Details about the 24% rise in euthanasia for Dogs and Cats this year
Euthanasia Dogs and Cats, First Quarter January 1 to March 31
2008..........................2,391
2007..........................1,930
Increase in Euth.......461
Percentage increase 24%!
The number of dogs and cats killed is the highest since 2005.
Details about the 18% rise in impounds, first quarter
2008..............................................9,870
2007..............................................8,323
2006..............................................8,129
Increase in impounds, 2008..................1,497
Percentage increase , 2008...........18%
Increase impounds since 2007..............1,681
Percentage increase impounds......21%
The number of animals impounded in the first quarter of 2008 is the highest number since 2002. That is, there has been no net progress in the past six years.
Statistics are from the department’s website:
http://laanimalservices.org/PDF/reports/CatNDogIntakeNOutcomes.pdf
Boks may attempt to explain this away as a statistical anomaly and deny any of it was his responsibility.
However, last year the number of kittens impound was the lowest ever, and he explained it was an anomaly, but took credit for the decrease and announced it as an LAAS success. He cannot have it both ways.
Boks’ no kill efforts have resulted in a 24% increase in killing during the past year.
.
6 comments:
So much for Boks being the nokill king. I wonder who or what he will blame for the increase in killing. I bet it'll be a good story.
Can we please stop buying into and parroting the fallacy that Ed Boks and No-Kill have anything to do with each other?
Ed Boks is not No-Kill. What he is is a con man. What are con men good at? Finding key concepts and buzzwords that are important to the people they're trying to con, then peppering their con with those terms to achieve credibility and rapport. Does anyone here still believe anything Boks says? Then why do you still use "No-Kill" when you talk about him? It doesn't help us, it helps him, i.e. if Ed Boks is No-Kill, and even HE can't make it work, then No-Kill is not achievable. Except that Ed Boks isn't No-Kill, and never was, not when he got bounced out of Maricopa County, and not when New York City fired his sorry con man butt. (Ed M., I hope you appreciate that I censored myself there...)
I'm willing to bet the man can barely tell a poodle from a pug. In a January press release (the one area where I AM willing to bet he's hands-on) he announces a dogfighter bust, including this gem, "The ACTF seized eleven Staffordshire Bull Terriers, commonly referred to as pit bulls..." They're not even the same BREED, and this is coming from the guy who's supposed to be the authority on animals in L.A.!
He uses No-Kill as a pickup line. He uses it to get over on female rescuers with way more lip collagen and chest silicone than brains. Can we please stop serving his ends by even using No-Kill in the same sentence as his scurvy, discredited name?
Ed Boks is to No-Kill as George Bush is to World Peace: the antithesis.
Boks says he is a no kill expert, but has not accomplished no kill.
He tells everyone he is no kill. I have to point out he is not otherwise people believe he is no kill and a 40% kill rate is acceptable and the goal of the movement.
I understand how he has given no kill a bad name, but that name has to be given back credibility that someone can do it.
No kill is a movement; we cannot allow him to coopt the term or concept, especially as he uses wild data to prove it. Using his criteria NYC, killing as many aniamls as us, is far closer to no kill than are we because it has twice the population.
It is like a murderer who says he is innocent and has killed no one. It is up to the prosecuter to prove he has. We are proving he has.
"female rescuers with way more lip collagen and chest silicone than brains."
C'mon, Boks = Death! Thought you'd never notice...Besides, it can't be ALL silicone...there is some lard underneath it all, isn't there? Give us some credit here. We're all trying to be noticed.
Love the antithesis:
"Ed Boks is to No-Kill as George Bush is to World Peace: the antithesis."
Should be posted on your refrigerator door.
Besides, the buzz words and sound bites reach the public and are popular w/ folks w/ a short attention span. They're popular w/ school teachers and activists trying to get a marketing strategy across.
You know: "TNR is the only humane method of population control."
"It reduces euthanasia."
"It Works!" Etc., etc...
Sound-bites and buzzwords are spooky cause they don't tell the whole truth. Good point with the "con act." I agree.
If ya ain't tellin' the whole truth, yar' a' lyin by o-mission, as I sees it.
"(Ed M., I hope you appreciate that I censored myself there...)"
Funny dude. LOL.
Having looked at comment #4, I think I'd better clarify. When I wrote that Boks "uses [No-Kill] to get over on female rescuers with way more lip collagen and chest silicone than brains" I was NOT making a negative statement about women, or women rescuers in general. I was making a statement about the kind of woman "rescuer" that by all accounts, and my own observations, (yes Mr. Boks, I have seen you in action) he likes to hit on.
We've all seen the human-centered rescue sites where the homepage is a glamour shot of the rescuer, carefully kissing or hugging a cat/dog so as not to smear her lipstick. The kind of rescuer who always includes her "personal story" and many references to herself on the site.
I know many female rescuers who work tirelessly and selflessly with no need for that kind of ego-stroking PR. Which is good, since by the end of the day none of us have any lipstick left to smear...
The fact that I mentioned they're female was only an indication that Boks is straight. It was not a general statement of misogyny. I should have said “CERTAIN female rescuers.”
How do the feral cats get euthanized at the shelters?
What kind of technique do they use?
Is it worse now that the cost of supplies has gone up?
Are the ferals still being sedated before euthanasia?
How do they grab them and hold them down in order to stick a needle into their leg, or their heart, if the cats are not sedated first and are rickecheting and bouncing all over the walls? No one can hold a feral cat down.
Isn't that very stressful for the staff too trying to hold the animal down, even if it's tame, but nervous?
I just wonder how they get the euthanol into the aggressive ones. I can't even hold my semi-ferals down with two people at the vets office to get his nails trimmed.
Post a Comment