Boks Announces LAAS at 95% No-Kill Despite a 37% Increase In Killing!

Today Ed Boks has snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. See his blog post:

Listen to this, although Boks admits there has been a 37.4% increase in euthanasia during the first seven months of this year compared to last (10,217 compared to 7,437 last year),
he says LA is now at 95% No-Kill!!!!!!

How does he do this? Like all the other No-kill phonies, he lowers the criteria for No-Kill as does Mayeda.

He says as of now, only 5% of impounded healthy animals are killed (Phase I), so we are 95% No-Kill (Phase I), all the rest of the 17,000 going on 19,000 animals killed are unhealthy, vicious, untreatable, etc.

That means he is saying that almost 40% of all animals impounded are unhealthy, have behavioral problems, are vicious, etc.

No one in the world but Boks and Mayeda would claim that 40% of the animals entering their shelters are sick or "unsound."

In his blog, Boks is responding to a letter circulating on the Internet. Rumor says it was written by Laura Beth Heisen. In this letter she accurately summarizes what a lot of us think about Boks, his plans and his promises.

The letter and his responses make the best reading since Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities.


“The recent increase in animal impounds has led to an increase in the number of animals euthanized. This is the first increase in pet euthanasia in the past six years. The Department successfully reduced pet euthanasia over 50% in the past six years, and 22% in 2007. YTD 2008 has seen a 37.38% increase in euthanasia (10,217) compared to 2007 YTD (7,437). However, when the numbers are normalized to account for the increase in impounds, the euthanasia rate is up only 3.49%.”

(My comment: This means killing is going up faster than impounds, or better said, things are getting worse, fast.)

”So, what does that mean to achieving No-Kill?

”Phase I of No-Kill is achieved when no healthy animal is killed due to a lack of space or resources.”

”Phase II is achieved when we end the killing of animals in need of medical treatment.

”YTD 118 cats and 384 dogs were killed due to insufficient holding space and/or resources. These healthy pets represent the challenge to achieving Phase I of the City’s “No-Kill” Goal.”

(Comment: That is, Ed is saying only 502 out of the 10,217 killed so far this year were healthy. All the rest were sick, viscious, had behavior problems, etc.)

”YTD, the Department is over 95% on its way to achieving Phase I of No-Kill."

Then Ed makes a little joke when he says,

”The Department has always welcomed and invited the closest scrutiny to how these numbers are collected and reported. To date, no one has taken us up on our invitation.”



Anonymous said...

Oh my god! That's crazy! Euth has gone way up and he's claiming victory as a nokill shelter? That's ludicrous crazy talk. He has a major psychological illness. He needs to be institutionalized. The worse he does the better he says he's done. Someone needs to put a net over him and lock him up.

Anonymous said...

When you are done posting all those fascinating statistics, can you post the impound number of one animal you've actually, physicaly helped (not counting your buddy Mason's Muffin)?

Anonymous said...

That was a joke? We've all asked to see how he does his numbers. That's why we did all these public info act requests for his numbers. He's living in another world where killing animals is actually saving animals. How can an increase in euthanasia mean that LA is nokill? Twisted.

Ed Muzika said...

A movement towards reform will help thousands of animals in the future.

If you can't understand statistics and the meaning of those statistics, including the need to change for the better, I pity you.

And, can you remember even one impound number of an animal you helped a month ago?

Given your attitude, it is likely your help was no help at all.

Anonymous said...

Boks' No Kill Equation

1 Warehouse until they die

2 Taxi animals from a lower kill shelter to a high kill one and call the low kill shelter, no kill.

3 Get rid of all witnesses to the truth, especially those pesky volunteers.

4 Empower staff to lie and intimidate volunteers if they speak (or complain) to the wrong person. Okay, that also applies to them speaking to the right person. Actually, those volunteers shouldn't speak at all.

5 Delete all email complaints as soon as you receive them so you can claim you have received no complaints. Then, once all complaints are out of sight, announce that you are open to scrutiny.

6 Start a new committee with a catchy name to deflect attention from the issue at hand. This will make it appear that you are addressing the problem that doesn't really exist (refer to # 5).

7 If the dog or cat gives you a funny look, kill the animal for behavioral reasons. Acceptable behavorial issues are: yawning, sleeping, meowing, barking, eating, pooping, and living.

8 If the animal sniffles or has a runny eye, say it's irremediably suffering.

9 No matter what, be sure the dead animal is never categorized as a time and space issue.

10 Work for an absentee mayor who is so busy with his own lies he won't think twice about your lies.

11 Better yet, work for a mayor who doesn't care about the truth and, in particular, doesn't care about animals.

12 Rely on Hitler's motto of "The Big Lie." It works every time.

13 Remember, what really matters is what you say, not what you do.

More input to this phenomenal equation is welcome, provided it fits Boks' agenda.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately the only people who could actually do something to stop this insanity are the same people who can't be bothered to check into his claims: the city council and the mayor.

All they want to hear is that he is on his way to no kill. They don't care how he does it and what lies he tells.

Many of them dislike him but they will not go against the mayor.

Boks is a dangerous man. When he eventually leaves LA, we must do everything possible to prevent him from getting another job where he controls the lives and deaths of animals.

I do not understand why New York rescuers didn't warn us about him. Are they not as engaged as Los Angeles rescuers?

He was fired from the job in NYC by the Health & Hygiene Commission. If only our Animal Commission had the cojones to recommend the mayor do the same thing but they are controlled by the mayor.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Pasadena HS & SPCA has used the 'healthy' count for YEARS to make their high killing rates sound good for their donors. They don't count unweaned kittens, ferals, old cats/dogs or potentially dangerous dogs. What's left? Their numbers are similar to Boks' 5% (in small print - healthy animals). This is deceiving and totally unfair for the animals. Pasadena doesn't try hard to get fosters for the unweaned or homes for the elderly. They use a controversial method of determining if a dog is dangerous. What a con.