.
Just for your info, a lot of people have been contacting me about the Jones contract. They wanted to know where I got my info on the $1.6,000,000 sweatheart deal beyween the City and Eric Jones.
Below is from the City's CAO on a Council action of July 20, 2007 when Council approved:
I'll bet they didn't even read it before they passed it. It went through Public Safety after Boks authored it and set up the agreement.
The specific conditions of the contract and the source are in a previous blog entry.
File Number07-2044Last Changed Date07/23/2007TitleDR. ERIC D. JONES / CONTRACT / SOUTH LOS ANGELES SPAY AND NEUTER CLINICInitiated byCity Administrative OfficerSubjectTransmittal from the Mayor of a City Administrative Officer 0150-08240-0000 report, dated June 14, 2007, relative to a contractbetween the Department of animal Services and Dr. Eric D. Jones, DVM toprovide animal spay/neuter surgeries at the South Los Angeles Spay andNeuter Clinic, for a term of five years, with up to four one-yearrenewal options, at an estimated $1.6 million over the five year period.Date Received06/22/2007File History6-22-07 - For ref6-25-07 - Ref to Public Safety Committee 6-25-07 - File to Public Safety Committee Clerk7-13-07 - Council Action - Verbal Motion - Weiss Mover 2007 / Smith -ADOPTED - HEREBY MOVE that Council AUTHORIZE the General Manager,Department of animal Services to execute a contract with Eric D. Jones, DVM to perform animal spay/neuter surgeries at the South Los AngelesSpay and Neuter Clinic for five years for $1.6 million, with up to fourone-year renewals subject to the approval of the City Attorney as toform and legality.7-23-07 - File to Public Safety Committee Clerk OKsunset provision here. this program expires september 2008. I assume they will renew it if it's successful.
The contract specifics were presented to the Commision by Boks.
This RFP and subsequent recommendation of award of the Agreement is an important early step before the Departmentْs expansion of its animal shelter and care facilities, which will feature fully-equipped spay/neuter veterinary clinics, and therefore will enhance the Cityْs continuing efforts to spay/neuter the animal population.
What is does not say here is that LAAS is only getting a 7% discount on spay neuters on LAAS animals.
With the South Los Angeles clinic in the lead, these other five new clinics will provide spay and neuter services for shelter dogs and cats, feral cats as part of a sterilization program, and rabbits; services may also be provided to the public who may bring in their pets for sterilization and related medical assistance. These services are key to the Departmentْs goal of becoming the largest City in the United States with a successful ôNo-Kill¤ policy.
Yes, but letْs look at the agreement. Jones only gives the city a 7% discount on spay/neutering of LAAS animals!!! This is astounding. The public gets a 7% discount!! AND, get this, he can also conduct a private practice but must keep his fees at fair market rates and, he only has to give the City 10% of his private practice net income.
Under the proposed Agreement, which is based substantially on the RFP, Dr. Jones will perform spay/neuter surgeries on dogs, cats, and rabbits, and other ancillary medical procedures associated with the surgical sterilization, in conformance with all surgical standards as dictated by the California Veterinary Medical Practice Act. Dr. Jones shall also provide related veterinary services such as cursory pre-surgical physical examinations on all surgical candidates; Wellness Clinics (vaccine clinics); emergency medical treatments; micro-chipping all dogs, cats, and rabbits that are adopted from the Shelters if mutually agreed upon by Dr. Jones, the adopter, or requested by the Department; post-treatment care; and other services.
Notice, this long winded paragraph says nothing about provided exclusive no-cost services for LAAS animals. We are paying him $1,600,000 over 5 years for him to run his own private practice on the Cityْs dime. He gives LAAS a 7% discount. The City pays his utilities.
SIGNIFICANT AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS:Prices of ServicesCharges for spay/ neuter services are as set by the Board; prices of other services to the public shall be subject to Department disapproval, but are not to exceed prevailing market prices in the immediate area.(That is, he can provide services to the public as a private practitioner.)
