Will They Kill Them in the Night???
I just received this letter from Paul Bruce, a regional campaign coordinator of HSUS, the Humane Society of the United States, probably the largest humane/rescue organization in the US. He too says there is no need to kill the Santa Monica squirrels, that there are alternatives.
Mr. Muzika,
Hello. My name is Paul Bruce, with the Humane Society of the United States. My Director, Eric Sakach, forwarded your email (regarding Santa Monica squirrels) to me and asked that I contact you. I am somewhat familiar with the situation and know that this has been going on for some time now. It seems to me that we may have even written some letters about it several years ago. Sorry to hear that the Santa Monica City Council and County Board of Supervisors still insist on authorizing the use of such archaic methods to control the ground squirrel population. I will write a letter to the Council and other players condemning these methods and offering alternatives. I will also check with the biologists at our headquarters and see if they have any suggestions.
I hope this situation can be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction (including the squirrels!) and I thank you for your concern and efforts on behalf of the animals.
Sincerely,
Paul Bruce
Paul E. Bruce, RVT
Regional Program Coordinator
Humane Society of the United States
Sacramento, CA 95841-7220
pbruce@hsus.org
There is significant and growing opposition to building the monstrous 24ft X 24 ft live traps at Palisades Park.
Therefore, it is my suspicion that the City of Santa Monica will do as it has done many times before, kill the squirrels with poison gas in the middle of the night. Of course, to do this, they will have to break the law and use unapproved poisons. But, Oh Well. Who cares?
I care, and I am submitting a Request for Public Documents to the City Manager and the head of Parks, Barbara Stinchfield (if she still is head) requesting immediate access to all documents, faxes and emails between the City of Santa Monica and any exterminating company or OTHER ENTITY, regarding services by the latter to kill (abate, reduce in number), the groundsquirrel population anywhere in Palisades Park. I am especially interested in the types of poison to be used and the dates when such services will be rendered.
I will secondarily request copies of all such documents, which I will publish on this blog.
Should they rush to judgment on this issue and kill the squirrels now, then I will request all documents, faxes and emails between the City Manager, the head of Parks, and the Mayor and Councilmembers, regarding the groundsquirrels in Palisades Park, as well any faxes or emails between any of these City officials and Joe Ramirez from the County.
I may then make a similar request to Zev Yaraslovsky and Jonathan Fielding of County Health.
ADL Does Not Understand City Employment Policies and Procedures
For years it seems, ADL has stated the opinion that LAAS Dept. deadwood should be shown the door by intelligent, compassionate, hard-working, legally-savvy, feminist cronies of Pam Ferdin. Her contention was/is that if you get a female lawyer (or a feminist Winograd protege) as AGM or GM, all personnel problems will be resolved instantaneously. Even one of those legally savvy Compassionazis whom Pam was talking about gave me the same opinion. "If they don't do their job, it is out the door."
Pam's latest post repeats this same opinion:
Julie Butcher, represents the LADAS employees and supervisors, and she has fought tooth and nail against anyone who attempts to discipline, transfer or fire an LADAS employee who is unfit and unqualified. LADAS General Manager, Ed Boks, is just not savvy enough in legal matters to know the steps to take in order to be able to get rid of unfit and unqualified LADAS employees (hence the need for an individual with a legal background who cares about animals to be in charge of the LADAS - NOT some former preacher).
In Fact, the following is the reality:
ADL is demonstarting their ignorance about civil service and union rules.
It's almost impossible to get rid of non-exempt employees without going through at least a three-step process (oral warning, write-up, dismissal) followed by a level or two of appeals that are often successful.
The bottom line is that, faced with such an arduous process, no "garden variety screw-up" would be out the door yet, even if Boks had begun the process in the first month he was on the job.
The rules allow someone to be fired for some kind of egregious behavior, but what those rules call egregious and what ADL calls egregious are two very different things. The rules don't care about puppies and kitties. They care about work rules and theft and violating ethics codes.
Now, this is City policy and does not even factor in informal employee protection from the union.
Pam's latest post repeats this same opinion:
Julie Butcher, represents the LADAS employees and supervisors, and she has fought tooth and nail against anyone who attempts to discipline, transfer or fire an LADAS employee who is unfit and unqualified. LADAS General Manager, Ed Boks, is just not savvy enough in legal matters to know the steps to take in order to be able to get rid of unfit and unqualified LADAS employees (hence the need for an individual with a legal background who cares about animals to be in charge of the LADAS - NOT some former preacher).
In Fact, the following is the reality:
ADL is demonstarting their ignorance about civil service and union rules.
It's almost impossible to get rid of non-exempt employees without going through at least a three-step process (oral warning, write-up, dismissal) followed by a level or two of appeals that are often successful.
The bottom line is that, faced with such an arduous process, no "garden variety screw-up" would be out the door yet, even if Boks had begun the process in the first month he was on the job.
The rules allow someone to be fired for some kind of egregious behavior, but what those rules call egregious and what ADL calls egregious are two very different things. The rules don't care about puppies and kitties. They care about work rules and theft and violating ethics codes.
Now, this is City policy and does not even factor in informal employee protection from the union.
This Kitty Needs a Home--Please!
Subject: 18 yr old cat dumped at shelter when owner was placed in convalescent hospital!
It gets worse! After serving as a loyal and loving companion for all those years, "Peggy" was dropped at the shelter by the children of her owner!!!!!
Peggy is a beautiful blue/gray shorthair with soft fur, a round face and an angel's kiss of white on the inside of her elbow. She is beyond loving and affectionate. If she had it her way, she would be sitting on your lap or cuddling up to you 24/7!
Peggy had a senior profile blood work up recently when she had a dental and a mole between her eyes removed. The report found her to be extraordinarily healthy - even her kidneys and thyroid are completely normal and these are the areas that cats her age commonly show escalated levels. She has some real quality time ahead of her!
The only sign that age has caught up with her is the loss of her hearing. Because she is deaf, she feels vulnerable around other cats and becomes startled when she suddenly catches them in her peripheral vision. She is currently staying at a kind foster's home with three other cats in a small space and is unfortunately spending the majority of time under the bed.
It is completely unfair and absolutely heartbreaking that in her golden years she has to end up this way. Is there a compassionate person that would open up their heart and home to Peggy? She will be appreciative beyond belief and will love you like no other.
If you are unable to welcome Peggy into your home, will you kindly pass this on to your email list?
Thank you so very much,
Deborah Corday
Animal Alliance
Peggy lives in the Los Angeles area, and if you can help, please contact:
Deborah Corday
310.508.6899
http://us.f810.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=deborcor@aol.com
New Hope Success News from West Valley
Despite the ADL claim that New Hope is old news, there is new and good news about its implementation here in LA. The following letter to Ed Boks was written by a man I have known for three years. Larry is a stright shooter, candid, honest, and has always been extremely helpful to me. So much for the naysayers regarding New Hope!
Dear Ed:
I would like to thank you and the Department of Animal Services for what I like to call "The New Frontier"! It is definitely working!!! Being involved with the New Hope Program has been a real pleasure, in addition to being a valuable learning experience.
The "Old Way" just does not work any more my relationship with our New Hope partners has taught me I can make a difference. In the old days, when an animal came into our Centers, whatever the situation, in a distressed medical condition there was only one solution, euthanasia.
Today, because of cooperation of ACT Supervisor Sergio Rios and the rest of the West Valley Animal Care & Control Center, we have had remarkable happy endings. In the past, these happy endings would not have been possible.
One story was a Golden Retriever puppy hit by a car who needed surgery immediately. Because we can now do transactions over the phone we were able to get the dog placed with a New Hope partner without them even physically having to come to the Center!!! This would have been unheard of last year!!! In addition, the dog was transported to a veterinary hospital in West Los Angeles by one of the ACT's from West Valley, again unheard of in past years.
Another situation was a 6 month old Lab puppy dropped off at the center, it's tail had been chewed off because of infection, imagine the pain and suffering the dog had gone through! In the past, the dog may have been euthanized because of pain and suffering.
My effort to find a nearby veterinarian to do the tail amputation surgery was successful. I was able to locate a vet to do the surgery for two hundred dollars. The dog was delivered to the nearby veterinarian; again by an ACT on duty that day.
The dog was picked up later that day and adopted the next Sunday by a really beautiful couple. It was love at first sight! The couple was amazed we had gone through the effort to save the puppy’s life, and that they were adopting a "special case". I am sure that dog is living better then most of us!
There are many other stories of the efforts of myself, ACT Supervisor Sergio Rios, Captain Selder, and most importantly the staff of the West Valley Animal Care & Control Center. Of course, the rescue community has stepped up and created a much better atmosphere for all of us to be fortunate enough to be a part of our life saving efforts.
With, "The New Frontier" we have all realized we can make a difference, even if it is one at a time. By being more flexible and willing to change we are making the image of LA Animal Services much more positive and friendly toward the public and rescue groups.
Hail to "The New Frontier"! I welcome your comments and further cooperation with everyone involved in "Savings Animals’ Lives"!!!! Along with the cooperation, of everybody these situations of transporting animals for New Hope partners are becoming more and more frequent.
Dogs that are adopted from South Central Animal Care Center are being transported to West Valley Animal Care Center because it makes adopting easier for New Hope partners. It seems these happy endings are becoming a daily occurrence, which is terrific!!!
Larry Herskovic
New Hope Coordinator
Volunteer Liaison
ACT/ROP Instructor
West Valley Animal Center
20655 Plummer St.
Chatsworth, CA 91311
"It's all for the animals"
The Perpetual Killing of Squirrels in Santa Monica
This is an issue I take very personally.
In 1998 I ran for City Council in Santa Monica. One of the issues that arose during that campaign was that the City was being required by the County to “suppress” the ground squirrel population in Palisades Park. Years before the City had poisoned these squirrels and there was a public outrage because dead squirrels were seen all over. Subsequently, poisoning was done without being announced using internal bleeding-type rodent poison or poison gas. Most recently they did poison gas in February of this year. The story published in Surf Santa Monica is below.
The wussy City saw nothing wrong with it and poisoned them. The alternative was to face lawsuit by the County and SM has always been very lawsuit avoidant. Threaten them with a lawsuit and they will cave.
However, this was the beginning of a long-running battle between the City and me. On two occasions I talked to PETA's Stephanie Boyles about the situation. I sent her tons of articles and data. She said she was interested but nothing came of it until last year when they wrote a strongly worded objection letter to the City and threatened to involve themseleves in the fray. This letter was partially responsible for the City trying a non-lethal control of the squirrel population. One of the things the City fears beside lawsuits, is public protest; they fear lawsuits more.
Over the years since 1998 the County and City seemed to accelerate the killing. It seems they began doing it every year instead of every 4 years or so.
They began to do it at night or very early in the morning to avoid being seen. They use poison gas shoved into the burrows and then covered the burrow entrances with dirt to gas the poor little guys inside. They did this at least twice while I was actively monitoring the situation during 1998-2002, as well as also using the poison bait stations.
The City Manager at the time, Susan McCarthy, just flat out lied and said the City didn’t do it despite the fact you could plainly see the burrows were covered over and there were no more ground squirrels to be seen. I felt like asking if she thought some helpful citizen, seeing the great peril posed by the squirrels, decided the city was impotent to meet the challenge, and did it himself; but Susan didn't have much of a sense of humor so I said nothing.
Joe Ramirez was quoted by newspapers in 1998 and 2005, and a lie he also repeated before City Council in 2005, that the non-gas, anticoagulant rat poison they used, caused the squirrels to go to calmly their burrows where they went to sleep. Well, it is hard to sleep when your joints are painfully swelling and you are suffocating from internal bleeding. This guy lies. The City went along with his lies as they did not see it as a big deal even while protests mounted. Back in 1998, the then Mayor Holbrook said he could see no alternative. He is Mayor now. Apparently, he still sees no alternative to killing.
Because of a very courageous Santa Monica Councilman (as well as PETA-pressure), the City finally did try alternative methods of control. Birth control. It works. Previously, the County objected to any alternative proposal and threatened to sue the City unless they poisoned the squirrels, even though they knew of numerous alternative control methods as well as flea-abatement, which the County recommends itself.
In fact, their own literature posted below calls for the use of flea pesticide bait stations for control of plague in active areas--not poison or gas. Their own literature says it is not necessary to harm the squirrels. Read it!
Then this past February, the City let a contract with Animal Advocates to use substances to induce sterilization to stabilize the population and lead to decrease with the passge of time. Apparently, the treatment was effective along almost all of the park, except for a section between Wilshire and Santa Monica Blvd. This contract led to PETA commending the City for being in the vanguard of humane wildlife management.
However, the County said this was not good enough and presented the City with a new deadline to kill the squirrels. The City Manager obliged and poison gassed hundreds of burrows--at least according to the Surf Santa Monica stories below.
The City never did an EIR or CEQA (CA Environmental Quality Act) report regarding the environmental impact of poisoning squirrels within feet of passersby, or dogs on leashes, or the feral cats living in the park. CEQA is concerned with a project's impact on protected or otherwise special species, such as owls or pelicans, especially by means of unapproved poisons.
They did nothing about preventing the tree squirrels in the park from being killed by the same poison bait stations, and tree squirrels are a protected mammal. (In stories below, there have been hundreds of "collateral deaths" in wildlife because of such poisonings.)
I am saying this because I fear they are going to return to the old ways of poisoning if the County decides the alternatives don't work, which is what it appears they are setting to do now. (AUGUST 18, 2006) [Ed's note: In fact, I found out later, the killing actually began on August 14.]
