Complaints Against LAAS Are Down

Ed Boks told the Commission at the June 30 meeting that complaints about LAAS are down.


Ed Boks now is the one who handles all complaints.


Anonymous said...

When Boks first started he wasn't in control of the stats. He was in control over ordering the shelters to hold animals as long as possible. "Amazingly" his first month he "reduced" euthanasia by 20%. He'd only been on the job two weeks. His first six months he continued to reduce euthanasia by warehousing the animals. He told the shelters not to euth no matter what.

Second half of his first year his stats went into the crapper. He just didn't mention them. Year end people mentioned them. What did he do? He took over control of the stats. "Amazingly" his stats improved, in odd ways. Kitten intake ergo euth went way down. Animals dying on their own went up 3x as much. If they die on their own, they aren't a euth, "lives saved?"

Boks isn't in full control of the stats now. Now intake and euth is way up. Interesting. A word game, numbers game, that's all it is.

Anonymous said...

Where do you get this information, #1?

How do you know that the animals were being "warehoused" and that kittens weren't being accepted just so that euth rates could be lowered?

How do you know that the shelters were told not to euth no matter what?

Why were the animals dying on their own and how do you know this?

It makes sense that if the animals aren't a euth and they die on their own that this equal lives saved, but how do you know this and where do you get your info?

Also, are the euth stats higher now because the shelter started accepting kittens again and the animals aren't being warehoused anymore?

There are a lot of adoptions, including adoptions of feral cats at the shelter because I've seen it.

The cats are the highest in the euth stats and the ferals are the first to get adopted by feral cat groups who then put them back out/release them--let them go---give them to people to use as mousers and release them where people have been known to feed cats.

Interesting commentary, #1. I am looking forward to your responses. You seem to know a lot about what is going on at the shelters on the higher end---particularly about the "fact" that the animals are being warehoused and that the kittens weren't being accepted and animals being warehoused and "dying on their own" so that numbers could be manipulated etc.

Could you fill us in some more here?

Even if the animals die on their own and they aren't euthanized and the shelters are holding on to them and they aren't being killed, isn't that what no-kill is about?

If the animals aren't being killed, I don't quite understand what the problem is about. Some people don't mind that the shelters are holding the animals as long as possible as long as they aren't being killed. A lot of people want to take their animals to a no-kill shelter. They don't care if the animal is being "warehoused." They don't want their animal killed for lack of space.

Even if the animal dies on it's own after contracting airborne illnesses and going stir crazy and depressed in a cage and develops behavioral problems as a result of being caged for so long people who relinquish their animals to a place where they have a chance to live out their lives is what they want and it's better than being killed.

In the end if the stats are "manipulated" to accomodate as many animals as possible and they are aren't being killed, what does it matter if the animals' are allowed to live out their lives in the shelter.

It's the same with the rescue organization who has their animals caged for years when they aren't being adopted. They can't let them all go and they can't let them loose anywhere. They get sick and they die. What's the difference?

The animals are alive until they get sick and either they get treated as long as possible, or they let the cats go (if they're not lap cats) and put them in somebody's yard, they're still alive.

So the shleters don't take in all the animals when they're full. Is that such a bad thing?

They're going into a shleter to go into a cage and the rescues don't want them either. What's the difference?

Besides, the more animals they take in, the more will get sick, especially now that the staff has been cut by the wonderful Mayor Villaragosa and there aren't enough people to give the animals the care they need in order to stay clean and healthy; Now that the wonderful mayor Villaragosa has cut even the state employees' wage to minimum wage.

Not many people are going to survive on those crumbs. Even less crumbs for the animals now.

Great job, Villaragosa! You're my hero! Now there will be more death on the street more than ever, including people and animals.

Anonymous said...

When you need a hearty, good-hearted laugh, enjoy yourself with these three vidoes about a 44lb cat who was abandoned by his owner due to foreclosure and went up for adoption at an animal shelter in New Jersey.

You need another house to "warehouse" this one:

Isn't he one of the most precious things you've ever seen in your entire life?!

Anonymous said...

Those people closest to witnessing what goes on at shelters but who are not city employees would be adoption partners, rescuers and volunteers right? So isn't this where a majority of the complaints would come from? And Ed Boks is saying complaints are down?

Consider this. A new policy was instituted a few months ago by San Luis Obispo County Sheriff Pat Hodges barring county Animal Services volunteers from making public statements criticizing the shelter or its operations.
SLO News Story


Anonymous said...

#2, there have been a few articles about these exact things. There was a memo given to employees in March 2005 saying don't kill no matter what. Basically, let them die on their own. And they did. Look at year end stats. Dying was up 3x as much. Look at first six months stats. It's all there and has been proven before. I'm not going to waste an hour proving it all again. Here are some links. There are more.

Anonymous said...

"Consider this. A new policy was instituted a few months ago by San Luis Obispo County Sheriff Pat Hodges barring county Animal Services volunteers from making public statements criticizing the shelter or its operations.
SLO News Story"

Unless what is divulged by volunteers jeopardizes national security, or is part of an ongoing investigation or legal case, I don't think any employee or volunteer can be told what they can or cannot say. At best, they can be told that when they do speak to the public they must clarify that they are not representing the organization from which they volunteer or work.

I'm not an attorney, but I do recall the issue of gag orders from other avenues have stated something like that in legal replies.

Bottom line? If one has nothing to hide, this shouldn't be a concern. If one feels they were misrepresented, then they have the right to reply accordingly

Anonymous said...

Nothing to see here folks; let's move on...

Anonymous said...

#7, I hope you're joking...but given the number of people who spend a great deal of their time (on what I suspect is OUR time clock and OUR dime) coming to this site to NOT accomplish their goal of confusing us about whether or not Ed Boks is a bad guy...I think you may not be joking, but rather just a joke.

After all, it would be very like you people to confuse yourselves with cops (L.A. cops especially) and try to bully people into "moving on."

If there's one thing I've noticed about City (and County) government people, it's that they have a lot more bluster and bullying than they have brains. I can't imagine on what basis, but I haven't met one yet who has ever considered the possibility that s/he may not be the smartest one in the room, which is pretty funny because you never are.

And for someone who's not even that smart, Boks for sure thinks he can bully people. I've seen him up close when he doesn't like what someone else has to say, and that Dr. Jeckyll mask of his slips right away, revealing mad-as-hell Mr. Hyde. He's not even good at his BS, which again calls into question what (or more likely WHO) Antonio Villaraigosa was doing while he should have been checking Ed Boks' references.

Poor Antonio. Now that Hillary very likely won't even be V.P., nothing can stop his richly deserved fast slide back into obscurity.

Anonymous said...


Unfortunately Villaraigosa is brown nosing Obama big time. He's trying to get the mexican vote for Obama. He's all over the world doing photo ops with Obama instead of working here in LA doing his job.

Anonymous said...