EquipmentThe Department shall provide most major equipment required, such as surgical tables and sterilizers, and make them available for use by the contractor. Dr. Jones will be required to purchase all additional equipment and all medical supplies necessary to provide services.
Well, well, LAAS also provides the major equipment also.
Payments to CityIn consideration for the use of City property and equipment, Dr. Jones shall reimburse the Cityْs Animal Sterilization Fund for its costs and expenses quarterly as follows: a seven percent (7%) discount below pre-set base prices on all spay/neuter services billed to the Department; a payment to the Department of fifty percent (50%) of net profits from Wellness (vaccine) clinics up to $15,000 per year; and a payment to the Department of ten percent (10%) of other proposed veterinary services to be provided to the public by this clinic.
What the City gets out of this contract:A 7% discount on all spay/neuters for the City. 7%!!! He will also give $15,000 to the City out of shot clinic profits.
Cost of OperationsThe cost of setting up, staffing, maintaining, and performing related services under the Agreement shall be the responsibility of Dr. Jones. No extra charges shall be paid by the Department or the pet owner for dog, cat, and rabbit spay, and neuter surgery beyond those stated in the Agreement.UtilitiesThe City shall provide electricity, water, heating and air conditioning, and maintain the delivery systems thereof. Dr. Jones will be responsible for all additional utilities, including telephone service and data.
Dr. Jones has to pay for his own phone, but power, heating and water are paid for by the City.
Faithful Performance BondA Faithful Performance Bond shall be required of Dr. Jones prior to starting operations, for an amount of $36,600.00, to guarantee faithful performance of all work, within the time period prescribed, in a manner satisfactory to the City.EVALUATION:Dr. Jones exceeds the minimum experience in spay/neuter programs required in the RFP, having been practicing veterinary medicine for the past six years. He has provided such services within the City of Los Angeles, operating a veterinary clinic in Pacoima since 2002, during which time he provided spay/neuter services to the Department. As Dr. Jones proposed to move his staff and equipment from his current location to the South Los Angeles clinic, start-up operating costs will be minimized, which will allow him to focus his resources on continuing service levels and not on significant start-up costs.Dr. Jones proposed a seven percent (7%) discount below pre-set base prices on all spay/neuter services billed to the Department; a payment to the Department of fifty percent (50%) of net profits from Wellness (vaccine) clinics up to $15,000 per year; and a payment to the Department of ten percent (10%) of other proposed veterinary services to be provided by this clinic to the public.
The City gets 10% of Jones net profit of services offered to the public OUT OF CITY FACILITIES!! He is bringing his private practice from Pacoima.
The review of Jonesْ proposal, his interview, and confirmation of his credentials indicated sufficient qualifications and experience to operate the clinic as proposed. The evaluation of his proposal did not lend itself to use of a point system as there were no other competing proposals received in response to the RFP.It is hard to believe that with this cushy agreement, there were no other bids.FISCAL IMPACT:There is no impact to the General Fund. Funds will be used from Fund 543, Spay and Neuter Trust Fund; Fund 842, Animal Sterilization Trust Fund; and Fund 841, Veterinary Medical Trust Fund, in accordance with trust fund limitations and as they would be paid to an outside veterinarian. Due to savings of 7% on sterilizations, funds will be available to accomplish more surgeries. Revenue from work for the public will also supplement the funding for additional spay and neutering.That is, what the City gets ouit of all this is a 7% discount on spay/neuter for LAAS animals, and 10% of his net private practice income.What this particular announcement does not say is that the City is also paying him $320,000 per year for a 7% discount on LAAS spay/neuters.
The Mysterious Disappearing Neonates
.
Two years ago according to LAAS stats, for May and June the number of neonatal puppies and kittens impounded was 2220. This year it was 1550. That is a decrease of 670 animals or 31%.
This is extraordinary and especially surprising for two reasons:
In the ten months leading up to these extraordinary two months, LAAS actually took in 200 animals more than the year before. Then, suddenly, in a two month period, they took in almost 700 less!
This by itself would be extraordinary. But there is more.