I want to make it clear that the City is only a secondary culprit. They always had the option of not caving to the County and face the prospect of being sued by the County for Non-compliance, but they did comply. In fact, the City Manager, Lamont Ewell decided to jump the gun in February, and pumped poison gas into hundreds of ground squirrel burrows--which he said was a "minimal suffering"death--even while discussion between Councilmember Kevin McKeown and Zev Yaroslavsky about this issue was going on; they were in discussion of ways to not kill the squirrels and still manage the "plague threat." But now the issue seems to be that of the definition of "infestation," which is once removed from the source cause, fear of plague.
Actually, the "rules" that everyone are playing by are based on the definition of "infestation," which was the concept of controlling plague. But the County has changed its definition so that even the reduced number of squirrels present due to the effective non-lethal control methods, is still defined as an infestation--thus, to be killed. This is pure County Health.
(A real issue is, what is an "infestation," are the numbers constant or mutable depending on the circumstances? AND, is a so-called 'infested' area at any more risk for plague, statistically, than a non-infested area? I think not. I think the County leaves this all up to the discretion of Ramirez.)
The whole story is found below in a February 2006 Surf Santa Monica article.
The real culprit are the people at County Health, Gail VanGordon and Jonathan Fielding.
Now, several activist people on the Westside, (also the letters and articles below, as well as City sources), have told me that there is a new method proposed and accepted to suppress “kill” the squirrels. Much of the story is below, such as in http://surfsantamonica.com, written by its editor, Jorge Casuso, and a reporter, Olin Ericksen.
This time the method is deemed to be ecologically more suitable for a "green" city such as Santa Monica. Poison gas and poison bait stations will no longer be used.
The latest plan is to live trap the squirrels using several huge 24 ft X 24 ft X 6 ft. monstrosities, then trasnporting the captured squirrels elsewhere to be lethally gassed with carbon monoxide in home-made gas chambers. I think $30,000 has been budgeted for this way of killing them.
So, not only did Ewell order the killing of hundreds of ground squirrels in February, they are now going to kill hundreds more in homemade gas chambers because of County Health orders and threat of lawsuit against the City.
This has ignited opposition and protest from many very credible academic sources, too numerous to publish all their letters. Two are below. The trapping has not begun yet. If the traps do not work, according to Ramirez, the squirrels will be poisoned the old, illegal, unnecessary and brutal way of gas or rat poison.
It is my strong conviction that both this present trapping be stopped as well as all future poisoning modalities since MANY viable alternatives exist to prevent “plague” which is the reason Ramirez gave me for killing them. These methods include birth control, educating the public not to feed the squirrels, and controlling the fleas, and not further killing of the squirrels.
Again, take a look below at LA County Vector Management's own literature, "Facts about Plague in Los Angeles." They say they will use flea insecticide inside non-lethal ground squirrel bait stations. Why are they forcing Santa Monica to use methods they do not themselves recommend or use?
Recently there was a single case in L.A., the first in 22 years, but Fielding (Acting Director Co. Health), in his own press release said not to worry, it was no big thing, that there was no increased risk in the area for plague. So why is it a big thing in Santa Monica?
In the meantime, call the County:
County Health (Vector Management)
Jonathan Fielding: (213) 240-8117 --- Direct Line
Fielding is Acting Director of Public Health for LA County ----
Call Jonathan Fielding and ask them why killing the squirrels is their only solution, when the State of California recognizes flea suppression, not killing them, and most Southern California Counties also recommend flea abatement as opposed to poisoning the squirrels as the latter poses great dangers to other wildlife as well as human passersby. They will deny there is any problem, but of course that is a BIG lie.
The birth control method has proven effective throughout Palisades Park. There is a two-block section where it has not been so effective because people feed them too much there. But, once the homeless feeding has moved indoors, this will not be a problem. What is the rush?
Indeed, it is not clear what the County's definition of adequately controlled population is, nor if the criteria they use has any scientific validity, or is merely a whim of Ramirez. The letter immediately below raises that issue.
Call Zev Yaraslovsky, County Superintendent who is working with the City of Santa Monica on this issue. Tell him you want to hold off on the extermination.
Zev (213) 974-3333
Email: zev@lacbos.org
Call the Santa Monica City Manager. This guy deserves special mention for his recent decision to poison gas the squirrels when he didn't have to.
P. Lamont Ewell--- (310) 458-8301
SM Council (310) 458-8201
Mayor Bob Holbrook (310) 458-8301
Tell your Councilmember that killing the squirrels is not only not-necessary, but is deplorable.
________________________________________________________________________
LETTER FROM:
(Though I tried many times, this letter refused to format properly.)
(A Wildlife Organization)
Date: July 24, 2006
Re: Proposed Squirrel Extermination at Palisades Park
We have learned that County of Los Angeles has once again ordered the City of Santa Monica to
exterminate California ground squirrels in Palisades Park. We presume that this is an order made under Section 116125 of the California Health and Safety Code, which allows the County to order removal of rodents if they “infest” an area. We are very disappointed by this development.
We believe that this action is unnecessary because initial results of the multifaceted non-lethal
control program currently in place, which includes an immunocontraception program and public outreach to deter ground squirrel feeding, indicate that the program will reduce and stabilize the squirrel population within Palisades Park. The kill contemplated by the City is a short-term, inhumane, expensive action that will not have long-term benefits.
In conjunction with a previous order from the County of Los Angeles to reduce the California
ground squirrel population in Palisades Park, the City of Santa Monica used poison gas to attempt to reduce the population.
The City subsequently implemented a humane control program. This humane control program has been successful in all areas of the park except for a two-block stretch that is the location for a large program to feed the homeless. Some of this food ends up being fed to the ground squirrels, which is inconsistent with the humane population control program.
Attempts to encourage several homeless people who feed squirrels to stop doing so have been unsuccessful. We have learned from a Santa Monica City Councilmember, however, that the City is about to announce that the homeless feeding program will be moved out of Palisades Park to an indoor location. This will eliminate this impediment to the success of the humane ground squirrel management program in this area.
We ask that the County exercise its discretion to postpone any lethal control of ground squirrels in Palisades Park. Los Angeles County has broad latitude in its application of State law. The tate does not provide a definition of “infestation” and it does not require the County to maintain ground squirrels at any given level.
The law requires infestations to be controlled “for the preservation of the public health or to prevent the spread of contagious or infectious disease, communicable to mankind, or when it determines that it is necessary to prevent great and irreparable damage to crops or other property.”
With this purpose in mind, it is unclear why the County insists that the population at Palisades Park be reduced so urgently that lethal control is required. There is an ongoing sustainable control program that includes dusting the squirrels for fleas, thereby eliminating the possibility that plague could transmitted from this population (in the near-zero possibility that it were to be present).
Injured animals are trapped and rehabilitated as part of the management program, reducing the possibility that the public will come into contact with these animals. No allegation of “irreparable damage to crops or other property” has been made.
With these facts in mind, the County certainly has it within its power to allow a sustainable long-term solution to be implemented.
If the County and City insist on proceeding with the lethal control program, we envision that it
will encounter several regulatory and public relations difficulties if it is indeed the same program as previously proposed by the City. We understand that the extermination is to be carried out byHeritage Wildlife Management, the same contractor hired earlier this year. If the previously announced trap and kill program is now to be implemented, it raises the following issues:
Installation of large live traps (we understood that 400-lb traps were proposed originally)
probably constitutes “development” under the California Coastal Act and the program
would therefore require a Coastal Development Permit.
The gas chamber to be used to kill the ground squirrels was going to be “homemade” by Heritage Wildlife Management. Carbon dioxide is not considered a humane method of euthanasia for dogs and cats and although it is approved for wildlife, it is approved only if it is administered in a manner that meets national veterinary standards.
It is unlikely that Heritage Wildlife Management can meet such standards, which include elements such as the design of the chamber and the rate at which carbon dioxide is pumped into the chamber.
Furthermore, a literature review recently published in Laboratory Animals reports that a number of studies indicate that carbon dioxide causes pain and distress in rodents, and the American Veterinary Medical Association warns that burrowing mammals (such as ground squirrels) can have an extraordinary tolerance for carbon dioxide, listing this as a disadvantage in the use of carbon dioxide for euthanasia.
Live trapping of ground squirrels in a large trap has a high probability of capturing members of different families. This can result in fights and mortality inside the trap.
Live trapping in a large trap has a high probability of capturing non-target animals (e.g., tree squirrels) and then confining them with other animals in an inappropriate and dangerous manner.
The area where the trapping would be required is a high public use area.
__FOOTNOTES: 1 Plague has not been recorded in a ground squirrel population at sea level in Los Angeles since the 1920s. 2 Conlee, K.M., M.L. Stephens, A.N. Rowan, and L.A. King. 2005. Carbon dioxide for euthanasia: concerns regarding pain and distress, with special reference to mice and rats. Laboratory Animals 39:137–61. 3 AVMA Panel on Euthanasia. 2001. 2000 Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 218:669–696.
We expect that large traps will not be accepted by the public, especially when the public understands that the purpose is to kill the squirrels in a homemade gas chamber.
We are disappointed that the City of Santa Monica has attempted to put an “environmental” spin on the proposed program by announcing that the dead squirrels will be fed to raptors. This is nothing but an attempt to greenwash the needless killing of native California wildlife.
We encourage the City of Santa Monica to pass and enforce a no-feeding policy for oncompanion animals on City property. Excessive direct feeding and feeding of other animals are the root causes of the size of the population of ground squirrels at Palisades Park, and controlling these causes, coupled with the ongoing immunocontraception program, will allow the population to stabilize at a much lower level without resorting to lethal measures.
We encourage the County of Los Angeles to work with jurisdictions such as Santa Monica that
have the foresight to implement a humane, long-term approach to manage ground squirrel populations. The County and the City have an opportunity to show the efficacy of a holistic
approach to ground squirrel management, rather than perpetually killing native wildlife.
LETTER TWO:
Jennifer Wolch
Dean of Graduate Programs
USC College
Professor of Geography
Director, Center for Sustainable Cities
To Members of the City Council, City Manager Ewell, Recreation and Park Commissioners, and Community and Cultural Affairs Staff:
I am writing to express outrage and dismay at the way that - once again, the City of Santa Monica is dealing with the issue of squirrels in Palisades Park.
After extensive discussions about this issue at Commission meetings, and the Commission's specific request that any action on this issue come before the Commission, it is discouraging to see that the Commission's role can be summarily ignored by city staff on a matter of significant public interest and concern.
It is inadequate to send out after-the-fact messages apologizing for forgetting to mention this issue at the last commission meeting, and simply stating the City's position - unless the management actions in question are delayed until after public discussion can occur. This tactic precludes any public debate - and in so doing effectively abrogates this city's democratic process.
As to the technicalities of this issue, please see the attached letter from the Humane Society of the United States, the Animal Protection Institute, and the Urban Wildlands Group.
It is clear that the existing program of flea control, immunocontraception, and public education has been remarkably effective in reducing squirrel numbers - except in a two-block area where continual wildlife feeding linked to homeless meals programs, has led to reduction rates lower than in other parts of the park. It is also clear that more extermination, aside from being inhumane and possibly illegal, will be totally ineffective unless programs that draw homeless people to the park to receive meals are either moved indoors or restructured in such a way that excess food cannot be distributed to park wildlife and feral animals.
While fully appreciating the sensitivities involved around the presence of food programs in city parks, as well as feral cat welfare concerns, the fact is that the lethal approach is not a solution and will not be effective.
Make no mistake: this issue will not go away until the City begins to act on the basis of scientific evidence about squirrel ecology, an understanding of anthropogenic wildlife population drivers, and the legality of alternative population control measures.
I urge the City Council to direct staff to work with the squirrel ecologists and wildlife management specialists in the region, as well as homeless service providers and feral cat advocates to forge a set of progressive urban park wildlife policies.
Director, Center for Sustainable Cities
SURF SANTA MONICA--JULY, 2006
City Turns to Euthanasia to Reduce Squirrel Population in Park
By Jorge Casuso
July 21 – They tried education. They tried contraception. They even tried poison gas. And still, the ground squirrel population in Palisades Park has doubled since February, City and County officials said Thursday.
Now, Los Angeles County Public Health officials have notified the City that it must take additional measures to reduce the rodents, which both parties agree could spread disease and destabilize the park perched above Pacific Coast Highway.
To comply, the City is contracting with Heritage Wildlife Management to trap the ground squirrels in several blocks of the park later this summer and send them to be euthanized offsite using carbon dioxide, which the American Veterinary Association has deemed acceptable, City officials announced Thursday.
The dead squirrels will then be taken to a wildlife rehabilitation facility and fed to hawks and other wild birds that prey on squirrels when they are returned to the wild, according to City and County officials. “The goal is not in any way to remove all ground squirrels from Palisades Park,” said Gail Van Gordon, county public health entomologist. “The intent is to reduce the number to a level that is acceptable for the safety of park users and pets and for the health of the squirrels.”
The efforts launched by City Manager Lamont Ewell in February -- which included administering immunocontraceptives and urging the public not to feed the squirrels -- were not as effective as anticipated, City officials said. Despite the disappointing results, the City is optimistic that a research program conducted by the USDA Wildlife Service and the California Department of Health Services in a park portion of the Berkeley Marina could work in Santa Monica, City officials said.
The program -- which calls for trapping squirrels and injecting them with the vaccine that inhibits their sexual development -- proved to have been more than 90 percent effective, according to a study published by UC Davis.
