I made an error. I posted the 2002-03 impound number as 50,553 when actually it was 54,553, which accounts for the 8% (see below) decrease in impounds during the past 6 years compared to the increase of 88% died in shelter for that same period.
It is very strange, but despite all new shelters and having six veterinarians and better medical care, the number of cats and dogs that died in the shelter is up 88% over 2001 and 2002. (592 versus 1,114) this is a staggering increase.
In addition, the DOA numbers are also the highest ever during the past six years, and have increased 63% compared to 2002-2003.
All this comes during a period when impounds have actually decreased 8% from 54,553 to 50,221 (2002-2003).
Impounds are going down and death is rising in all categories. It could be that even greater increases in euth are hidden in the Died in Shelter figures as well as DOA.
What is happening?
A visual look at the increase in annual DOA and Died since Dec02 (3rd graph down). Also, updated some of the other charts and graphs with the long overdue July numbers.
We were just talking about this last night? All this is telling me is that instead of euthanizing the deathly sick, they're just letting them die maybe? Would love to find out any insight you find on that one....it really is disturbing.
Obviously, LAAC is letting animals languish and die. Much like the dog in the lawsuit - came in healthy...once they are called on it they will quickly move those numbers to the "Euth" column.
Who oversees this agency? Why are they getting away with literal murder?
Yes, died in shelter has been up well over a year. This can be due to overcrowding increasing disease, dogfighting (many dogs in the same kennel), stress, or labeling a euth as a DIS.
Surprising though given the stated increase in vet care and cost of medical care.
They are dying because of overcrowding and increased length of stays which lead to illness, injury and cage fighting. The number of dogs that are dying in cage fights is up 2.5x as much as before Boks arrived. The number dying is up three times as much for all animals.
You would think with newer, bigger, better shelters, more employees, more veterinarians that these numbers would be going down, not up. Perhaps Boks prefers an animal to die on its own so he doesn't have to count it as euthanasia, killing.
If intake has gone down overall and dying, DOA is up three times, that means in relation to intake it could actually be up four times as much. This is an alarming figure.
If memory serves me right, Boks explained a while back that the increase in the number of animals dying was a result of holding them longer and giving them more time to be medically treated so they would not have to be killed and thus, be given a little more time to be adopted/rescued. I think this was said in response to allegations circulating that LAAS was warehousing animals in order to reduce the euthanasia numbers.
BUT more recently (while interviewed by a news reporter) Boks was discussing the increase in animals coming into shelters compared to other years and about the increase in animals being surrendered for reasons of moving, landlord and reasons associated or connected to the housing and foreclosure crisis. He went on to say that, "a lot of people are not only losing their homes but their pets and bringing them to animal services in record numbers compared to previous years and consequently we're seeing an increase in the number of animals dying in our shelters."
I wondered at the time, what logic is this? That many animals surrendered by owners losing their homes are sick and dying now?
Seems like the "warehousing" to keep euth numbers down argument loses a little water when euths have gone up 31% this year....
And if people are bringing in their healty animals to the shelter because of the economy (as Ed claims), these animals would overall be very healthy and should not be dying in shelter care.
Yeah, something is amok.
If these animals are coming in as turned in family pets, why are so many unadoptable?
You insist on "No Kill" but do not want animals "warehoused."
What do you want?
you confuse me with someone else. I think warehousing is an evil term. I think keeping an animal as long as possible is the right way to go if it creates more adoptions or release to rescues or return to owner.
I am 100% on Ed in this.
I confuse you with ADL.
What do you want Boks to do with the animals that the owners turn in and no one else wants because they are old and not cute?
How long do you do you think it is possible for Boks to keep old, ugly unsocialized pit bulls? How long is "as long as possible?" The young, cute friendly pit bulls and the sweet, but ordinary adult cats have enough trouble finding homes, much less the feral cats and old, ugly unsocialized pit bulls.
How long is "as long as possible?"
Do not assume the problem of finding enough adopting homes is insoluable.
Most increasingly accept the concept that finding homes or at least places to live without exceptional risk of pain or death, is a problem of marketing.
If all the new animals coming in were old, sick or pitbulls, that would be a problem. But those turned in because of foreclosure would not all be old and sick.
As I said, the term warehousing is as bad as the term hoarding.
Keeping an animal caged or kenneled for a long time is acceptable--to me--if it means an increased chance of adoption.
It is claimed Ed warehouses pets; but look at the statistics. Adoptions have increased dramatically.
The term warehousing as a swear word makes sense only if there is no hope of being adopted.
Adoptions have increased by 33% over the last 2 years, which is about 4,000 extra animals a year adopted rather than killed.
Post a Comment