A quick run through of all five years of unweaned dog and cat figures shows there has never been two contiguous months with such a large drop in intakes. Never. Every now and again there would be a drop of 200 or so for isolated months compared to the year before, but never two months together at a rate of 335 a month.
Now Ed is claiming the June drop was the result of the previous year's spay/neuter efforst by LAAS. This is the most ridiculous nonsense I ever heard. Why did the reduction start only in April throguh June? Why wasn't Jan-March lower? Impounds were actually 200 more than 2006 before going into these Bermuda Triangle months when the neonates just disappeared.
Where did they go?
In addition, in March-June of this year, 271 neonates just disappeared! They were impounded, but there is no statistic as to what happened to them. They were not fostered, adopted, or euthanized. They just disappeared. They checked in but they didn't check out. Probably Ed reclassified them as cats, and cat euthanasia did not drop much.
Between these two extraordinary, unexplained statistics, we get an even more unexplainable statistic: unweaned euthanasia is down nearly a thousand (956) for just the past two months, which makes just about a thousand fewer euths than last year. These two months changed everything.
Now I have been told that animals are not being turned away. But, come on, 670 fewer than last year? AND, nearly 300 are unaccounted for without explanation.
This is why Boks transparency is transparent no more. No one can trust anything that comes out of the department.
By the way, do you think Eric Jones, DVM is Boks’ cousin? Maybe Villaraigosa's? Didn't Schwartzenegger give AV's sister a cushy job? Maybe Eric is related to Blackman, who the more we know about him, the sleasier he seems to get.
But this makes me think. Maybe Chick ought to look into the Eric Jones RFP process, his being the only bid to get a free $320,000+ free rent+ free equipment + free utilities, and the analysis done by whoever did it in the City and gave this whopper deal to Jones. Why is it only Jones put in a bid, and a bid that did only him good, certainly not LAAS or the City?
.
Two years ago according to LAAS stats, for May and June the number of neonatal puppies and kittens impounded was 2220. This year it was 1550. That is a decrease of 670 animals or 31%.
This is extraordinary and especially surprising for two reasons:
In the ten months leading up to these extraordinary two months, LAAS actually took in 200 animals more than the year before. Then, suddenly, in a two month period, they took in almost 700 less!
This by itself would be extraordinary. But there is more.
A quick run through of all five years of unweaned dog and cat figures shows there has never been two contiguous months with such a large drop in intakes. Never. Every now and again there would be a drop of 200 or so for isolated months compared to the year before, but never two months together at a rate of 335 a month.
Now Ed is claiming the June drop was the result of the previous year's spay/neuter efforst by LAAS. This is the most ridiculous nonsense I ever heard. Why did the reduction start only in April throguh June? Why wasn't Jan-March lower? Impounds were actually 200 more than 2006 before going into these Bermuda Triangle months when the neonates just disappeared.
Where did they go?
In addition, in March-June of this year, 271 neonates just disappeared! They were impounded, but there is no statistic as to what happened to them. They were not fostered, adopted, or euthanized. They just disappeared. They checked in but they didn't check out. Probably Ed reclassified them as cats, and cat euthanasia did not drop much.
Between these two extraordinary, unexplained statistics, we get an even more unexplainable statistic: unweaned euthanasia is down nearly a thousand (956) for just the past two months, which makes just about a thousand fewer euths than last year. These two months changed everything.
Now I have been told that animals are not being turned away. But, come on, 670 fewer than last year? AND, nearly 300 are unaccounted for without explanation.
This is why Boks transparency is transparent no more. No one can trust anything that comes out of the department.
By the way, do you think Eric Jones, DVM is Boks’ cousin? Maybe Villaraigosa's? Didn't Schwartzenegger give AV's sister a cushy job? Maybe Eric is related to Blackman, who the more we know about him, the sleasier he seems to get.
But this makes me think. Maybe Chick ought to look into the Eric Jones RFP process, his being the only bid to get a free $320,000+ free rent+ free equipment + free utilities, and the analysis done by whoever did it in the City and gave this whopper deal to Jones. Why is it only Jones put in a bid, and a bid that did only him good, certainly not LAAS or the City?