City and County officials hope UC Davis and Cal Poly Pomona will agree to undertake and coordinate a similar program in Palisades Park that could become a model for reducing the use of lethal controls on ground squirrels.
For now, City and County Health officials are continuing to urge people not to feed the furry rodents.
“Allowing squirrels to naturally forage for food is a major factor in maintaining a healthy population in manageable numbers,” Van Gordon said.
SURF SANTA MONICA--Februay 2006
Ground Squirrels Exterminated under City Manager’s Orders
By Olin EricksenStaff Writer
February 13 --
In the end, not even a county supervisor could halt what may be the last round of killing Santa Monica ground squirrels in Palisades Park.
Under direct orders from the newly hired City manager Lamont Ewell -- and over the objections of animal advocacy groups, a local council member and County Supervisor Zev Yaroslovsky -- City staff gassed hundreds of squirrel burrows in the seaside park with a lethal dose of aluminum phosphide between Monday and Friday of last week.
Declining to be interviewed about the matter, Ewell issued a four page statement about the decision he made personally barely a month after assuming the top spot at City Hall.
“As a person who loves animals, my goal is to avoid ever having to reduce the populations of squirrels in this manner again,” Ewell said.
In the statement, Ewell cited health concerns and “significant” exposure to “liability claims” if the City did not carry out a year-old compliance order issued by the Los Angeles County Health Department to immediately reduce the ground squirrel population.
Local animal right’s groups said the City may have acted too quickly, however, as negotiations seemed underway between County Health officials and those who wanted to postpone the killing, including Supervisor Zev Yaroslovsky and Santa Monica City Council member Kevin McKeown.
“Instead of waiting for the facts to come in, (Santa Monica officials) squeezed the trigger,” said Travis Longcore, an assistant professor at the USC Center for Sustainable Cities and science director for the Urban Wildlands group, a Los Angeles conservation organization.
“The city just went ahead with the killing, even though Zev (Yaroslovsky) and Kevin McKeown were in talks” with County Health officials, Longcore said.
Emails obtained by The Lookout -- dated the same days that extermination was underway -- show correspondence between McKeown and Supervisor Yaroslovsky asking County Health Director Jonathan Fielding to give them more time to explore alternatives to killing the squirrels.
“Jonathan: Can you please follow this up with Councilmember McKeown?” asked the supervisor. “This is a serious problem, and I’ve heard from others around West Los Angeles about this as well.
“If he has an alternative idea of how to deal with the squirrels,” the County supervisor wrote, “I think we owe it to him and the City of Santa Monica to give it serious consideration. Please keep me informed.”
Another email from McKeown to the City Manager dated February 7 at around 11:30 am -- one day into the gassing -- shows that the council member was actively lobbying County Health to stave off the extermination, and seemed to show he thought he was making progress.
“My personal appeal has resulted in what I feel was a productive phone call,” McKeown wrote. “I have just spoken directly with Dr. Jonathan Fielding of L.A. County Health Services.
“Dr. Fielding is willing to wait several days to let his staff review further data, should we or advocates have any, suggesting that a significant reduction in existing population can be effected by means other than a kill,” the email said.
The alternative under discussion is the same alternative that Santa Monica officials said they will move forward with from this point forward: using contraceptives and educational programs to lower the population without a mass killing.
“Dr. Fielding met with his staff on this issue last night,” McKeown wrote. “They appear to agree that an educational feeding and contraceptive program as proposed for Palisades Park can keep a squirrel population stable, but they are unsure that it can actively reduce an existing population in a reasonable amount of time.
“According to Dr. Fielding, the information on population control which he has seen involves prairie dogs, not ground squirrels,” the email said. “His concern is that a population decrease happen in the relatively short term, and he thinks a contraceptive program might take years to significantly reduce existing population. However, he has instructed his people to go back and look again at our Santa Monica situation.”
Gail Van Gordon, County Health supervisor of Vector Borne-disease surveillance, acknowledged that there were ongoing communications between health officials, the City and Yaroslovsky. However, she said, they received no order to give Santa Monica more time.
“If a county supervisor wanted us to hold back on enforcing the code, we would have, but no word come down to us,” Van Gordon said last week. “Since last March, they have been in violation of the code.”
Gordon said the population had increase over 300 percent in a four-month period last year, and that the County could not give any additional time -- even weeks -- to look at alternatives.
County Health did not seem convinced sterilization is an effective means of lowering the population quickly.
“The Animal Advocates claim a 30 percent reduction in three months, and could have cut that population in half in a year,” said Longcore. “Why go ahead and have a big kill when the population will just rebound to what the habitat will sustain?”
The City -- which has come under stiff criticism from such animal rights groups as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) for not exploring alternative to killing the squirrels in the past year -- will use a policy that urges visitors not to feed the squirrels and sterilizes the squirrels, City officials said.
“We are optimistic that the educational and contraceptive approaches will allow us to maintain the population and meet County requirements,” said Ewell. “We are also serve as an alternative maintenance procedures for other communities to follow.”
After holding off on the program and exploring options, such as trapping the rodents live, euthanizing them and feeding them to raptors in rehabilition, the city moved quickly on the extermination after it received a summons January 16 by the County Health Department.
City officials decided to forgo the trapping because it could take weeks. Instead the City placed the aluminum phosphide in the burrows “to immediately reduce the numbers.” “This application,” read Ewell’s statement, “is highly effective at reducing the number of squirrels quickly and, more importantly, with minimal suffering.”
For Longcore and others, the decision seemed to made in haste to rid the City of the gnawing problem of ground squirrels once and for all. To me, it’s just senseless,” he added.
The below is from Vector Management's own "Facts about Plague in Los Angles."
"Health authorities will institute preventive measures when animal plague is found in areas with human exposure. Warnings will be posted. After careful evaluation, the area may be quarantined and insecticides may be used to reduce the risk of flea bites to humans. Insecticide dust is applied into rodent burrows and/or into tube-like containers called “ bait stations.”
Rodents enter the bait stations and get flea powder in their fur. They also carry the insecticide in their fur back to the nest, killing fleas inside the burrows. This method of flea control is very effective, uses a minimum of insecticide, and does not harm the rodents.
Los Angeles County Department of Health ServicesVector Management Program 5050 Commerce Drive Baldwin Park, California 91706 (626) 430-5450
SANTA MONICA LOOKOUT; last year (2005)
Animal Rights Group Calls for End to Squirrel Killings By Jorge Casuso
July 29 --
The poisoning of ground squirrels in Palisades Park has prompted the world's largest animal rights organization, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), to sit up and take notice of a brewing controversy in Santa Monica.
The 850,000 member organization fired off a letter Wednesday to Mayor Pam O'Connor demanding that the City halt a program that sets out poison pellets in the park to kill the squirrels in an effort to stem the possible spread of disease.
"Our office has been bombarded with complaints from Santa Monica citizens about the poisoning of ground squirrels at Palisades Park," wrote Mylie Thompson, a wildlife caseworker in the group’s Domestic Animal and Wildlife Rescue & Information Department.
"On behalf of our thousands of members in California, we respectfully ask that you order city employees to remove all poison from the park immediately and that the city establish strict policies prohibiting the use of poisons in Santa Monica's parks," Thompson said.
City officials countered that all poison bait was removed from the park a month ago and that the "suppression" of ground squirrels -- whose fleas can carry bubonic plague bacteria -- was ordered by the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services.
"As you know, the City was ordered to suppress the ground squirrel population" by the County, the mayor wrote. "The coastal belt of California is one of the high-risk areas for plague. Keeping the ground squirrel population down is a precaution against humans and pets being infected."
Responding to PETA's claim in a press release that the group has received "a barrage of complaints from outraged Santa Monica residents," City officials countered that they have received complaints from only a couple of persistent residents. (Such as Ed Muzika--my note)
In its letter, PETA said that poisoning squirrels is illegal.
“Failing to follow the product label on a pesticide is a violation of federal law,” the letter stated. “The product label on Contrac, the rat poison reportedly used in the park, clearly states that the substance is not to be used in reach of children, companion animals, or wildlife.”
The group urged the City to attack the fleas, not the squirrels. The letters points to an online pamphlet produced by the LA County Department of Health that “outlines an effective flea-control strategy that employs bait stations to distribute insecticide dust on squirrels' fur as they enter the stations.” (Ed Muzika--I sent that literature two years before.)
“The flea powder, harmless to squirrels, kills the fleas living in squirrels' fur, and when the squirrels carry the powder back to their subterranean homes, the powder also kills the fleas living in these burrows,” PETA wrote.
City officials said they have explored alternate methods of suppressing the ground squirrel population, and that poisoned bait “is considered the safest viable method for park users, pets and other animals.” (Comment: Is considered by whom? Ramirez from the County who demanded this method?)
The bait stations -- secured in off-limits areas of the park -- are safe because only ground squirrels, rats and mice can get inside, City officials said. “Ground squirrels crawl back into the burrows after ingesting the bait, so dead squirrels are not visible or accessible to birds or pets to which the fleas could transfer,” according to information released by the City.
Rambeau -- who said most residents understand the reasons for the City’s actions -- called for putting the issue in perspective. "These are rodents," Rambeau said. "These are not tree squirrels, they're ground squirrels. They're classified as rodents.”
(Comment: Well Judy, so are rabbits and tree squirrels. It is easy to use labels to emotionally justify anything.)
Topange Messenger, August 2, 2006
Pavley Bill Tackles Wildlife Poisoning
By Dan Mazur
State Assembly Member Fran Pavley has authored a bill designed to address the problem of anticoagulant chemicals used in commercial rodenticides that have been linked to many accidental deaths of local wildlife and pets. The bill, AB 1548, would not ban the sale or use of the poisons statewide. It would, however, give county governments the authority to ban the sale of the chemicals within their jurisdictions.
Targeted are four anticoagulants commonly used in commercial rodenticides: Brodifacoum, Bromadialone, Diphacinone and Difethialone. By preventing blood from clotting, these chemicals cause the animal to bleed to death internally. Since it takes a while for rodents to die from this way, they have time to become part of the food chain, poisoning predators such as hawks, owls, bobcats, coyotes and mountain lions.
Over the past several years, dozens of bobcats have been found, dying slow and painful deaths after absorbing toxics from poisoned prey in the Santa Monica Mountains. In December of last year, two of the eight mountain lions living in the Santa Monicas were found dead, and scientists have determined that their deaths were caused by anticoagulant poisoning. Recently a Topanga dog, Zeebo, died from ingesting anticoagulants intended for ground squirrels on a neighbor’s property.
“As someone who takes care of wildlife I’ve seen a lot of animals succumb to secondary poisoning from eating poisoned rats, mice and squirrels,” Hogan says. “It’s a terrible way to die.”
Look Who is Calling the Kettle Black
The latest ADL post is more of the same. It attacks Ed Boks by misrepresenting his past, such as repetition of the false charge he was fired in New York, a charge I have refuted a half dozen times.
Let’s get this straight, Boks was hired to bring his considerable shelter expertise to Los Angeles Animal Services. He has done that and continues to do that. Euthanasia rates are down 30% over last year—an astounding one-year improvement.
ADL continues to attempt character assassination for whatever reason. Why?
For arguments sake only, what if every lie ADL makes up about Boks' past were true, does it affect his effectiveness here regarding what ADL calls “the prize,” which is a no-kill shelter system?
Consider the source of the ADL moral crusade against Boks' purported cronyism, sexism, racism and incompetence. Here we have a truth-challenged little woman who has numerous misdemeanor convictions and has spent time in jail for those convictions and uses her posts most foul to attack, it seems, everyone who works for the City and LAAS. AND, who wanted her own crony to become General Manager or AGM of Los Angeles Animal Services.
We have an apparently now unemployed reporter who shot down her own career through non-stop destructive emails.
We have a “man” who was refused a job by Ed Boks—who, until that time, dotted on him and promised eternal loyalty. Once denied the position he coveted, this “man” became Boks’ most bitter enemy.
We have a businessman, who is being sued for intellectual property theft, and who purportedly attempted to extort a contract out of LAAS and Ed Boks, who then was fired from an organization for which he was a consultant, and who allegedly threatened to destroy Boks if anyone went after his reputation and company.
These are the people attacking Boks’ reputation and charging moral turpitude. Consider the source and wonder about their motivations. Their single coherent connection is one of hatred and destruction.
Let’s get this straight, Boks was hired to bring his considerable shelter expertise to Los Angeles Animal Services. He has done that and continues to do that. Euthanasia rates are down 30% over last year—an astounding one-year improvement.
ADL continues to attempt character assassination for whatever reason. Why?
For arguments sake only, what if every lie ADL makes up about Boks' past were true, does it affect his effectiveness here regarding what ADL calls “the prize,” which is a no-kill shelter system?
Consider the source of the ADL moral crusade against Boks' purported cronyism, sexism, racism and incompetence. Here we have a truth-challenged little woman who has numerous misdemeanor convictions and has spent time in jail for those convictions and uses her posts most foul to attack, it seems, everyone who works for the City and LAAS. AND, who wanted her own crony to become General Manager or AGM of Los Angeles Animal Services.
We have an apparently now unemployed reporter who shot down her own career through non-stop destructive emails.
We have a “man” who was refused a job by Ed Boks—who, until that time, dotted on him and promised eternal loyalty. Once denied the position he coveted, this “man” became Boks’ most bitter enemy.
