Ed Boks, past General Manager of LA Animal Services, now supports cat declawing in an 180 degree turn around from when he was GM.
This is a big story and I cannot reveal all that is going on at this time, but Ed Boks has been actively lobbying Santa Monica City Council in an attempt to defeat the Anti-Declaw ordinance in Santa Monica. He hasn't been doing this out of th kindness of his heart.
He appeared before Council Tuesday night and spoke out of both sides of his mouth when a Councilmember asked him if he hadn't opposed declawing in the past.
Another Councilmember, Kevin McKeown, asked him if he hadn't been forced to resign due to a vote of no confidence in Los Angeles. Get this, Boks said he resigned because he had accomplished the mayor's goals in Los Angeles!
Here are the notes of someone who watched him at Council:
He said "declawing cats save lives."
Councilmembers called him on his old blog posts which said he was against it and now he's for it. He did this weird rationalization saying both were true.
Council asked him what was the result of West Hollywood ban? More cats dumped? He said more cats were dumped in LA. Council said "We are talking about West Hollywood, not LA. Boks replied, "Intake is up because of the recession." The councilmember asked, "Is it up because of declawing?" He said "We have no way of knowing."
Then one councilmember asked, "Didn't LA Council do a motion of no confidence in you and asking for your resignation?" Boks responded that he resigned because he accomplished the mayor's goals."
By the way, Boks did not get the job running a small shelter in Bellingham Washington because of everyone here who emailed people there about what he did here.
If he is now deciding to come out against animal welfare because he is paid to do so, I reprise my earlier assertion that I still support him in a non-animal management job, like PR or lobbying. I never thought him capable of being a turncoat for a few dollars, if, in fact he is a paid lobbyist.
Actually, I kind of feel sorry for Boks. He seems to be an empty suit with no moral compass, compassion or love; there is not an animal person alive who is not richer in spirit than he, and I am sure he knows something is missing in him and wishes desperately to find it, but he never will.
I could not believe my ears last night.(re: SM City Council) Ed Boks MUST be getting paid off to stand there and defend declawing! Thank you for exposing him for what he really is.
Boks is an evil criminal liar. I don't use words like that for sport. He's bad news and shouldn't be allowed to have anything to do with animals and their well being. Whether he's a whore or not is almost irrelevant in light of the rest of the package.
Council member Davis asks Ed Boks if there's been an increase in cat abandonment due to the West Hollywood ban on declawing cats.
Boks says there's been an increase in the number of cats turned into LA shelters for a variety of reasons but its difficult to pinpoint whether the West Hollywood declaw ordinance had anything to do with it... but then he adds, it very well could have.
So Ms Davis asks, "Why would you say that?"
Boks, "Why do we say we don't know?"
Ms Davis asks again, "Is there any evidence..."
(...that the West Hollywood ban has increased cat abandonment and/or relinquishment I presume).
Boks answers by rambling on about how people in West Hollywood are probably taking their cats to providers outside of town to have the amputations done and then changes the subject by saying there are no studies on the number of declawed cats being relinquished in shelters.
And this comes from someone with 30 years experience in animal care and control.
Well, I've had my scare for the season.
What I find amazing is his comparison to "other forms of mutilation." Comparing declawing to ear tipping or spay and neuter is outrageous.
First, any animal not suitable for sterilization does not have to be sterilized. Second, sterilization actually prevents some forms of cancer in dogs and cats. Declawing causes medical problems.
Declawing versus ear tipping is like comparing ear piercing to a leg amputation.
This line of illogic is egregious and representative of his alcoholic cognition-or lack thereof. Coupled with his lack of morals (as is the case with most malignant narcissists), the man is dangerous.
I can't comment on Boks' alleged alcohol or morality issues because I have no personal knowledge of them. What I can comment on is his apparent lack of knowledge. From my perspective, I would expect someone with 30 years experience in animal care and control to know what mutilation is. And even if they didn't know (and I would certainly expect someone like Boks who continually flaunts his expertise) to a least look up the definition before using it to argue a point before a city council (and the public).
The following are more of my personal opinions:
De-clawing a cat IS mutilation. Its NOT amputation because amputation is done when a limb or part of a limb is either dead or dying and must be removed else the patient will die.
