Cats Still Killed Twice as Often as Dogs at LAAS

The following is from Brad Jensen at

Notice the extremely poor survival rate for cats through June 1, 2008. Nothing has really changed much since Boks started.

The 6% "Other" category is basically cats that died in shelter. Therefore the kill rate for cats is an appalling 57% compared to 25% for dogs.

Compare this dismal kill/save rate with that for dogs.

The cat kill rate is much more than double. The Died in Shelter Rate is triple than for dogs. Dogs have a 1,700% higher Return to Owner rate and adoptions are about 30% lower than dogs.

Why? The same reason Pierce uses cat cadavers; they are readily available because people and shelters care less about them, let them wander free in the streets and have little sense of responsibility towards them compared to dogs. Also, I think just because they are smaller than dogs makes some people regard them less.
AND, Boks is not extremely allergic to dogs as he is to cats, and kennel workers fear handling them from fear of getting bitten.

You know, sometimes reporting on the utter failures of LAAS and County seems pointless. Nothing seems to improve much and no one is held accountable. The Mayor and Supervisors ignore all statistics about their dismal failure, and say Boks and Mayeda are wonderful administrators and both run the biggest adoption agencies and are almost no-kill status.

Even more remarkable than Boks' lack of accomplishment is that Mayeda's record is so much worse, probably the worst of any other large shelter system in the county, and she has been in charge for seven years, but no one at County seems to care.

Obama was widely criticized when he said people in the rural and Midwest areas are so used to having government ignore them, that they have grown bitter and cling to their religion and guns. Well, we have grown bitter and only fight with each other for tidbits and micro changes. Why is unity so hard to achieve in the animal community so that we can throw the rascals out?


Anonymous said...

Finally you are looking at info that should help you direct your efforts on helping cats. It is quite clear and has been for ages that cat "owners" tend to be irresponsible. Comparing most shelters you will find about a one percent return to owner for cats compared to much higher figures for dogs. Why is this? Because we still condone cats being outside, even to the point of groups taking care of castaway cats. We have relieved cat owners of the guilt of abandoning their pets with these groups. Why pay to take them to a shelter when the crazy cat people will take care of them? And the law does not dictate any responsibility like it does for dog owners. It will not change until there is legal intervention on cats. If you love cats then work for licensing, household limits, all those things that have proved to help the dogs (compared to the cats). And now with this no kill it is getting worst because the movement does not support new laws that can help. The humane community has always been its worst enemy, ask for an opinion from a hundred rescuers and you will get a hundred and ten different answers. It is damn if you do and damn if you don't. Work for reducing the numbers, that is the only way. And no, you won't make a difference yourself as long as you are nasty to those who think differently from you which you have been. Now you want to track people who post on here, in other words, you only want to hear from those who agree with you. You can make a difference if you can draw people to you, not push them away.

Ed Muzika said...

You have wrong thinking here.

I can understand the value of leash laws to prevent roaming cats.

I cannot see how having cat limit laws with "busts" of soemone with 10 cats leads to anything but more death. If the limits were raised to ten, there would be more potential homes.

Santa Monica has no limit laws and I don't know whether they have a higher or lower "hoarder" rate.

What would have happened to the injured cats that showed up at Mason's yard had he not taken them in a fed them, and provided, at least initially, vet care? They would be dead. Dies a slow and painful death.

I have heard your contrary arguments and found them absolutely unconvincing but endlessly repetitive.

To ban feral colony management as illegal would be disastrous. Imagine what would happen to the cats already out there suddently being cut off. They would die a slow and painful death.

Anyone who would abandon a cat to a colony is souless and a cat with such an owner probably is not better off than a feral.

You are talking about souless people. I don't think any more cats than dogs are abandoned in this way.

I agree increased legal responsibility may help, but no one can prove it. It just sounds like a reasonable argumemnt.

I have heard contrary arguments that licensing and spay/neuter laws actually increases impounds and killing.

I don't believe anything until I see some proof. You can't just expect someone to believe your case and not someone else's without some proof.

If there were a township or city that actually required licensing or enforced leash laws, and we could follow the impound and euth rates for 4-5 yerars thereafter, we would have proof rather than just having opposing speculative theories.

I do not see colony management as a solution, but it is a safety net for abandoned and ferals cats. Until you can find a way to stop cats from breeding in the streets, or being abandoned by owners, colonies are needed along with caring colpny managers.

Not to say there is a proper way and a negligent way to manage colonies and just say the negligent ones are creating more bad than good, creteas a dilemma.

If your arguments ring true--which I don't think they do--the colony manager might just stop caring and feeding saying proper care is beyond his/her means.