We have a businessman, who is being sued for intellectual property theft, and who purportedly attempted to extort a contract out of LAAS and Ed Boks, who then was fired from an organization for which he was a consultant, and who allegedly threatened to destroy Boks if anyone went after his reputation and company.
These are the people attacking Boks’ reputation and charging moral turpitude. Consider the source and wonder about their motivations. Their single coherent connection is one of hatred and destruction.
A NYC Animal Activist Responds to the Latest ADL Post
A NYC animal activist response to the latest ADL posting. This really was forwarded to me, as opposed to writing it myself, as does Pam Ferdin.
ADL Post: "Pretty words do not save lives -- actions do. L.A. Animal Services General Manager Ed Boks is all pretty words and no action, which is the reason New York City fired him mere weeks before Mayor Villaraigosa hired him. Boks boasts modest statistical gains.
(He has done) NOTHING new to stop the annual kitten flood, and his killing of thousandsand thousands of kittens.
To: ADLLA
Subject: Re: [stopthekilling] Regarding Boks "Fluff" Piece in the LA Times
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:36:32 -0400
Hey guys,Come on. This is just hyperbolic shit, and unattributed to boot. If you're going to have an intelligent dialogue on the deficiencies of municipal animal management in L.A. (or anywhere else for that matter), you better get a reality check about what we're all up against and present a realistic picture about solutions.The problems are complex and some of these allegations are ridiculous. Such as:NOTHING new to stop the annual kitten flood, and his killing of thousands
and thousands of kittens.
What the fuck do you think can be done to "stop the annual kitten flood"? Boks has been in office 6 months. You've got to be kidding...This is really unfair, unrealistic and the kind of inflammatory rhetoric that is directed at simple-minded people to get them all riled up -- BUT in the long run is really not productive.
I've been in the movement for 25 years. I'm really tired of angry, ineffective advocates ruining things for the rest of us. Real change comes incrementally. I'm going to send you a video about Henry Spira. It should be viewed by all activists. It's about strategies that work.We just sued NYC over the animal control contract
Why don't you work on some more strategic ways to get results? Just leveling angry tirades isn't going to help the animals. And accept that there are no solutions to resolve the problems overnight. It's the human population to blame for the problem anyway. Those are big numbers.Think about it.
Gary Kaskel
ADL Post: "Pretty words do not save lives -- actions do. L.A. Animal Services General Manager Ed Boks is all pretty words and no action, which is the reason New York City fired him mere weeks before Mayor Villaraigosa hired him. Boks boasts modest statistical gains.
(He has done) NOTHING new to stop the annual kitten flood, and his killing of thousandsand thousands of kittens.
To: ADLLA
Subject: Re: [stopthekilling] Regarding Boks "Fluff" Piece in the LA Times
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:36:32 -0400
Hey guys,Come on. This is just hyperbolic shit, and unattributed to boot. If you're going to have an intelligent dialogue on the deficiencies of municipal animal management in L.A. (or anywhere else for that matter), you better get a reality check about what we're all up against and present a realistic picture about solutions.The problems are complex and some of these allegations are ridiculous. Such as:NOTHING new to stop the annual kitten flood, and his killing of thousands
and thousands of kittens.
What the fuck do you think can be done to "stop the annual kitten flood"? Boks has been in office 6 months. You've got to be kidding...This is really unfair, unrealistic and the kind of inflammatory rhetoric that is directed at simple-minded people to get them all riled up -- BUT in the long run is really not productive.
I've been in the movement for 25 years. I'm really tired of angry, ineffective advocates ruining things for the rest of us. Real change comes incrementally. I'm going to send you a video about Henry Spira. It should be viewed by all activists. It's about strategies that work.We just sued NYC over the animal control contract
Why don't you work on some more strategic ways to get results? Just leveling angry tirades isn't going to help the animals. And accept that there are no solutions to resolve the problems overnight. It's the human population to blame for the problem anyway. Those are big numbers.Think about it.
Gary Kaskel
Proof Boks Was Not Fired
6' 7" Pam Ferdin repeats endlessly that Boks was fired from his post in NYC. She repeats this lie over, and over and over depite having no proof. The only "evidence" she has to support this Neverending Lie was the title of a small article in the New York Daily News. That title was repudiated by the reporter who wrote it, stating her editor put it in, and who unequivically denied Boks was fired in a much longer article published a week later.
All this, with names and dates, are in a previous post on this blog.
Three months ago, a request was sent in to the NY board that controls NYCACC asking them what happened with regard to his leaving. HERE IS THE OFFICIAL RESPONSE FROM THE CITY OF NEW YORK:
Subject: New York City Animal Care & Control
Date: 4/6/2006 7:03:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From:
VPCS@health.nyc.gov
Re: New York City Animal Care & Control
Dear *****:
This is in response to correspondence sent to the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) regarding the above referenced matter. We would like to inform you that Ed Boks the former Director of AC&C left on good terms.Thank you for your inquiry.
Sincerely,
Veterinary and Pest Control ServicesDivision of Environmental Health
Pam, your nose grows longer each and every day.
All this, with names and dates, are in a previous post on this blog.
Three months ago, a request was sent in to the NY board that controls NYCACC asking them what happened with regard to his leaving. HERE IS THE OFFICIAL RESPONSE FROM THE CITY OF NEW YORK:
Subject: New York City Animal Care & Control
Date: 4/6/2006 7:03:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From:
VPCS@health.nyc.gov
Re: New York City Animal Care & Control
Dear *****:
This is in response to correspondence sent to the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) regarding the above referenced matter. We would like to inform you that Ed Boks the former Director of AC&C left on good terms.Thank you for your inquiry.
Sincerely,
Veterinary and Pest Control ServicesDivision of Environmental Health
Pam, your nose grows longer each and every day.
L.A. Can Be a No-Kill City for Strays
New shelters and new attitudes could bring about the end of euthanizing unwanted pets.
By Ed Boks
WHEN IT COMES to dealing with stray animals, can Los Angeles become the first major "no-kill" city in the United States? A generation of skeptics, accustomed to a system that for decades has killed more than 50,000 homeless animals a year, would say no. But the Department of Animal Services, backed by the mayor and the City Council, is intent on making humane history.
More than just a policy or statistical objective, no-kill is a principle: that the city should apply the same criteria for deciding an animal's fate as would a loving pet owner or conscientious veterinarian. Healthy and treatable animals shouldn't be killed simply because of lack of room or resources. Killing strays may be the quick and, at least from afar, easy thing to do. But I have never, in nearly 25 years in this field, heard anyone argue that it is the right thing to do.
People who seek to excuse such killing often say we have to be "realistic." But such realism would be better directed at the main source of the problem — human irresponsibility.
It is humans, not animals, who engage in the cruelty that brings so many cases to the Animal Services Department's doors. More than 30% of the 45,000-plus animals the city takes in each year are relinquished — turned in — after years of living with a family, just like old furniture donated to Goodwill.
A third of the animals killed are orphaned, neonate puppies and kittens from parents that humans neglected to spay or neuter. The general attitude is, "Let someone else deal with the problem." Thousands of times a year, someone else does — with a lethal injection.
Compounding such human failure is a breakdown in social responsibility. On the government's balance sheet, saving animals can seem like a lowly or trivial concern compared to overcrowded prisons, underfunded police and the nation's worst homeless problem.
That's an easy position to take as long as you don't have to be there when the problem gets "solved." If public officials who brush off animal welfare as trivial had to see the results of their priorities carried out — to witness for themselves how trusting the dogs are even when being led to their deaths, how they lick the hands and face of the person with the needle — I suspect they would see matters in a very different light.
Yet things are looking up in Los Angeles. Between now and early 2007, the city will open six new state-of-the-art animal shelters, paid for through Proposition F. The new centers will provide four times our current shelter space, enough to accommodate the 150 lost, sick, injured, neglected or abused animals entrusted to the Animal Services Department every day. The centers will have wide aisles, solar and radiant heating, cooling misters, veterinary and spay/neuter clinics, park benches for visitors, fountains and lush landscaping — a world away from the grim conditions of older shelters, where animals can become so agitated or depressed that they seem unadoptable.
By transforming our animal shelters, chances are we can dramatically increase adoption rates.We already have been moving steadily in this direction. Over the last five years, our dog euthanasia rate has decreased 62%, our cat euthanasia rate 19%. In the last 12 months, just under 19,500 animals were killed — the fewest over a one-year period since the department began keeping records in the early 1970s, and fewer than in the much smaller city of Bakersfield. But that's still nearly 20,000 creatures who had love and devotion to offer and never got their chance.
As L.A.'s new animal care centers begin to open, the Animal Services Department offers this pledge, and it asks for your help in making good on it: No animal who comes through those doors should be killed out of convenience or lack of space. For every one of them, there is a kind and loving person or family, and it is our mission to bring them together.
The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight
FROM NBC4-TV:
FBI: Animal Group Leaves 'Molotov Cocktail' At Wrong House
POSTED: 6:25 pm PDT July 12, 2006
UPDATED: 6:27 pm PDT July 12, 2006
LOS ANGELES -- The Animal Liberation Front took credit for leaving a "Molotov cocktail" outside the Bel-Air home of a UCLA primate researcher, but apparently hit the wrong house, an FBI official said Wednesday.
The ALF boasted in a statement that it had left a bottle filled with a flammable liquid on the porch of Lynn Fairbanks' home in Bel-Air on June 30.
But Laura Eimiller of the FBI said the bottle had actually been left at the home of one of Fairbanks' 70-year-old neighbors.
According to arson investigators, they believe that, had the device functioned properly, the inhabitants would have had a very difficult time escaping," she said, adding the house is backed against a hillside.
The FBI is offering a reward up $10,000 for information leading to the culprit who left the would-be fire bomb at the house. The FBI can be reached at (310) 447-6565.
UCLA issued a statement blasting the ALF's action.
"UCLA strongly condemns this terrorist attack and deplores violence intended to injure people or damage property for any reason," the university statement said. "According to the FBI, the improvised incendiary device mistakenly was left on the doorstep of the faculty member's neighbor and could have caused serious injury, death or property damage had it functioned."
On its Web site, the ALF claimed Fairbanks was keeping vervet monkeys to study "psychological, psychiatric and social problems such as Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, substance abuse, criminality and violence."
University officials said that description "totally misrepresents" Fairbanks' work.
FBI: Animal Group Leaves 'Molotov Cocktail' At Wrong House
POSTED: 6:25 pm PDT July 12, 2006
UPDATED: 6:27 pm PDT July 12, 2006
LOS ANGELES -- The Animal Liberation Front took credit for leaving a "Molotov cocktail" outside the Bel-Air home of a UCLA primate researcher, but apparently hit the wrong house, an FBI official said Wednesday.
The ALF boasted in a statement that it had left a bottle filled with a flammable liquid on the porch of Lynn Fairbanks' home in Bel-Air on June 30.
But Laura Eimiller of the FBI said the bottle had actually been left at the home of one of Fairbanks' 70-year-old neighbors.
According to arson investigators, they believe that, had the device functioned properly, the inhabitants would have had a very difficult time escaping," she said, adding the house is backed against a hillside.
The FBI is offering a reward up $10,000 for information leading to the culprit who left the would-be fire bomb at the house. The FBI can be reached at (310) 447-6565.
UCLA issued a statement blasting the ALF's action.
"UCLA strongly condemns this terrorist attack and deplores violence intended to injure people or damage property for any reason," the university statement said. "According to the FBI, the improvised incendiary device mistakenly was left on the doorstep of the faculty member's neighbor and could have caused serious injury, death or property damage had it functioned."
On its Web site, the ALF claimed Fairbanks was keeping vervet monkeys to study "psychological, psychiatric and social problems such as Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, substance abuse, criminality and violence."
University officials said that description "totally misrepresents" Fairbanks' work.
Eric Brunson Hosts a Reception for Ed Boks
A few weeks ago, Erica Brunson, the “Best Commissioner LAAS ever had” according to repeated and repeated and repeated ADL-LA posts, hosted a reception for Ed Boks. Jim Bickhart, among many others, was there. Someone (or ones), very close to LAAS, leaked the happenings at the event to the ADL, and of course, to Dan Guss, who gets more and more vile the more broke he gets.
ADL and many other fellow travelers, claim Mr. Bickhart fired Brunson. Would he have been invited had she been fired by him? She had already stated she was going to resign because she could not work with Stuckey, therefore no decision was necessary to fire anyone from the Commission.
Also, would the “best Commissioner LAAS ever had” have thrown a reception for Boks if she did not appreciate the job he was doing? If she had been the best, how come ADL-LA does not respect her opinion regarding LAAS’s direction under Ed Boks?
ADL and many other fellow travelers, claim Mr. Bickhart fired Brunson. Would he have been invited had she been fired by him? She had already stated she was going to resign because she could not work with Stuckey, therefore no decision was necessary to fire anyone from the Commission.
Also, would the “best Commissioner LAAS ever had” have thrown a reception for Boks if she did not appreciate the job he was doing? If she had been the best, how come ADL-LA does not respect her opinion regarding LAAS’s direction under Ed Boks?
From Lori Golden re Hooters for Neuters
I have received letters from all over the country sharing support for the Hooters for Neuters event. So far I have received eight. Rather than print all, I share the one sent by our own Lori Golden. Maybe we can stop Guss from killing hundreds of cats, dogs and rabbits after all.