.
Comment on the Sweetheart Deal with Jones
.
Comment on my Jones post below:
The City can't even hire vets for the shelters. How could they possibly recruit spayneuter vets? I believe they had hired a vet for the clinic a while back but he quit. Remember, they were going to open the SLA spayneuter clinic two years ago I think, but it never panned out.
Let's look at the math again. $320,000 for a vet and probably vet tech, receptionist to run the clinic. Vet $100,000, vet tech $48,000, receptionist $30,000. That's $180,000 just for salaries.
You still have to pay for supplies, phone, insurance... They could easily be at $250,000 for the Dept to run the clinic on their own. And what if the vet quits? The clinic shuts down. While I do think the vet is getting a great deal, this is probably the only way the dept can get the clinic up and running right now. Maybe in a few years they can renegotiate.
----------------------------
What the commenter is not saying, is that the City does not even get ONE free spay/neuter out of this deal even after paying him a third of a million dollars a year. They have set Jones up in a private practice on City property and he charges the City like any other private client. Also, the contract says Jones can come or go any time he wants. There is nothing said about how many spay/neuters he is to do a year, either for the public or LAAS, or limitations placed on non-spay/neuter services.
THIS IS NOT A SITUATION THAT BENEFITS THE TAXPAYING PUBLIC OR LAAS IN ANY WAY OTHER THAT TO ALLOW BOKS TO SAY HE GOT A SPAY/NEUTER CLINIC RUNNING. THE ONLY BENEFIT LAAS GETS IS A 7% REDUCTION IN SPAY/NEUTER CHARGES, WHICH MAY BE ENOUGH TO PAY FOR AN EXTRA 400 SPAY/NEUTERS A YEAR AFTER PAYING FULL FEE ON 5,000. MAYBE. THIS IS PURE BOKS PR.
The $320,000 could buy 5,000 free surgeries for the public with $60 certificates; some vets take them as full fee (Noreda in Northridge and the Value Vets). As it is, Jones get the $320,000 and we, and the public, pay him almost full fee for spay neuters in addition. I wonder if Jones wants to go public; I'd like to buy stock in his government subsidized private practice.
.
Comment on my Jones post below:
The City can't even hire vets for the shelters. How could they possibly recruit spayneuter vets? I believe they had hired a vet for the clinic a while back but he quit. Remember, they were going to open the SLA spayneuter clinic two years ago I think, but it never panned out.
Let's look at the math again. $320,000 for a vet and probably vet tech, receptionist to run the clinic. Vet $100,000, vet tech $48,000, receptionist $30,000. That's $180,000 just for salaries.
You still have to pay for supplies, phone, insurance... They could easily be at $250,000 for the Dept to run the clinic on their own. And what if the vet quits? The clinic shuts down. While I do think the vet is getting a great deal, this is probably the only way the dept can get the clinic up and running right now. Maybe in a few years they can renegotiate.
----------------------------
What the commenter is not saying, is that the City does not even get ONE free spay/neuter out of this deal even after paying him a third of a million dollars a year. They have set Jones up in a private practice on City property and he charges the City like any other private client. Also, the contract says Jones can come or go any time he wants. There is nothing said about how many spay/neuters he is to do a year, either for the public or LAAS, or limitations placed on non-spay/neuter services.
THIS IS NOT A SITUATION THAT BENEFITS THE TAXPAYING PUBLIC OR LAAS IN ANY WAY OTHER THAT TO ALLOW BOKS TO SAY HE GOT A SPAY/NEUTER CLINIC RUNNING. THE ONLY BENEFIT LAAS GETS IS A 7% REDUCTION IN SPAY/NEUTER CHARGES, WHICH MAY BE ENOUGH TO PAY FOR AN EXTRA 400 SPAY/NEUTERS A YEAR AFTER PAYING FULL FEE ON 5,000. MAYBE. THIS IS PURE BOKS PR.