Of course the law does dictate responsibility to cats and dogs alike. The entire California Penal Code in the 597 section (70-8- pages or more) deals with cats and dogs equally. But there is unequal enforcement by local and state officials and courts.

Besides, there are the soulless killers such as Carolina Biological which are given license to continue barbarisms, as well as the failure of shelters to increase adoptions and transfers to rescues.

There is a lot of blame to go around everywhere.

Even then, dogs are afforded somewhat higher "sentient being" value, as well as legal responsibility, but still millions are killed, they are abondoned or trained as fighting dogs.

Your increased laws do not help them out.

Of course we need to work to reduce the numbers, what mnakes you think anyone in the animal community thinks this is a bad idea?

But what about the ones that are alive now? Do you take them to the pound because you do not have the means to take care of them? Do you abandon a colony because you cannot take care of them properly, or trap them and take them to the pound where they will be killed?

Do you go after an arrest and impound cats of everyone that has more than eight, whether healthy or not as under the existing LA Kennel permit?

Just impound and kill them at that time?

I don't only want to here from theose who agree with me. I will certainly listen to someone with a logical argument, especially one that has some proof.

But just a constant repetition of the same point of view without any logical argument or statistical proof is a waste of everyone's time.

Anonymous said...

One of the biggest issus with the surplus of cats is the segment of the humane community that condons dumping/relocating cats in existing cat colonies. One can only wonder whether the dumpers/relocaters EVER consider the permutations of their actions? Do they know if the cat is going to survive at the new location? Will the newly abandoned cat be driven away by the existing cats? Will the cat be harmed/wounded/killed by the existing cats? Will the newly dumped cat be run over by a car because it isn't familiar with its new surroundings? Will it be poisoned by someone who is already unhappy with the cat colony? Will it be tortured? Will it have its body used as a training device for a pit bull owned by a cat-hater? We've seen all of these things happen to the poor, defenseless cats who were dumped by members of the so-called rescue community. This is really not a good/humane way to deal with a cat issue. The cats are suffering!!! Thanks for letting us vent. It's very frustrating to see this continue. The cats lose.

Anonymous said...

Try Lake Elsinor. The City Council a few years ago stopped canvassing for cat licenses and the impounds jumped at their shelter. This only lasted for two years before the Council required canvassing again. Your argument keeps us in the present with the problem, you are too worried about some lives being lost with a transition. Lives are being lost now without one. We can continue to be more concerned about saving them all than saving the ones in the future. There could be all those conseqences you described but then again there may not be. Do you have proof of what you say as well? And where is the proof that all these "feral" cat colonies are truly containing ferals and not domestics gone wild or rather abandoned? I would say that truly feral cats are few and far between particularly in the urban and suburban areas of LA. And if the colonies have domestics gone wild (or abandoned) they have a right to come back inside and become pets, which they are not getting enough of right now with the current programs and caregivers.

Cats are not required to have rabies vaccinations although the State Compendium has recommended it every year almost as well as a licensing requirement for cats. This Compendium is concerned that there are reported cases of feline rabies while canine rabies is almost unheard of. So, no I would say that cats and dogs do have a double standard and are not treated the same.

I still believe in quality of life over quantity of life which we differ, it seems. Household limits can mean a better quality of life for the majority of pets. There are studies showing that the more pets in a household the fewer times each pet sees the vet such as for annual checkups, dental. There are always exceptions to the rule but the truth is that most people can only afford a certain amount of pets if it is done correctly. Correctly means vet visits, good food, etc. When you see someone buying Ol' Roy for their cats do you immediately think these people care about their cats or do you think they can't afford their pets? Sorry, just can't get pass quality over quantity.

Show us the proof of your beliefs, you go first because you usually bring the subjects up first. Kinda like show me yours and I'll show you mine.

Anonymous said...

Unbelievable, I could swear I wrote comment #3 myself to the word!

I have never ever met anyone else with these same arguments. I wonder who this person is; how long they have been caring for cat colonies so that this person is able to articulate his experience to the "t,"; and where this person lives?

This person crossed every 't' and dotted every 'i.'

Who is this masked man/wonder being? What a surprise. Yes, let's thank the writer of this blog for allowing us all to vent here. This is an extremely sensitive issue.

I am totally impressed and intrigued by #3, I tell you! Wowee Kapow.

Lots of good arguments all the way down from 1 - 4 though; but gosh, I just can't get over who this #3 might be.

I tell you, I have never heard anyone talk this way about the cats.

Anonymous said...

Ed, sorry for the delay in getting new charts up. Indeed, the charts appear much the same as they did last year.

LAAS Pie Charts

Brad Jensen
Cypress, CA