Re: Hooters for Neuters
I applaud LA Animal Services GM Ed Boks for thinking outside the box, and for wanting his grossly underfunded department to be the recipient of the Hooters for Neuters fundraiser. Yes, the bikini-clad Hooter girl poster was tasteless, but the poster that replaced it with the dog in the tee-shirt was adorable! It wasn’t as if LAAS was putting on the event themselves!!
How hypocritical of Laura Chic and other council people for saying Hooters’ money is not needed! At a time when pet overpopulation is reaching new highs, and when it is difficult enough to convince men to spay and neuter their animals, this event was a great idea. I’m sure the City is more than happy to receive the taxes Hooters pays into the City coffers each year.
The funds generated by this event could have gone a long way to assist low income people in getting their animals spayed and neutered. This is the ONLY way to turn off the faucet of pet overpopulation, which is the primary cause for the killing of so many animals in our City Shelters!
These critics need to get a sense of humor!
Lori Golden
Re: Hooters for Neuters
I applaud LA Animal Services GM Ed Boks for thinking outside the box, and for wanting his grossly underfunded department to be the recipient of the Hooters for Neuters fundraiser. Yes, the bikini-clad Hooter girl poster was tasteless, but the poster that replaced it with the dog in the tee-shirt was adorable! It wasn’t as if LAAS was putting on the event themselves!!
How hypocritical of Laura Chic and other council people for saying Hooters’ money is not needed! At a time when pet overpopulation is reaching new highs, and when it is difficult enough to convince men to spay and neuter their animals, this event was a great idea. I’m sure the City is more than happy to receive the taxes Hooters pays into the City coffers each year.
The funds generated by this event could have gone a long way to assist low income people in getting their animals spayed and neutered. This is the ONLY way to turn off the faucet of pet overpopulation, which is the primary cause for the killing of so many animals in our City Shelters!
These critics need to get a sense of humor!
Lori Golden
The Big Picture
Some of you out there wonder why this site exists at all. Who cares about Boks, LAAS, ADL, ALF, Ferdin, SHAC et al, and regard them as a bunch of cranks of no import?
You would be mistaken. The ADL-LA and ALF and similar organizations across the country are the vanguard for a growing revolutionary movement that plans to radically remake this country by any means they think necessary. The ADL-LA/LAAS struggle locally is only one small arena where they develop new methods of extortion, terror and other ways of manipulating individuals, corporations and government.
As the website http://www.targetofopportunity.com/ correctly points out, corporations, AND local governments roll over and play dead when confronted by these organizations with their new array of revolutionary tactics. Brownshirt terrorism has morphed into cyberterrorism. The City of LA has, until recently, had no success in dealing with ADL-LA and ALF. The recent conviction of Pam Ferdin and Jerry Vlasak only gives them an opportunity to grandstand.
LAAS employees are harassed and many feel terrified. City officials have no overall strategy for dealing with these groups torn between freedom of speech principles, and the need to maintain order and peace.
You may think this means nothing, but it is not. It is a big deal and should be thought of that way. The FBI considers animal and eco activists the second most dangerous groups of terrorists in the country, even ahead of all the right wing, neo Nazi, Aryan Brotherhoods, KKK types. Why is this? Because they use the concept of animal rights as an excuse to form increasingly effective networks of budding revolutionaries. Most everyone loves animals and hates abuses and cruelty. They have a locked in and highly impassioned power base and appeal.
If there is any doubt about the growing power networks of these groups, we only have to look at their advisory boards; they are filled with celebrities that tinny-minded people think are second only to the Pope or Bill Gates in terms of being role models and founts of knowledge.
On the Advisory Board of Sea Shepherd Society alone, we find Pierce Brosman, Martin Sheen, Richard Dean Anderson, Linda Blair, James Cromwell and Rutger Hauer just to name a few. PETA has five times as many celebrities involved in various capacities.
Jerry Vlasak has been and probably still is involved with all of the players in these organizations.
Personally, I think the country needs MAJOR changes. I think animal rights and welfare should be a central core value along with universal health care, a more egalitarian distribution of income and educational opportunities, control over corporate power and abuses, reversing the Republican rapacious destruction of the environment, and financially re-invigorating government in the role of enabling and helping people, after years of Republican starvation.
But, we are dealing with revolutionaries where the raison detre is animal liberation, a noble purpose I share, but implementation is through tactics and strategies that hurt and kill animals in ways that animal welfarists do not. An example is ADL-LA/ALF actions against Ed Boks. This is training for them, a pseudo cause to crystallize and refine political action, but acting in ways that impede rapid progress towards No-Kill.
The real question YOU need to ask is do you want to ignore them and see what happens? Do you want to join THEIR revolution, because it will never be yours, they have set the agenda and appointed the key players? Or, do you want to oppose them by stomping them while they are still small and uncoordinated? This would be the Republican approach so deftly refined by the Ashcrofts, Cheneys and Bushes.
Then again, if they are suppressed, without these radical leaders, how does one make change? How can we really help the animals in both the short and long term? What are the alternatives? How do we expand the cracks within and between ruling ideologies and competing power structures to create real change given the Weltanshauung of indifference and helplessness?
Is it to be a revolution from below as has fueled most revolutions in the past, a coup led by Lefties likeDean andGore, will it be a spiritual struggle that lasts many lifetimes, or will it never happen at all? You decide.
You would be mistaken. The ADL-LA and ALF and similar organizations across the country are the vanguard for a growing revolutionary movement that plans to radically remake this country by any means they think necessary. The ADL-LA/LAAS struggle locally is only one small arena where they develop new methods of extortion, terror and other ways of manipulating individuals, corporations and government.
As the website http://www.targetofopportunity.com/ correctly points out, corporations, AND local governments roll over and play dead when confronted by these organizations with their new array of revolutionary tactics. Brownshirt terrorism has morphed into cyberterrorism. The City of LA has, until recently, had no success in dealing with ADL-LA and ALF. The recent conviction of Pam Ferdin and Jerry Vlasak only gives them an opportunity to grandstand.
LAAS employees are harassed and many feel terrified. City officials have no overall strategy for dealing with these groups torn between freedom of speech principles, and the need to maintain order and peace.
You may think this means nothing, but it is not. It is a big deal and should be thought of that way. The FBI considers animal and eco activists the second most dangerous groups of terrorists in the country, even ahead of all the right wing, neo Nazi, Aryan Brotherhoods, KKK types. Why is this? Because they use the concept of animal rights as an excuse to form increasingly effective networks of budding revolutionaries. Most everyone loves animals and hates abuses and cruelty. They have a locked in and highly impassioned power base and appeal.
If there is any doubt about the growing power networks of these groups, we only have to look at their advisory boards; they are filled with celebrities that tinny-minded people think are second only to the Pope or Bill Gates in terms of being role models and founts of knowledge.
On the Advisory Board of Sea Shepherd Society alone, we find Pierce Brosman, Martin Sheen, Richard Dean Anderson, Linda Blair, James Cromwell and Rutger Hauer just to name a few. PETA has five times as many celebrities involved in various capacities.
Jerry Vlasak has been and probably still is involved with all of the players in these organizations.
Personally, I think the country needs MAJOR changes. I think animal rights and welfare should be a central core value along with universal health care, a more egalitarian distribution of income and educational opportunities, control over corporate power and abuses, reversing the Republican rapacious destruction of the environment, and financially re-invigorating government in the role of enabling and helping people, after years of Republican starvation.
But, we are dealing with revolutionaries where the raison detre is animal liberation, a noble purpose I share, but implementation is through tactics and strategies that hurt and kill animals in ways that animal welfarists do not. An example is ADL-LA/ALF actions against Ed Boks. This is training for them, a pseudo cause to crystallize and refine political action, but acting in ways that impede rapid progress towards No-Kill.
The real question YOU need to ask is do you want to ignore them and see what happens? Do you want to join THEIR revolution, because it will never be yours, they have set the agenda and appointed the key players? Or, do you want to oppose them by stomping them while they are still small and uncoordinated? This would be the Republican approach so deftly refined by the Ashcrofts, Cheneys and Bushes.
Then again, if they are suppressed, without these radical leaders, how does one make change? How can we really help the animals in both the short and long term? What are the alternatives? How do we expand the cracks within and between ruling ideologies and competing power structures to create real change given the Weltanshauung of indifference and helplessness?
Is it to be a revolution from below as has fueled most revolutions in the past, a coup led by Lefties likeDean andGore, will it be a spiritual struggle that lasts many lifetimes, or will it never happen at all? You decide.
From the Maddies Fund Re LAAS Transparency
Of the 5200 plus animal control departments in the US and the thousands more humane societies, SPCA, and animal welfare organizations only five met the Maddie's Foundation's expectations for "transparency". See attached letter from Richard Avanzino, CEO of Maddie's Foundation:
At this time, transparency is not prevalent. But, here are examples of organizations headed in that direction:
• Los Angeles Animal Services (There is a statistics link on the hompage at
http://www.laanimalservices.com/.)
• The Dane County Humane Society (http://giveshelter.org/about/stats/)
• The Tompkins County SPCA (Click on http://www.spcaonline.com/sp_newlink.htm
and scroll to "How'd We Do Last Year.")
• The Humane Society of Boulder Valley (http://www.boulderhumane.org/gen/faq.html)
• The Richmond SPCA
(http://www.richmondspca.org/site/DocServer/february_06.doc?docID=1403)
You can also go to the Maddie’s Fund website (www.maddiesfund.org/projects/index.html).
We publish statistics of our funded projects on-line and in our Annual Report.
To further encourage transparency, Maddie’s Fund has established a series of new grants
(http://www.maddiesfund.org/grant/starter_grants_index.html) that reward organizations for gathering and publishing their statistics.
And, in conjunction with other national organizations, we are working on the creation of a central website that will host statistical data gathered from animal welfare organizations around the country.
We are hopeful that the Asilomar Accords (http://www.maddiesfund.org/organizations/asilomar.html)
will be a significant factor in stimulating transparency. The ninth Guiding Principle of the Accords states: “We believe in the importance of transparency and the open sharing of accurate, complete animal-sheltering data and statistics in a manner which is clear to both the animal welfare community and the public.”
Clearly, we are not yet at a point where transparency is the norm among animal welfare organizations. But because we believe this practice will ultimately help save more lives, we hope, for the animals' sake, that many organizations will see the true merit of moving in this direction, and that transparency does indeed become commonplace in the very near future.
Sincerely,
Rich Avanzino
CEO, Maddies Fund
At this time, transparency is not prevalent. But, here are examples of organizations headed in that direction:
• Los Angeles Animal Services (There is a statistics link on the hompage at
http://www.laanimalservices.com/.)
• The Dane County Humane Society (http://giveshelter.org/about/stats/)
• The Tompkins County SPCA (Click on http://www.spcaonline.com/sp_newlink.htm
and scroll to "How'd We Do Last Year.")
• The Humane Society of Boulder Valley (http://www.boulderhumane.org/gen/faq.html)
• The Richmond SPCA
(http://www.richmondspca.org/site/DocServer/february_06.doc?docID=1403)
You can also go to the Maddie’s Fund website (www.maddiesfund.org/projects/index.html).
We publish statistics of our funded projects on-line and in our Annual Report.
To further encourage transparency, Maddie’s Fund has established a series of new grants
(http://www.maddiesfund.org/grant/starter_grants_index.html) that reward organizations for gathering and publishing their statistics.
And, in conjunction with other national organizations, we are working on the creation of a central website that will host statistical data gathered from animal welfare organizations around the country.
We are hopeful that the Asilomar Accords (http://www.maddiesfund.org/organizations/asilomar.html)
will be a significant factor in stimulating transparency. The ninth Guiding Principle of the Accords states: “We believe in the importance of transparency and the open sharing of accurate, complete animal-sheltering data and statistics in a manner which is clear to both the animal welfare community and the public.”
Clearly, we are not yet at a point where transparency is the norm among animal welfare organizations. But because we believe this practice will ultimately help save more lives, we hope, for the animals' sake, that many organizations will see the true merit of moving in this direction, and that transparency does indeed become commonplace in the very near future.
Sincerely,
Rich Avanzino
CEO, Maddies Fund
May Shocker
After the May disaster re number of neonates killed, we should all rededicate ourseleves to the unfinished work which the rescue community and LAAS have struggled so hard to attain: to reach a time where the only animals that will be killed are the terminally injured and dying, and LAAS’s services will be devoted to finding owners, adoptions and stopping animal cruelty.
FROM CRAIGS LIST:
Date: 2006-06-16, 9:52AM PDT
It is physically impossible to just stop the killing in LA instantly. The shelters and streets would fill up with animals quickly. Ed Boks has implemented many new and wonderful programs since he came to LA. Things are improving. He is the best General Manager we have ever had. Take a look at all the things he's done here in his reports:
http://www.laanimalservices.com/GMReports.htm
We've never had a GM who has written and posted reports about his progress. We've never had a GM be so honest about his numbers. We've never had a GM who was willing to talk to and work with the animal community. ADL asked to have a "competent, dedicated, educated, compassionate" GM. We have one, Ed Boks. Yes, the shelters are still full. Would you rather have the shelters empty and the freezers full?
He's giving the animals every chance he can. We just can't adopt our way out of this problem. We need to turn off the faucet. We need more spay/neuter. We need money for mores pay/neuter programs and spay/neuter education. A lot of the animals killed in May were kittens and puppies. Do you think the employees enjoy killing kittens and puppies? Of course not. If only ADL would use their money and efforts on spay/neuter, LA couldbecome lo-kill more quickly.