The $320,000 could buy 5,000 free surgeries for the public with $60 certificates; some vets take them as full fee (Noreda in Northridge and the Value Vets). As it is, Jones get the $320,000 and we, and the public, pay him almost full fee for spay neuters in addition. I wonder if Jones wants to go public; I'd like to buy stock in his government subsidized private practice.
.
Don't Become Cynical of No-Kill
.
Many of you have grown cynical about "No Kill."
But what Ed has done here, in NYC and in Maricopa is a perversion of no-kill.
But I don't think the concept is worthless no matter what that the Naysayers or Merritt from Animal People say.
When a shelter system the size of SF can have an 80% save rate and the SF/SPCA a 93% save rate, for a combined 87%, I'd say that with proper facilities, a good enough budget, employees who care and a shelter director dedicated to community outreach and building a volunteer base, a kill rate of 20% is attainable in even the largest shelter system. Of course, this is just my opinion.
When the smaller systems are getting a 93% save rate in just a few months, it means great changes can be made nearly overnight with proper and committed management and a manageable sized shelter system.
Philly, I think is a good test case as to what can be done with such a small shelter (120 dogs, 180 cats) in a middle-sized shelter system. I will make an arrangement with them to track their progress. They will be a true test case.
I doubt they will get to be No-Kill within another year, but I bet they make it to 75% save for cats by next year. If they had three times the space and three times the budget, they could do a lot better. They are unionized but do not have civil service, making firing easier. But Ed didn't have civil service in NYC either.
As someone pointed out, there are probably between 400-700,000 housed cats in LA and about the same number of dogs.
Figuring an average lifespan for cats of 10 years (14 if they were just indoor), the death rate would create a yearly replacement market for an estimated 60,000 cats and maybe 60,000 dogs. These are just replacement openings, but there is always a growing population that can absorb more.
If we take SF's 80% save for a Good-Enough No-Kill, we'd have to find homes for 36,000 dogs and cats, less than 1/3 of the openings. We'll give the benefit of the doubt that 20% are untreatable, meaning too sick, injured or aggressive to be adopted. I think this is attainable within a 2-3 year time frame even if spay/neuter does not decrease impounds.
I think the concept of No-Kill and the goal of no-kill are extraordinarily important. It is already being implemented all over the country in smaller shelters, SF seems to be closing in on Good Enough No-Kill, and Philly is a test case of what can be done within a three year time span.
.
Many of you have grown cynical about "No Kill."
But what Ed has done here, in NYC and in Maricopa is a perversion of no-kill.
But I don't think the concept is worthless no matter what that the Naysayers or Merritt from Animal People say.
When a shelter system the size of SF can have an 80% save rate and the SF/SPCA a 93% save rate, for a combined 87%, I'd say that with proper facilities, a good enough budget, employees who care and a shelter director dedicated to community outreach and building a volunteer base, a kill rate of 20% is attainable in even the largest shelter system. Of course, this is just my opinion.
When the smaller systems are getting a 93% save rate in just a few months, it means great changes can be made nearly overnight with proper and committed management and a manageable sized shelter system.
Philly, I think is a good test case as to what can be done with such a small shelter (120 dogs, 180 cats) in a middle-sized shelter system. I will make an arrangement with them to track their progress. They will be a true test case.
I doubt they will get to be No-Kill within another year, but I bet they make it to 75% save for cats by next year. If they had three times the space and three times the budget, they could do a lot better. They are unionized but do not have civil service, making firing easier. But Ed didn't have civil service in NYC either.
As someone pointed out, there are probably between 400-700,000 housed cats in LA and about the same number of dogs.
Figuring an average lifespan for cats of 10 years (14 if they were just indoor), the death rate would create a yearly replacement market for an estimated 60,000 cats and maybe 60,000 dogs. These are just replacement openings, but there is always a growing population that can absorb more.
If we take SF's 80% save for a Good-Enough No-Kill, we'd have to find homes for 36,000 dogs and cats, less than 1/3 of the openings. We'll give the benefit of the doubt that 20% are untreatable, meaning too sick, injured or aggressive to be adopted. I think this is attainable within a 2-3 year time frame even if spay/neuter does not decrease impounds.
