How do you think GOD FEELS everytime he has to take animals back from people who loved them when they were babies and have to discard them when they're older cause the color and size wasn't right, or because the dogs have had a bunch of babies but they have all been sold and the people who bred the mother "can't afford to keep the dog" anymore, so OUT she goes!

OR BETTER YET: When the people drop off an 18 year old cat who has been faithful all her life, but the damned asshole treats her like any other bimbo and trades her for anothe, just like he does his girlfrieds when he no longer has any use for her.

Doesn't drop her off himself, but he'll have a friend just leave her at the doorstep of the damned shelter. IDIOTS.

There are lots of good homes for these animals.

When the shelter doors close, then we can enable all of the wonderful people who adopted and no longer want them to let 'em go.

Some will be altered, most not. Easier to dump 'em than to turn them in to the shelter or worse, have to "waste your time taking your dog to the vet to get neutered, even if he did crash through the window and get split open with the glass trying to get to the mailman. Just ask what they make their dog go through cause they refuse to get him neutered.

Well, at least the impounds stay low, and the animal isn't getting turned in.

Poor little things. It's not even their fault. All they want is to be loved. They were born to be loved. NOt to die. Not tragically, not otherwise. Bunch of them get thrown out on the railroad tracks and out the freeway. I pick 'em up from off the freeway. Dead. I'm enamoured w/ death, you know.

Maybe we can find forever pills to pop into their little tummies once in a while. That'll give them longevity through thick and thin, and keep 'em healthy, no matter the circumstances they have to endure at the hands of idiots and barbarians.

Any pentobarbital for barbarian ignorant fools out there? No sedative. Just PB. Let me know.

I'll help to hold their leg down so that the needle could go right into the femoral vein. The people, I mean.

Then everyone can be happy, and we can hold a vigil for all the idiots who adopted 40 animals and are neglecting them cause they wanted to rescue them out of the shelter because they have compassion for them, and they go out to the shelter to adopt when they're bored, as one man sitting at my vet's office said one day.

That's what he does. He rescues animals fromt he shelter when he's bored. He's got ducks, rabbits, reptiles, dogs, cats, squirrels, opposums and turtles, and keeps going back to get more.

WE need more people like this guy and the people from down the street with the caged dogs and the dog going through the glass window. Helps adoptions go way up and keep the death rate down.

Abuse does not equal death, so they figure that's ok.

If someone brings the Pentobarbital for human euth's to the vigil, I'll bring refreshments.

Anonymous said...

I'm strained to the gills with #6's very long, hate-filled screed, but I would like to point out one thing. This man you so clearly hates who adopts animals when he's bored -- you met him at the vet's. That says to me that the guy provides veterinary care.

Some people have more animals than legally allowed and take care of them very well. Some people can't take care of one goldfish.

I think what Ed M. is trying to do is find some kind of plan and some kind of hope. And today it seems there have been some people (or maybe one person with A LOT of time on his hands) pouring as much hatred, misanthropy and racism on top of this hope.

No one is saying it's going to be easy, no one is saying it's going to be fixed in the short term. But we are saying that if Boks and Mayeda, as well as proven abusers and shirkers on staff were replaced with competent, caring people, people who wouldn't shoot cleaning fluid into animals to kill them, then we could take a step in the right direction.

No one is even saying you haven't seen what you've seen. But we're trying to find some light at the end of the tunnel. And continually turning the subject away from things we could theoretically fix, like Boks, Mayeda and bad staff, to focus on the segments of the public who are uncaring pet owners (and hence unlikely to be reading this blog) seems less than constructive.

Anonymous said...

l.a. voter said...

"This man you so clearly hates who adopts animals when he's bored -- you met him at the vet's. That says to me that the guy provides veterinary care."

Nope. Would like to see that is the case, but nope. Guy got a FREE medical exam with the adoption fee.

I get your drift, though. "You're strained to the gills w/...the long hate-filled screed. Got it.

I like the fact that you say some can take care of a lot of animals, while some can't take care of one goldfish. It's funny cause it's true.

Anonymous said...

Oh anonymous - thank goodness we can all get along, you, me, and my three dogs, two birds, and undisclosed number of cats (:

I'm always concerned when we don't see clear distinctions between genuine animal lovers who see a need and try to help, and people who mindlessly take in more animals than they're ultimately prepared to take proper care of.

I'd bet most of the people who read and comment on this blog for non-sneaky reasons (as opposed to spying on what they see, for some odd reason, as the opposition) have now, or have had at some point, more than the legal 3-dog, 3-cat limit. I get tense when I see having more than is legally allowed being equated with abuse.

Although I haven't done the math, I doubt that I have 250 square feet for EACH cat, unless we count heights I don't want them jumping anyway. But are my cats crammed unhealthily together? No, they have four rooms to choose from, good food, clean water, and plenty of places to claw and shed on. I'd venture to say they're pretty happy, they get along fine with the dogs (although I doubt the birds would like them).

The problem is, besides having to worry about LAAS, I have to see, even here, people acting as if the legal limits make sense across the board, and suggestions that anyone who exceeds the limits is somehow not acting in the best interests of the animals. If I see a need and am able to fill it, and am willing to undertake the expense, and put in the time required, I don't think anyone should assume or frankly, say I'm an animal abuser because I have more than three cats.

Anonymous said...

"Oh anonymous - thank goodness we can all get along, you, me, and my three dogs, two birds, and undisclosed number of cats (: "

Absolutely, #9!!

I totally support you in your endeavor to help out where you see a need and you are willing to take on the time and expense involved in doing the work.

True Love and Compassion requires LOTS of time, Expense, adequate and healthy space, and BIG BUCKS that need to be grown on money trees cause none of us have the kind of money that it takes to provide all the care those little guys need.

So, you sell your soul and put your heart out on a silver platter to do what it takes to make it happen for them and give them what they need.

No worries, #9! I totally get it about your "undisclosed number of cats" who are kept in clean living quarters and are given the kind of care you describe.