Attacking the Department, City, employees, volunteers, donors and commissioners will not make the City lo-kill. Those attacks actually kill more animals. If you're not part of the solution ADL, you are part of the problem. Just stoptheyelling and start helping. Re: LA NO KILL & LO KILL
Date: 2006-06-16, 10:55AM PDT
I totally agree with the person who posted this. I am a volunteer atSouth L.A. animal shelter. The staff and volunteers who work at that shelter are incredibly dedicated, caring and hardworking. They are the ones who put the work in for animals day in, day out, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Anyone who posts on this board complaining and criticizing better haveFACTS and SOURCES to back up their whining, because I have seen with my own eyes how caring and hard-working the shelter people are.
You nitpickers and complainers ought to be ASHAMED of yourselves. I don't see you in the shelter cleaning up puppy vomit and talking topeople about alternatives to surrendering their pet. How about taking Spanish classes so you can at least communicate with half the people Who come into shelters.
Do you know how many people hate to give up their pets because their landlords found out, or they got evicted and have to find someplace to live and don't have the luxury of time and money to find housing thatwill accept their pet? Landlords are a HUGE reason people have to give up their pets. Howabout working with the city to get a law passed requiring a percentageof housing to allow pets? How about a law requiring all landlords to accept at least a cat? Come on, let's all support the new G.M. and all the shelter workers andwork together for the animals. Anything less is egoistic. RE: LA NO KILL/LO KILL
Date: 2006-06-16, 12:31PM PDT
Yes a large part of why there are SOOOOOO MANY animals in the shelter system is that we have a very large immigrant population who do not know or understand the importance of spaying and neutering their pets. The bottom line is without education and the ability to CONSTANTLY REINFORCE the importance of spay and neuter (economic asstistance etc), we will NEVER start to make progress!! We can't just throw up our armsand give up--- as a community we must figure out a plan and get going!!! I was in South LA shelter last night and "counseled" a sweet familyabout their new adoptee...right down to explaining the importance ofregistering their information with AVID etc.
They were so happy just tohave someone to help them and give them some information. The ACT wasSUPER sweet but they ARE SO BUSY and UNDERSTAFFED; I was just happy to help a family (I even gave them my phone # to call if they had questions or needed help). There are people out there that want to do the right thing (as well as the many who are not doing the right thing by their animals!!!). We all just need to get on the same page and help those that need toget on that page as well!!! LA & NO KILL or LO KILL
Date: 2006-06-16, 10:21AM PDT
Somehow all the name calling, finger pointing, personal agendas need tobe redirected to what we all really want---the progress towards a lowkill/no kill shelter system in LOS ANGELES!!!!
The fact that the cityspends $20.0 million euthanizing adoptable pets is mind boggling andhorrific!!!! Resources must be put towards Public Service Annoucements etc. (ideas to get the message out there) about SPAY & NEUTER!!!!! The public, through ignorance and indifference, is a HUGE part of thepet overpopulation problem!!!! For people to bash a new GM is nuts-give the guy a chance to try to turn it around!! This is not going to happen overnight!!
TME is the bigfactor here!! The rescue community is so disjointed that in the end it is the animals we are all trying to help that are suffering and dying while all thehumans bicker!!!! DON'T BREED OR BUY WHILE SHELTER ANIMALS DIE!!!! ADOPT A HOMELESSPET!!!!
Ed:
Just a note to advise that I am going to submit a note to theCommissioners about Torrie Strawn's DAILY excellence, today being aperfect example. Much of the public's frustration with this department (while FAR fromthe only thing) is that there are far too few Torries and those that wehave have been historically held down...in fact, punished, for being-god forbid - a star.
Moreover, it's frustrating when people like torrie (and the few otherstars) are not elevated to training level authority....to stronglyinfluence who is deserving of jobs at LAAS. I could probably name adozen people who fit that category, and I imagine you know who they are, and that they have been historically held down and punished.
Torrie: thanks for everything today. You took an emergency situationand showed what stars can do.
Daniel Guss
FROM CRAIGS LIST:
Date: 2006-06-16, 9:52AM PDT
It is physically impossible to just stop the killing in LA instantly. The shelters and streets would fill up with animals quickly. Ed Boks has implemented many new and wonderful programs since he came to LA. Things are improving. He is the best General Manager we have ever had. Take a look at all the things he's done here in his reports:
http://www.laanimalservices.com/GMReports.htm
We've never had a GM who has written and posted reports about his progress. We've never had a GM be so honest about his numbers. We've never had a GM who was willing to talk to and work with the animal community. ADL asked to have a "competent, dedicated, educated, compassionate" GM. We have one, Ed Boks. Yes, the shelters are still full. Would you rather have the shelters empty and the freezers full?
He's giving the animals every chance he can. We just can't adopt our way out of this problem. We need to turn off the faucet. We need more spay/neuter. We need money for mores pay/neuter programs and spay/neuter education. A lot of the animals killed in May were kittens and puppies. Do you think the employees enjoy killing kittens and puppies? Of course not. If only ADL would use their money and efforts on spay/neuter, LA couldbecome lo-kill more quickly.
Attacking the Department, City, employees, volunteers, donors and commissioners will not make the City lo-kill. Those attacks actually kill more animals. If you're not part of the solution ADL, you are part of the problem. Just stoptheyelling and start helping. Re: LA NO KILL & LO KILL
Date: 2006-06-16, 10:55AM PDT
I totally agree with the person who posted this. I am a volunteer atSouth L.A. animal shelter. The staff and volunteers who work at that shelter are incredibly dedicated, caring and hardworking. They are the ones who put the work in for animals day in, day out, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Anyone who posts on this board complaining and criticizing better haveFACTS and SOURCES to back up their whining, because I have seen with my own eyes how caring and hard-working the shelter people are.
You nitpickers and complainers ought to be ASHAMED of yourselves. I don't see you in the shelter cleaning up puppy vomit and talking topeople about alternatives to surrendering their pet. How about taking Spanish classes so you can at least communicate with half the people Who come into shelters.
Do you know how many people hate to give up their pets because their landlords found out, or they got evicted and have to find someplace to live and don't have the luxury of time and money to find housing thatwill accept their pet? Landlords are a HUGE reason people have to give up their pets. Howabout working with the city to get a law passed requiring a percentageof housing to allow pets? How about a law requiring all landlords to accept at least a cat? Come on, let's all support the new G.M. and all the shelter workers andwork together for the animals. Anything less is egoistic. RE: LA NO KILL/LO KILL
Date: 2006-06-16, 12:31PM PDT
Yes a large part of why there are SOOOOOO MANY animals in the shelter system is that we have a very large immigrant population who do not know or understand the importance of spaying and neutering their pets. The bottom line is without education and the ability to CONSTANTLY REINFORCE the importance of spay and neuter (economic asstistance etc), we will NEVER start to make progress!! We can't just throw up our armsand give up--- as a community we must figure out a plan and get going!!! I was in South LA shelter last night and "counseled" a sweet familyabout their new adoptee...right down to explaining the importance ofregistering their information with AVID etc.
They were so happy just tohave someone to help them and give them some information. The ACT wasSUPER sweet but they ARE SO BUSY and UNDERSTAFFED; I was just happy to help a family (I even gave them my phone # to call if they had questions or needed help). There are people out there that want to do the right thing (as well as the many who are not doing the right thing by their animals!!!). We all just need to get on the same page and help those that need toget on that page as well!!! LA & NO KILL or LO KILL
Date: 2006-06-16, 10:21AM PDT
Somehow all the name calling, finger pointing, personal agendas need tobe redirected to what we all really want---the progress towards a lowkill/no kill shelter system in LOS ANGELES!!!!
The fact that the cityspends $20.0 million euthanizing adoptable pets is mind boggling andhorrific!!!! Resources must be put towards Public Service Annoucements etc. (ideas to get the message out there) about SPAY & NEUTER!!!!! The public, through ignorance and indifference, is a HUGE part of thepet overpopulation problem!!!! For people to bash a new GM is nuts-give the guy a chance to try to turn it around!! This is not going to happen overnight!!
TME is the bigfactor here!! The rescue community is so disjointed that in the end it is the animals we are all trying to help that are suffering and dying while all thehumans bicker!!!! DON'T BREED OR BUY WHILE SHELTER ANIMALS DIE!!!! ADOPT A HOMELESSPET!!!!
Ed:
Just a note to advise that I am going to submit a note to theCommissioners about Torrie Strawn's DAILY excellence, today being aperfect example. Much of the public's frustration with this department (while FAR fromthe only thing) is that there are far too few Torries and those that wehave have been historically held down...in fact, punished, for being-god forbid - a star.
Moreover, it's frustrating when people like torrie (and the few otherstars) are not elevated to training level authority....to stronglyinfluence who is deserving of jobs at LAAS. I could probably name adozen people who fit that category, and I imagine you know who they are, and that they have been historically held down and punished.
Torrie: thanks for everything today. You took an emergency situationand showed what stars can do.
Daniel Guss
ADL Getting Desperate, Begins to Just Make Things Up
Regarding ADLLA’s latest post where they said:
So called "progressive" Los Angeles is MILES behind other cities in advertising our wonderful shelter animals to the residents of L.A. No creative newspaper ad's, no radio or TV advertisements--nothing--nada. This concept of rallying the residents of a city to embrace and participate in the fostering, bottle feeding, adopting and walking of animals at their local shelters should have been learned in the first week of Animal Sheltering 101. But LA's six animal Death Camps are NOT EVEN IN THE PROCESSION!
At the No Kill Solutions seminar last October, Nathan Winograd showed the audience the incredibly compelling, dramatic and humorous advertisements he had the Ithaca shelter implement in upstate New York, which resulted in residents flocking to the shelter to adopt.
But under the General Manager (Scammer) Ed Boks, there is nothing-nada-to be found. No enthusiastic and dedicated Assistant General Manager, no intelligent or compassionate head Veterinarian, no creative and energetic Public Relations Officer, not even basic public outreach.
Even the Salt Lake County Animal Services runs a "Pets of the Week" ad in its major newspapers. But Boks can't seem to get his nalgas in gear to place similar solicitations throughout Los Angeles. Guess he's too tied up drinking with his girlfriends at night and attending events to network. Boks spends more time then most politicians do going to cocktail parties, fund raisers and gala's, when he ought to be spending time working on basic common sense policies that would save the lives of animals.
You know the ADLLA is getting desperate when they have to start making stuff up just to get a post out.
To the best of my knowledge, the department has a cable TV show, has its animals advertised on the Beverly Hills cable show, stages and promotes/advertises multiple mobile adoptions every month, has staged the first of what will surely be more special weekend adoption events at specific shelters, brings several animals a month to City Council meetings so those animals and the whole adoption process gets promoted on Channel 35 to the people who watch those cablecasts and re-runs, they work with others to get LAAS animals covered via other animal-related TV shows (like the one that was taping at the Best Friends event this weekend) and for all I know they DO place ads (though I won't swear by it).
Is there a full-time public relations officer? Admittedly no, and there's a reason for that. The old one was loaned by Stuckey to the Personnel department when she complained of being harassed by the ADL, and she's still on the Animal Services payroll, refusing to quit and failing to find another job, either of which must happen before she can be removed from that payroll.
So, under City law, Animal Services can't even free up her salary to use for a replacement or for any other purposes.
Is there an AGM whose job it is to move animals out of the shelters? Not yet, and there's a good reason for that too. Boks created a new AGM position so that someone who will have the skills and talents to focus on those operational issues could be hired instead of a classic City bureaucratic type, but he couldn't advertise for the job until the City Council approved the position and funding for it. That approval was received toward the end of May and the position is now open to applicants and can be filled as soon after July 1 as the task of identifying the best candidate will permit.
Is there a new Chief Vet? No, because the position is still filled by the existing Chief Vet who is on official medical leave and cannot be dismissed until she's been in that situation for a year. Her medical leave is based on stress, stress partly induced by ADL pranks and threats against her at her private residence.
ADLLA actions and others who attack Boks and the LAAS ARE killing animals. I am continually amazed that the ADLLA just does not get it.
So called "progressive" Los Angeles is MILES behind other cities in advertising our wonderful shelter animals to the residents of L.A. No creative newspaper ad's, no radio or TV advertisements--nothing--nada. This concept of rallying the residents of a city to embrace and participate in the fostering, bottle feeding, adopting and walking of animals at their local shelters should have been learned in the first week of Animal Sheltering 101. But LA's six animal Death Camps are NOT EVEN IN THE PROCESSION!
At the No Kill Solutions seminar last October, Nathan Winograd showed the audience the incredibly compelling, dramatic and humorous advertisements he had the Ithaca shelter implement in upstate New York, which resulted in residents flocking to the shelter to adopt.
But under the General Manager (Scammer) Ed Boks, there is nothing-nada-to be found. No enthusiastic and dedicated Assistant General Manager, no intelligent or compassionate head Veterinarian, no creative and energetic Public Relations Officer, not even basic public outreach.
Even the Salt Lake County Animal Services runs a "Pets of the Week" ad in its major newspapers. But Boks can't seem to get his nalgas in gear to place similar solicitations throughout Los Angeles. Guess he's too tied up drinking with his girlfriends at night and attending events to network. Boks spends more time then most politicians do going to cocktail parties, fund raisers and gala's, when he ought to be spending time working on basic common sense policies that would save the lives of animals.
You know the ADLLA is getting desperate when they have to start making stuff up just to get a post out.