I think the concept of No-Kill and the goal of no-kill are extraordinarily important. It is already being implemented all over the country in smaller shelters, SF seems to be closing in on Good Enough No-Kill, and Philly is a test case of what can be done within a three year time span.
.
Comment on Jones Sweetheart Deal With LAAS
.
No one seems to care about Jones sweetheart deal with LAAS. Almost no comments. Finally I got one from a former animal shelter director:
Ed,
I cannot believe this! The City could hire vets to perform the work for less. This is really wierd and unusual. Did LAAS check with SCVMA for referals and references?
The moving from Pacima to an LAAS's shelter with equipment is beyond belief. The cost of running a clinic is unbelieveable.
------------------
Think of it. The City is paying Jones $320,000 a year for no free say neuters and to support Jone's private practice, for which the City gets 10% of the net income. Of course net may be closer to gross than in most practices, as Jones is not paying rent or utilities.
Certainly Ed could buy two qualified vets who would jump at the chance to make $120,000 a year and two cheap techs. AND, the spay/neuters would be FREE.
.
No one seems to care about Jones sweetheart deal with LAAS. Almost no comments. Finally I got one from a former animal shelter director:
Ed,
I cannot believe this! The City could hire vets to perform the work for less. This is really wierd and unusual. Did LAAS check with SCVMA for referals and references?
The moving from Pacima to an LAAS's shelter with equipment is beyond belief. The cost of running a clinic is unbelieveable.
------------------
Think of it. The City is paying Jones $320,000 a year for no free say neuters and to support Jone's private practice, for which the City gets 10% of the net income. Of course net may be closer to gross than in most practices, as Jones is not paying rent or utilities.
Certainly Ed could buy two qualified vets who would jump at the chance to make $120,000 a year and two cheap techs. AND, the spay/neuters would be FREE.
.
Naysayers Bark Up the Wrong Tree
.
I have two Naysayers who make regular “contributions” to this blog. One sends me every negative article about any Winograd-related shelter that has announced any degree of success. The other Naysayer is frankly insane. If I don’t post her comments, mainly because she doesn’t know how to write or her arguments do not make sense, she (or he) begins to send me comments like, “Ed, you are certifiable,” or “You need help,” or the like. Naturally, this is not a way of getting on my good side. I wish “Cheap Shot” would let me know who she (or he) is so I can send her equally ugly remarks.
However, this morning, Naysayer #1 sent me an article she thought was negative about the Philadelphia shelter. Unfortunately, the article did not present the full stats and I will ask Tara or Susan for them.
For the past month, Philly killed 400 kittens, adopted 150 and fostered 700. Naysayer figured this was indictment enough of all Winograd projects and the concept of no kill altogether.
But let’s look at the record.
Philly has 46 employees to LAAS 350. Philly has a budget under $4,000,000 while LAAS has $25,000,000.
The current LAAS animal statistics are too bizarre to take seriously, such as May-June when 291 neonates were unaccounted for. So I will use the July figures for 2006 before Ed’s lying got out of control.
LAS Neonatal numbers, July 2006:
Adopted------------26
New Hope----------71
Fostered------------23
Killed--------------857
Impounded------1,088
So Philly, with a workforce 1/8 the size of LAAS, adopted over 50% more of kittens in raw numbers. It fostered 2,800% more. Of course, the numbers from Philly are for kittens I guess, not neonates, and the fosters probably are including all kittens and all cats, not just neonates. (and maybe fostered dogs too?)
But if we include all cats for LAAS we get:
Adopted-------500
New Hope----150
Fostered------- 24
Killed---------1,171
Impounded--2,643
As I said, we do not have comparable numbers. The ones from Philly do not discriminate neonates from kittens, and neither do the LAAS numbers.
But note that the LAAS fosters are a tiny fraction of Philly’s meaning they have a powerful force of volunteers.