De-clawing a cat is NOT like cutting your fingers down to the 1st knuckle. It's more like cutting your toes down to the 1st knuckle. Think about it.... and then think about pain in your feet vs pain in your hands. We walk on our feet, not our hands and cats don't have hands, they only have feet (errr.... paws). Now think about it a little more, pain in your hands vs pain in your feet.
Personally, I disagree with Boks and feel that an unconditional ban on delcawing cats CAN and SHOULD be implemented. If for some reason a vet finds a cat's life is at risk then of course I would expect amputation of the affected limb.
But couldn't this be done through some sort of a waiver process rather than undermine the intent/wording/spirit of a law/ordinance banning mutilation for the sake of convenience?
PS - It's really a shame on "us" that this is even an issue.
More declawed cats adopted from shelters will mean more abandoned declawed cats later when owners tire of them anyway. So now, we may be getting more homeless, declawed, cats on the streets who are unable to defend themselves.
This report hereprepared by an analyst for LAAS states that it's very rare to have a declawed cat in the shelter. I think they are basing this on the total number of cats. Most "cats" that come into the shelter are neonate kittens 34%. They can't possibly be declawed. Ferals also enter the shelter. It's pretty rare to find a true feral that is declawed. At least the report is kind of neutral.
Boks stated in SM that he had no idea, no one has any idea how many declawed cats are in the shelter yet this report shows otherwise. I would ask the cat rescuers or volunteers. They'd know. I would also think the vets would notice it when they examine the cat.
#7, that report contradicts itself because they say they do not track declaws, then they say declaws in the shelters is a rarity.
I heard that Smith's chief of staff's (Mitch Englander) father was hired to lobby against this ban.
Chances are Smith would probably vote no with or without Harvey Englander's influence.
I have a declawed cat who I found at CSUN. DELCAWED CATS ALSO BECOME ABANDONED CATS WHEN NOBODY WANTS THEM. It took me a year to trap this cat so that I could get her fixed. I thought she was a feral cat. She acted like a feral cat. Once I trapped her and the building where she was living (in the crawl space of a bungalow) was going to be demolished, I decided to bring her home. After a year of her getting adjusted to her new home with me, turns out Mindi is a totally tame, declawed, abandoned cat!!!
ASSHOLES Declaw cats. Then ASSHOLES ABANDONED their declawed cats just like any other cat they tire of and move!
DAMNED IDIOTIC TORTURER, CRIMMINALS. That's what they are.
You people that banned declaws at the 11th hr. will never be able to pull that crap again in CA!!
**California Veterinary Medical Association CVMA Commentary on Cat Declaw Bans. The CVMA sponsored SB 762 which was signed by the Governor in July and takes effect January 1, 2010. This law makes it illegal for a local jurisdiction “to prohibit a healing arts licensee from engaging in any act or performing any procedure that falls within the professionally recognized scope of practice of that licensee.” To read more visit http://www.cvma.net.**
It was this legislation that created the current logjam of declaw legislation.
Sometimes businesses, including vets and medical practices need to be regulated. The unrestrained pursuit of profit by vets and doctors is not conscionable.
If it were not for this legislation, anti-declaw would not be the law now.
Ed, shame on you! You call it democracy, snowballing council people and convincing them that fascist legislation is good for the society. Next the humaniacs will be banning books and we'll be back to 1939.
What are you talking about, a declawing ban is Fascist legislation? Only idiots and Republicans talk like that.
Is any legislation you don't like Fascist and humaniac?
Does this mean that people who defend cats against torture by vets is fascist and illegal?!:
" **California Veterinary Medical Association CVMA Commentary on Cat Declaw Bans. The CVMA sponsored SB 762 which was signed by the Governor in July and takes effect January 1, 2010. This law makes it illegal for a local jurisdiction “to prohibit a healing arts licensee from engaging in any act or performing any procedure that falls within the professionally recognized scope of practice of that licensee.”
Ha! That's pretty funny, Mr. Muzika:
"Only idiots and Republicans talk like that."
"Is any legislation you don't like Fascist ?"
I have to use this one on my neighbor next time she indirectly attacks me for being a Democrat.
Post a Comment