To the best of my knowledge, the department has a cable TV show, has its animals advertised on the Beverly Hills cable show, stages and promotes/advertises multiple mobile adoptions every month, has staged the first of what will surely be more special weekend adoption events at specific shelters, brings several animals a month to City Council meetings so those animals and the whole adoption process gets promoted on Channel 35 to the people who watch those cablecasts and re-runs, they work with others to get LAAS animals covered via other animal-related TV shows (like the one that was taping at the Best Friends event this weekend) and for all I know they DO place ads (though I won't swear by it).
Is there a full-time public relations officer? Admittedly no, and there's a reason for that. The old one was loaned by Stuckey to the Personnel department when she complained of being harassed by the ADL, and she's still on the Animal Services payroll, refusing to quit and failing to find another job, either of which must happen before she can be removed from that payroll.
So, under City law, Animal Services can't even free up her salary to use for a replacement or for any other purposes.
Is there an AGM whose job it is to move animals out of the shelters? Not yet, and there's a good reason for that too. Boks created a new AGM position so that someone who will have the skills and talents to focus on those operational issues could be hired instead of a classic City bureaucratic type, but he couldn't advertise for the job until the City Council approved the position and funding for it. That approval was received toward the end of May and the position is now open to applicants and can be filled as soon after July 1 as the task of identifying the best candidate will permit.
Is there a new Chief Vet? No, because the position is still filled by the existing Chief Vet who is on official medical leave and cannot be dismissed until she's been in that situation for a year. Her medical leave is based on stress, stress partly induced by ADL pranks and threats against her at her private residence.
ADLLA actions and others who attack Boks and the LAAS ARE killing animals. I am continually amazed that the ADLLA just does not get it.
Boks at this Weekend's Best Friends Event
While the ADL rants and just makes up stuff about Boks--which I called the big lie in the past, actual rescuers say this about Ed at this past weekend's Best Friends Event:
From craigslist:
No other General Manager I can remember ever participated in the Best Friends Event to the extent that Ed Boks did this Sunday.
In the past, the GM's usually showed up for an hour or so, greeted people and left. Ed, the new General Manager of LAAS, spent the entire day at the event and in the LAAS booth. He was available to hold animals and trouble shoot issues that came up. This is a large and complicated event for LAAS to carry off and in the past was often froth with problems.
His presence and consistent availability throughout the day helped make this the smoothest LAAS event I have ever participated in. He was available to assist with every issue that came up at a moments notice. Additionally, at previous BF events the bailing out process for rescues has been extremely chaotic. All the rescues I spoke to shared that at Sunday's event, the process was well organized and went very smoothly. Ed stood by his staff, volunteers (who camee in large numbers and were amazing) and animals and it made a huge difference.
Ed Boks, thank you for making a difficult and emotional day easier.
RE: Ed Boks At th Best Friends Event
Reply: I agree with you!!! I was totally impressed by him not only being there but he made it a point to talk to everyone. How great is that?? I know a lot of people have bashed him before he has been given a chance which is totally unfair!!
How will LA Animal Services EVER make any inroads to ANY problems if everyone can't at least put forth a united front and MOVE FORWARD and stop ALL of the personal agenda crap....whatever!!!
He was personable, concerned, helpful etc. He was there until IT was ALL finished-he didn't bail early on a beautiful day but stuck through the event to its end!!!! Give the guy a chance!!!! I don't see anybody else offering any alternatives!!!! Every "manager" working for the city should put forth such an effort!!!!!
Great job Mr. Boks!!!
I ask, would Stuckey have done this? Would Greenwalt have done this? We all know the real reasons that the ADL and their lackies are attacking Boks: getting their own people in charge and as employees so that they can experiment with methods from a No-Kill expert who will not be coming to LA to help them out as long as the character assassination war continues. Also, there is the unseen puppet master in the background, who knows of whom I speak, who might carry great weight to end this whole mess and should do it now.
They must also assume that the war they started and all the alienation and bickering created, will end the minute they get the GM they want. The nastiness they created will last a long, long time. their actions have divided and torn LAAS and the animal community as a whole and the animals pay through a legacy of death.
From craigslist:
No other General Manager I can remember ever participated in the Best Friends Event to the extent that Ed Boks did this Sunday.
In the past, the GM's usually showed up for an hour or so, greeted people and left. Ed, the new General Manager of LAAS, spent the entire day at the event and in the LAAS booth. He was available to hold animals and trouble shoot issues that came up. This is a large and complicated event for LAAS to carry off and in the past was often froth with problems.
His presence and consistent availability throughout the day helped make this the smoothest LAAS event I have ever participated in. He was available to assist with every issue that came up at a moments notice. Additionally, at previous BF events the bailing out process for rescues has been extremely chaotic. All the rescues I spoke to shared that at Sunday's event, the process was well organized and went very smoothly. Ed stood by his staff, volunteers (who camee in large numbers and were amazing) and animals and it made a huge difference.
Ed Boks, thank you for making a difficult and emotional day easier.
RE: Ed Boks At th Best Friends Event
Reply: I agree with you!!! I was totally impressed by him not only being there but he made it a point to talk to everyone. How great is that?? I know a lot of people have bashed him before he has been given a chance which is totally unfair!!
How will LA Animal Services EVER make any inroads to ANY problems if everyone can't at least put forth a united front and MOVE FORWARD and stop ALL of the personal agenda crap....whatever!!!
He was personable, concerned, helpful etc. He was there until IT was ALL finished-he didn't bail early on a beautiful day but stuck through the event to its end!!!! Give the guy a chance!!!! I don't see anybody else offering any alternatives!!!! Every "manager" working for the city should put forth such an effort!!!!!
Great job Mr. Boks!!!
I ask, would Stuckey have done this? Would Greenwalt have done this? We all know the real reasons that the ADL and their lackies are attacking Boks: getting their own people in charge and as employees so that they can experiment with methods from a No-Kill expert who will not be coming to LA to help them out as long as the character assassination war continues. Also, there is the unseen puppet master in the background, who knows of whom I speak, who might carry great weight to end this whole mess and should do it now.
They must also assume that the war they started and all the alienation and bickering created, will end the minute they get the GM they want. The nastiness they created will last a long, long time. their actions have divided and torn LAAS and the animal community as a whole and the animals pay through a legacy of death.
NYC Mayor and Animal Care Directors Sued
Look at what Boks walked into when he took over AC&C of NYC.
First, look at the lawsuit against the Mayor and Animal Care Directors, six months after Ed Boks left.
Second, look at the horrible 2002 Comptroller’s Audit of Care and Control that led to Ed Boks being brought to NYC.
NEWS RELEASE:
SHELTER REFORM ACTION COMMITTEE
P.O. Box 268 - Gracie Station
New York, NY 10028
visit our website: http://www.shelterreform.org/
F O R I M M E D I A T E R E L E A S E
Contact: Gary Kaskel 212-249-9178
MAYOR & ANIMAL CONTROL DIRECTORS
SUED OVER CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Health Commissioner Accused of Double Dealing
June 1, 2006 -- A watchdog group that has followed the City’s animal management
policies for a decade has filed a lawsuit to remove the Mayor and three other city
officials, including the Health Commissioner, from controlling the board of directors of the nonprofit corporation that the City contracts to operate the animal shelters and perform animal control duties.
Animal Care & Control of NYC Inc. (AC&C) was formed by the Giuliani Administration in 1994 to replace the ASPCA which relinquished the municipal animal control contract after 100 years (1894-1994). Although AC&C was formed as a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation, its critics claim that it operates as a city agency, with the Mayor appointing its board members along with three City commissioners as permanent members.
“This arrangement is fraught with conflicts of interest and loyalties, and ultimately it’s the animals who suffer as a result,” says Marie Mar, an attorney and co-chair of the Shelter Reform Action Committee (SRAC), which is the plaintiff in the lawsuit against the City and AC&C.
“New York City underfunds the animal management contract by provising less than half of what is recommended by humane professionals,” said Gary Kaskel, SRAC’s other cochair. “The City of Los Angeles spent $15 million (Muzika: Actually, more like $18,000,000.) last year when we spent only $7.2 million.” Kaskel adds.
ACC’s annual budget allocation is a line-item on the Department of Health & Mental
Hygiene’s budget and the contract renewal is not subject to City Council approval. “The chronic underfunding is allowed to happen because the NYC Health Department sits on both sides of the bargaining table at contract time with no oversight or accountability,” complains Kaskel. “There’s no money for proper vet care or medications or paying living wages for staff. It’s the animals who ultimately suffer,” says Kaskel.
ACC’s current contract expires at the end of June and the lawsuit seeks to invalidate
such contract, order a “fee for services” contract be awarded at proper funding levels, and remove the current board and the Mayor’s right to appoint its members.
(Muzika note: The background to all this is the truly horrendous 2002 Comptroller’s Audit of the Center for Animal Care and Control.)
http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov/bureaus/audit/02-06-06_ME01_109a.shtm
This is a very, very brief outline of what the audit's conclusions:
According to CACC’s Monthly Animal Activity Reports, during calendar year 2000 a total of 60,877 animals came into its shelters—55,376 cats and dogs, and 5,501 other animals. Of these 60,877 animals, 14,270 were adopted, 677 were returned to their owners, and 41,203 were euthanized. (Muzika’s note: that is an astounding euthanasia rate of 68%!)
Audit Limitations
(Muzika's note: Notice the auditors’ distain for CACC.)
Throughout the audit, CACC imposed obstacles that prevented us from conducting audit tests as we deemed necessary. CACC prevented us from obtaining a complete and accurate view of its operations and from obtaining all of the information necessary to develop a full set of constructive recommendations to help improve its operations.
The limitations imposed by CACC included its refusal to allow us to interview staff members without a supervisor being present, its refusal to allow us access to certain documents, and its delays in the production of some other records. In addition, it was very difficult to arrange a meeting with the board of directors, and only two members of the board eventually met with us. The audit limitations necessitate certain qualifications to our findings, described below.
Since we were unable to independently interview any employees, such as kennel attendants, veterinarians, veterinary technicians, and adoption counselors, who would have been able to give us direct, first-person observations of CACC’s actual daily operations, we could not obtain a full account of management problems, inaccuracies in the organization’s records, or possible misstatements of the organization’s policies and practices.
Because CACC denied us access to certain records that may have contained adverse information regarding the conditions at CACC shelters and the treatment of the animals kept there, and delayed our access to other records (providing the opportunity for the removal or alteration of records), our record review may not have uncovered the full extent of the problems of animal abuse and neglect, accidental euthanasia, and poor veterinary care described in this report.
In addition, since we could not interview all of the board members—who are ultimately responsible for overseeing CACC’s operations—we may have missed the opportunity to gain insight into the reasons for some of the problems CACC is facing.
Results In Brief
CACC does not provide humane conditions for all of the animals in its shelters and has not made aggressive efforts to increase adoptions of homeless animals. This report describes our findings in three main sections.
The first section, "Animals Are Not Always Sheltered under Humane Conditions," discusses the inadequacies discovered during our visits to the shelters, including that dogs are rarely, if ever, exercised, animals were not provided constant access to water, contagious animals were sometimes kept in the same wards as non-contagious animals, and at the two larger shelters, animals’ cages were not consistently spot-cleaned; evidence that animals in CACC shelters are sometimes subjected to abuse and neglect; the fact that some animals have been accidentally euthanized; and evidence of poor veterinary care in CACC shelters.
The second section, "CACC Has Not Made Aggressive Efforts to Increase Adoptions," presents recent CACC adoption statistics and discusses some of the likely reasons that adoption levels are low and have not improved over the last three years. These reasons include: limited public awareness of CACC and its adoption services and a lack of aggressive efforts by CACC to improve public awareness; inadequate use of off-site adoptions; inadequate efforts to ensure that the adoption process is encouraging to all potential adopters; CACC’s discouragement of some rescue groups that take animals from its shelters; the apparent inappropriate limitation of the pool of animals available for adoption; and a lack of adoption services at CACC’s Queens and Bronx facilities.
The third section of the report, "Possible Causes of CACC’s Shortcomings," discusses the fact that CACC compounds the problem of under-funding by failing to aggressively raise funds on its own and by failing to take sufficient advantage of volunteers. It also discusses a problem evidenced by CACC leadership apparently interpreting the organization’s mission more narrowly than it was originally conceptualized and failing to aggressively pursue some of the goals outlined in its mission statement, such as, "providing humane care for all New York City animals in need" and "reducing the number of homeless animals through increased adoption."
Lastly, under "Other Issues," we discuss the facts that: CACC’s board violated its bylaws by meeting and voting on certain items without the required quorom present; CACC’s board appears to have violated the letter and spirit of the Open Meetings Law by speaking at almost a whisper and thereby preventing attendees from hearing their discussions; and CACC’s contract with DOH does not include specific and measurable performance requirements or standards.
Many of the findings in this report are supported by the results of our surveys of individuals acquainted with CACC’s operations (former employees, customers, and individuals from rescue groups who work with CACC) in addition to our document reviews, observations, and interviews with CACC management.
In total, six of eight former employees, 36 of 59 rescuers, and 14 of 33 customers we surveyed criticized aspects of CACC’s operations and management. Their allegations and the results of our testing painted a similar picture—that of a shelter system in which: inadequate resources and staffing levels prevent the provision of some of the basic necessities for humane animal care; the frustrations of over-worked or unqualified employees are sometimes taken out on the animals; opportunities to help animals and increase adoptions are squandered; and, perhaps most notably, the status quo is perpetuated by a management that is not truly committed to all aspects of the organization’s contract and mission, namely, to provide high quality, humane, animal care and place as many animals as possible in adoptive homes.