Look Naysayers, please stick it; you don’t know what you are talking about. LAAS killed 3 times as many at Philly and fostered 1/28th.
Adoptions appear comparable though except after Philly's 2 for 1 sale, when they adopt out 4 months worth of cats in 4 days.
.
I have two Naysayers who make regular “contributions” to this blog. One sends me every negative article about any Winograd-related shelter that has announced any degree of success. The other Naysayer is frankly insane. If I don’t post her comments, mainly because she doesn’t know how to write or her arguments do not make sense, she (or he) begins to send me comments like, “Ed, you are certifiable,” or “You need help,” or the like. Naturally, this is not a way of getting on my good side. I wish “Cheap Shot” would let me know who she (or he) is so I can send her equally ugly remarks.
However, this morning, Naysayer #1 sent me an article she thought was negative about the Philadelphia shelter. Unfortunately, the article did not present the full stats and I will ask Tara or Susan for them.
For the past month, Philly killed 400 kittens, adopted 150 and fostered 700. Naysayer figured this was indictment enough of all Winograd projects and the concept of no kill altogether.
But let’s look at the record.
Philly has 46 employees to LAAS 350. Philly has a budget under $4,000,000 while LAAS has $25,000,000.
The current LAAS animal statistics are too bizarre to take seriously, such as May-June when 291 neonates were unaccounted for. So I will use the July figures for 2006 before Ed’s lying got out of control.
LAS Neonatal numbers, July 2006:
Adopted------------26
New Hope----------71
Fostered------------23
Killed--------------857
Impounded------1,088
So Philly, with a workforce 1/8 the size of LAAS, adopted over 50% more of kittens in raw numbers. It fostered 2,800% more. Of course, the numbers from Philly are for kittens I guess, not neonates, and the fosters probably are including all kittens and all cats, not just neonates. (and maybe fostered dogs too?)
But if we include all cats for LAAS we get:
Adopted-------500
New Hope----150
Fostered------- 24
Killed---------1,171
Impounded--2,643
As I said, we do not have comparable numbers. The ones from Philly do not discriminate neonates from kittens, and neither do the LAAS numbers.
But note that the LAAS fosters are a tiny fraction of Philly’s meaning they have a powerful force of volunteers.
Look Naysayers, please stick it; you don’t know what you are talking about. LAAS killed 3 times as many at Philly and fostered 1/28th.
Adoptions appear comparable though except after Philly's 2 for 1 sale, when they adopt out 4 months worth of cats in 4 days.
.
Boks Says Muzika Kills
.
Boks and Bickhart are continuing to say about critics as they did last year: ADL and other critics are killing the animals through their criticism. I latched onto that litany myself a year ago and attacked Ed's critics.
But I cannot understand how criticism hurts the department's (Ed's) ability to place animals. As a matter of fact, LAAS showed NO IMPROVEMENT in percentages or number of animals killed or saved until a few of us began to attack Ed's lousy performance as opposed to attacking his faulted character.
April, May and June numbers are better this year, but as I stated in the previous post, this is best explained by LAAS doing less and turning animals away.
I challenge Ed and Jim to tell me, the retired other blogger, Brad Jensen, Mike Bell, Dan Guss and a few others, how our criticism is killing animals and how everything would work out much better if we just smiled, patted Ed on the back, and said good job.
Couldn't Bush say the same thing (Oh, I forgot, he is), that it is criticism of his policies that is aiding the terrorists and killing our troops?
Can Ed blame Guss for LAAS not getting vets because Guss complains about not getting vets? Is Boks going to get more vets because no one complains about having enough vets. Does this mean if you don't hear about a problem it will fix itself in LAAS?
Ed and Jim, and the other Jim, quit blaming others for your inability to make LAAS work.
.
Boks and Bickhart are continuing to say about critics as they did last year: ADL and other critics are killing the animals through their criticism. I latched onto that litany myself a year ago and attacked Ed's critics.
