Ed Boks supposedly champions a citywide offical acceptance of TNR as City policy as the best way to compassionately deal with the feral and homeless cat population.
That policy is supposed to give colony managers what? Peace of mind and freedom from harassment? City help with S/N above and beyond what they get now? Insulation from complaining neighbors, where the LAAS will tell the complainants to stuff themselves, that it is City policy to do nothing?
Under that plan, colonies and their managers would become identified, and hence, accountable if a neighbor complains about cats, whether or not from that colony (there is no burden of proof-ever when it comes to cats), pooping on their lawn or elsewhere.
I have even had one good-hearted neighbor threaten to sue the city (Santa Monica) because they stated their daughter was alergic to fleas, and thus a public menace. The City caved and came after me despite the fact that I used Advantage on all but 2 of the 8 cats (I told them they all got it).
Under the proposed LA plan, the identified manager could be held responsible for every cat within 1/2 block, for every cat turd, fly, flea, rodent and dead bird in the area.
When there are complaints--and there always are complaints by someone in the neighborhood--the colony and its manager will be held responsible, and the manager subject to official demands such as recently made by Sergio Rios of the 84 year old woman: abandon the colony, stop feeding, stop providing medical care, just abandon them. They will be fine thank you.
Why in the world would any sane colony manager allow themself to be so identified by the City, which can and will come down hard on them at any time when it is the known policy of the department not to help, but terrorize or jail colony managers?
Lori Golden addressed that issue directly and indirectly to Boks several issues ago in Pet Press. I don't think Boks ever responded. Maybe she should ask again, or ask in an email and cc to everyone in the cat rescue community who are most impacted by present policy and future legislation.
Who are now always in the most trouble when it comes to cats? People who have feral cats on their property. They are identified; they can be given citations and given "immoral" and illegal demands to essentially ABANDON THE ANIMALS OF WHOM THEY HAVE BECOME LEGAL CARETAKERS.
Does Boks think we are nuts? At any time, given any neighbor complaint, a colony and its manager are at risk. Nothing Boks has said addresses the issue of what protections or services would colonies and colony managers gain under a policy of legalized, city-wide TNR that they are not getting now being anonymous?
Ed, we are not nuts.
It's illegal to abandon an animal in LA. If you are or were feeding an animal, it is legally considered your property. Of course you can't feed over three cats or three dogs at your property. It's also illegal to feed animals on public property. It's considered littering. Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.
I remember reading Boks' press release on Mason. It said they took away his cats. Right under that statement was the Dept motto "we bring happiness by bringing pets and people together." Yeah, right. They make people miserable by taking pets from people and killing them.
I have a lot of trouble with Trap-Neuter-RELEASE programs because the moment you trap a HOMELESS cat-feral or not-it becomes YOUR cat, YOUR responsiblility. Considering the thousands of fleas and worms that inhabits each cat, and deep wounds (even eyes rendered blind) due to CAT FIGHTS, not to forget the endless quantities of cats that decorate roads and highways with eyeballs and guts, not to forget human cruelty and those who TRAP homeless cats to feed their pet snake--I fail to see the humanity behind trap-neuter-release programs. Outdoor cats live very short brutal lives and generally die violently or in agony.
Trap-Neuter-Release programs FAIL.
Please see www.TNRrealitycheck.com
Post a Comment