Agency Response
In its response, DOH stated that it "disagrees with the report’s main findings: that animals are not sheltered under humane conditions and often receive poor veterinary care." However, DOH agreed with our adoption-related findings stating, "CACC has not been as successful as hoped in the area of increasing adoptions." DOH also agreed with our other findings, stating that its own on-site monitoring, which was expanded in July 2001, "to include a comprehensive review of all contractual requirements . . . has found deficiencies in CACC’s . . . customer service, volunteer program and education and outreach efforts." DOH also committed itself to increasing its site visits to four times a year, effective July 2002. DOH’s response is discussed in detail in the body of this report and is included in its entirety as an Addendum to this report.
DOH also appended a 28-page response from CACC to its own response. In its lengthy response, CACC took strong exception to nearly every aspect of the audit’s methodology and conclusions. Specifically, CACC alleged that:
"Many of the conclusions reached in this audit are not credible, as evidenced by: the antagonistic tone throughout the audit; the use of words and phrases of an inflammatory nature; the failure to use experts in areas requiring specialized knowledge; the slanting of the data presented; the inadequacy of the sample taken; the failure to make explicit the significant differences between CACC and the organizations with which it is compared in the audit; the failure to credit CACC’s significant accomplishments; and the use of anecdotal information from unnamed sources holding clear potential for bias against CACC."
Moreover, CACC alleged that there was "political influence in the audit process," claiming that the audit was "motivated by the political interest of [former Comptroller Alan Hevesi]." CACC further alleged that "the audit was conducted during the Mayoral campaign in which Alan Hevesi was a candidate who supported the special interest group’s call for the abolition of CACC." CACC’s executive director also stated, "CACC is surprised . . . that Comptroller William Thompson could be so ill served by his staff both in reporting and the issuance of this audit; one that was clearly motivated by the political interests of his predecessor."
In addition, CACC claimed that the audit was not conducted in accordance with GAGAS.
Specifically, CACC alleged that:
"The auditors established their own criteria for evaluating the performance of CACC ignoring technical standards for care . . . [The Comptroller’s Office] assigned auditors with no known skills or knowledge in the areas of humane animal care, veterinary medicine or labor law . . . samples were neither random or statistically significant . . . the subject audit is neither objective nor balanced . . . [auditors] failed to provide a reasonable perspective for the findings they recorded as they have repeatedly failed to provide the proper context for the frequency of occurrences . . . four different scopes suggest that the auditors knowingly ignored the Governmental Auditing Standards relating to audit planning and that CACC was not afforded proper due process."
The Comptroller’s Office, after carefully reviewing CACC’s response, has concluded that CACC’s arguments are invalid, that they are based upon distortions and misrepresentations, and that the audit’s findings should not be changed.
If you read the entirety of the lawsuit against Bloomberg, as well as the entirety of the 2002 audit, it is quite clear that anyone taking over CACC in 2003 would be in for a hard, if not impossible time. Imagine, having a budget less than half of LA's, yet with almost 20% more impounds AND walking into a minefield of competing political and financial interests.--Well, again, maybe not so different from LA.
First, look at the lawsuit against the Mayor and Animal Care Directors, six months after Ed Boks left.
Second, look at the horrible 2002 Comptroller’s Audit of Care and Control that led to Ed Boks being brought to NYC.
NEWS RELEASE:
SHELTER REFORM ACTION COMMITTEE
P.O. Box 268 - Gracie Station
New York, NY 10028
visit our website: http://www.shelterreform.org/
F O R I M M E D I A T E R E L E A S E
Contact: Gary Kaskel 212-249-9178
MAYOR & ANIMAL CONTROL DIRECTORS
SUED OVER CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Health Commissioner Accused of Double Dealing
June 1, 2006 -- A watchdog group that has followed the City’s animal management
policies for a decade has filed a lawsuit to remove the Mayor and three other city
officials, including the Health Commissioner, from controlling the board of directors of the nonprofit corporation that the City contracts to operate the animal shelters and perform animal control duties.
Animal Care & Control of NYC Inc. (AC&C) was formed by the Giuliani Administration in 1994 to replace the ASPCA which relinquished the municipal animal control contract after 100 years (1894-1994). Although AC&C was formed as a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation, its critics claim that it operates as a city agency, with the Mayor appointing its board members along with three City commissioners as permanent members.
“This arrangement is fraught with conflicts of interest and loyalties, and ultimately it’s the animals who suffer as a result,” says Marie Mar, an attorney and co-chair of the Shelter Reform Action Committee (SRAC), which is the plaintiff in the lawsuit against the City and AC&C.
“New York City underfunds the animal management contract by provising less than half of what is recommended by humane professionals,” said Gary Kaskel, SRAC’s other cochair. “The City of Los Angeles spent $15 million (Muzika: Actually, more like $18,000,000.) last year when we spent only $7.2 million.” Kaskel adds.
ACC’s annual budget allocation is a line-item on the Department of Health & Mental
Hygiene’s budget and the contract renewal is not subject to City Council approval. “The chronic underfunding is allowed to happen because the NYC Health Department sits on both sides of the bargaining table at contract time with no oversight or accountability,” complains Kaskel. “There’s no money for proper vet care or medications or paying living wages for staff. It’s the animals who ultimately suffer,” says Kaskel.
ACC’s current contract expires at the end of June and the lawsuit seeks to invalidate
such contract, order a “fee for services” contract be awarded at proper funding levels, and remove the current board and the Mayor’s right to appoint its members.
(Muzika note: The background to all this is the truly horrendous 2002 Comptroller’s Audit of the Center for Animal Care and Control.)
http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov/bureaus/audit/02-06-06_ME01_109a.shtm
This is a very, very brief outline of what the audit's conclusions:
According to CACC’s Monthly Animal Activity Reports, during calendar year 2000 a total of 60,877 animals came into its shelters—55,376 cats and dogs, and 5,501 other animals. Of these 60,877 animals, 14,270 were adopted, 677 were returned to their owners, and 41,203 were euthanized. (Muzika’s note: that is an astounding euthanasia rate of 68%!)
Audit Limitations
(Muzika's note: Notice the auditors’ distain for CACC.)
Throughout the audit, CACC imposed obstacles that prevented us from conducting audit tests as we deemed necessary. CACC prevented us from obtaining a complete and accurate view of its operations and from obtaining all of the information necessary to develop a full set of constructive recommendations to help improve its operations.
The limitations imposed by CACC included its refusal to allow us to interview staff members without a supervisor being present, its refusal to allow us access to certain documents, and its delays in the production of some other records. In addition, it was very difficult to arrange a meeting with the board of directors, and only two members of the board eventually met with us. The audit limitations necessitate certain qualifications to our findings, described below.
Since we were unable to independently interview any employees, such as kennel attendants, veterinarians, veterinary technicians, and adoption counselors, who would have been able to give us direct, first-person observations of CACC’s actual daily operations, we could not obtain a full account of management problems, inaccuracies in the organization’s records, or possible misstatements of the organization’s policies and practices.
Because CACC denied us access to certain records that may have contained adverse information regarding the conditions at CACC shelters and the treatment of the animals kept there, and delayed our access to other records (providing the opportunity for the removal or alteration of records), our record review may not have uncovered the full extent of the problems of animal abuse and neglect, accidental euthanasia, and poor veterinary care described in this report.
In addition, since we could not interview all of the board members—who are ultimately responsible for overseeing CACC’s operations—we may have missed the opportunity to gain insight into the reasons for some of the problems CACC is facing.
Results In Brief
CACC does not provide humane conditions for all of the animals in its shelters and has not made aggressive efforts to increase adoptions of homeless animals. This report describes our findings in three main sections.
The first section, "Animals Are Not Always Sheltered under Humane Conditions," discusses the inadequacies discovered during our visits to the shelters, including that dogs are rarely, if ever, exercised, animals were not provided constant access to water, contagious animals were sometimes kept in the same wards as non-contagious animals, and at the two larger shelters, animals’ cages were not consistently spot-cleaned; evidence that animals in CACC shelters are sometimes subjected to abuse and neglect; the fact that some animals have been accidentally euthanized; and evidence of poor veterinary care in CACC shelters.
The second section, "CACC Has Not Made Aggressive Efforts to Increase Adoptions," presents recent CACC adoption statistics and discusses some of the likely reasons that adoption levels are low and have not improved over the last three years. These reasons include: limited public awareness of CACC and its adoption services and a lack of aggressive efforts by CACC to improve public awareness; inadequate use of off-site adoptions; inadequate efforts to ensure that the adoption process is encouraging to all potential adopters; CACC’s discouragement of some rescue groups that take animals from its shelters; the apparent inappropriate limitation of the pool of animals available for adoption; and a lack of adoption services at CACC’s Queens and Bronx facilities.
The third section of the report, "Possible Causes of CACC’s Shortcomings," discusses the fact that CACC compounds the problem of under-funding by failing to aggressively raise funds on its own and by failing to take sufficient advantage of volunteers. It also discusses a problem evidenced by CACC leadership apparently interpreting the organization’s mission more narrowly than it was originally conceptualized and failing to aggressively pursue some of the goals outlined in its mission statement, such as, "providing humane care for all New York City animals in need" and "reducing the number of homeless animals through increased adoption."
Lastly, under "Other Issues," we discuss the facts that: CACC’s board violated its bylaws by meeting and voting on certain items without the required quorom present; CACC’s board appears to have violated the letter and spirit of the Open Meetings Law by speaking at almost a whisper and thereby preventing attendees from hearing their discussions; and CACC’s contract with DOH does not include specific and measurable performance requirements or standards.
Many of the findings in this report are supported by the results of our surveys of individuals acquainted with CACC’s operations (former employees, customers, and individuals from rescue groups who work with CACC) in addition to our document reviews, observations, and interviews with CACC management.
In total, six of eight former employees, 36 of 59 rescuers, and 14 of 33 customers we surveyed criticized aspects of CACC’s operations and management. Their allegations and the results of our testing painted a similar picture—that of a shelter system in which: inadequate resources and staffing levels prevent the provision of some of the basic necessities for humane animal care; the frustrations of over-worked or unqualified employees are sometimes taken out on the animals; opportunities to help animals and increase adoptions are squandered; and, perhaps most notably, the status quo is perpetuated by a management that is not truly committed to all aspects of the organization’s contract and mission, namely, to provide high quality, humane, animal care and place as many animals as possible in adoptive homes.
Agency Response
In its response, DOH stated that it "disagrees with the report’s main findings: that animals are not sheltered under humane conditions and often receive poor veterinary care." However, DOH agreed with our adoption-related findings stating, "CACC has not been as successful as hoped in the area of increasing adoptions." DOH also agreed with our other findings, stating that its own on-site monitoring, which was expanded in July 2001, "to include a comprehensive review of all contractual requirements . . . has found deficiencies in CACC’s . . . customer service, volunteer program and education and outreach efforts." DOH also committed itself to increasing its site visits to four times a year, effective July 2002. DOH’s response is discussed in detail in the body of this report and is included in its entirety as an Addendum to this report.
DOH also appended a 28-page response from CACC to its own response. In its lengthy response, CACC took strong exception to nearly every aspect of the audit’s methodology and conclusions. Specifically, CACC alleged that:
"Many of the conclusions reached in this audit are not credible, as evidenced by: the antagonistic tone throughout the audit; the use of words and phrases of an inflammatory nature; the failure to use experts in areas requiring specialized knowledge; the slanting of the data presented; the inadequacy of the sample taken; the failure to make explicit the significant differences between CACC and the organizations with which it is compared in the audit; the failure to credit CACC’s significant accomplishments; and the use of anecdotal information from unnamed sources holding clear potential for bias against CACC."
Moreover, CACC alleged that there was "political influence in the audit process," claiming that the audit was "motivated by the political interest of [former Comptroller Alan Hevesi]." CACC further alleged that "the audit was conducted during the Mayoral campaign in which Alan Hevesi was a candidate who supported the special interest group’s call for the abolition of CACC." CACC’s executive director also stated, "CACC is surprised . . . that Comptroller William Thompson could be so ill served by his staff both in reporting and the issuance of this audit; one that was clearly motivated by the political interests of his predecessor."
In addition, CACC claimed that the audit was not conducted in accordance with GAGAS.
Specifically, CACC alleged that:
"The auditors established their own criteria for evaluating the performance of CACC ignoring technical standards for care . . . [The Comptroller’s Office] assigned auditors with no known skills or knowledge in the areas of humane animal care, veterinary medicine or labor law . . . samples were neither random or statistically significant . . . the subject audit is neither objective nor balanced . . . [auditors] failed to provide a reasonable perspective for the findings they recorded as they have repeatedly failed to provide the proper context for the frequency of occurrences . . . four different scopes suggest that the auditors knowingly ignored the Governmental Auditing Standards relating to audit planning and that CACC was not afforded proper due process."
The Comptroller’s Office, after carefully reviewing CACC’s response, has concluded that CACC’s arguments are invalid, that they are based upon distortions and misrepresentations, and that the audit’s findings should not be changed.
If you read the entirety of the lawsuit against Bloomberg, as well as the entirety of the 2002 audit, it is quite clear that anyone taking over CACC in 2003 would be in for a hard, if not impossible time. Imagine, having a budget less than half of LA's, yet with almost 20% more impounds AND walking into a minefield of competing political and financial interests.--Well, again, maybe not so different from LA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)