But I cannot understand how criticism hurts the department's (Ed's) ability to place animals. As a matter of fact, LAAS showed NO IMPROVEMENT in percentages or number of animals killed or saved until a few of us began to attack Ed's lousy performance as opposed to attacking his faulted character.
April, May and June numbers are better this year, but as I stated in the previous post, this is best explained by LAAS doing less and turning animals away.
I challenge Ed and Jim to tell me, the retired other blogger, Brad Jensen, Mike Bell, Dan Guss and a few others, how our criticism is killing animals and how everything would work out much better if we just smiled, patted Ed on the back, and said good job.
Couldn't Bush say the same thing (Oh, I forgot, he is), that it is criticism of his policies that is aiding the terrorists and killing our troops?
Can Ed blame Guss for LAAS not getting vets because Guss complains about not getting vets? Is Boks going to get more vets because no one complains about having enough vets. Does this mean if you don't hear about a problem it will fix itself in LAAS?
Ed and Jim, and the other Jim, quit blaming others for your inability to make LAAS work.
.
Boks Failure to Do Job is Paying Off in Terms of Fewer Unweaned Animals Killed
.
Boks failure to do his job of impounding and placing unweaned cats and dogs is paying off in terms of fewer animals killed. Of course, they may be dying on the streets now. We no longer have any accountability.
THE JUNE STATS FOR UNWEANED KITTENS AND PUPPIES HAVE NOT BEEN PUBLISHED YET ON THE LAAS WEBSITE. THE REASON IS THAT IT MAKES VERY CLEAR THAT MOST OF THE IMPROVEMENT IN DIMINISHED ANIMALS KILLED IS DUE TO TURNING AWAY ANIMALS, NOT INCREASED ADOPTIONS, NEW HOPE, FOSTER, ETC. THESE PLAY A MINOR ROLE.
Euth was down 1,093 for April-June of this year for unweaned cats and dogs (dogs are always a very small number compared to cats), but impounds from refusing animals were down 674. AND, 291 of the impounded kittens in May/June were never accounted for in the statistical outcomes. They check in, but they don't check out. 291 and 674 is 965 which explains almost all of the decreased killing of neonatals.
Adoptions were up 136 from a year ago, but down 1 from two years ago. LAAS did a poor job last year under his reign.
New Hope was down 76 from a year ago and 285 from 2 years ago. Guess New Hopes don't like working with the new LAAS.
The one bright spot is fosters, which are up 235 form a year ago and 257 from 2 years ago. For this, a yea.
LAAS is killing 1,400 fewer neonates than 2 years ago, but intake is also down 1,267 animals, explaining almost all of the fewer animals killed.
Moral of the story: the more animals turned away, the fewer euthanized. Of course, as I said before, I agree with this policy even though we don't know how many lives it saves or not, and it is a cheap way of improving Boks numbers: just don't do your job and then brag about how little you did.
.
Boks failure to do his job of impounding and placing unweaned cats and dogs is paying off in terms of fewer animals killed. Of course, they may be dying on the streets now. We no longer have any accountability.
THE JUNE STATS FOR UNWEANED KITTENS AND PUPPIES HAVE NOT BEEN PUBLISHED YET ON THE LAAS WEBSITE. THE REASON IS THAT IT MAKES VERY CLEAR THAT MOST OF THE IMPROVEMENT IN DIMINISHED ANIMALS KILLED IS DUE TO TURNING AWAY ANIMALS, NOT INCREASED ADOPTIONS, NEW HOPE, FOSTER, ETC. THESE PLAY A MINOR ROLE.
Euth was down 1,093 for April-June of this year for unweaned cats and dogs (dogs are always a very small number compared to cats), but impounds from refusing animals were down 674. AND, 291 of the impounded kittens in May/June were never accounted for in the statistical outcomes. They check in, but they don't check out. 291 and 674 is 965 which explains almost all of the decreased killing of neonatals.
Adoptions were up 136 from a year ago, but down 1 from two years ago. LAAS did a poor job last year under his reign.
New Hope was down 76 from a year ago and 285 from 2 years ago. Guess New Hopes don't like working with the new LAAS.
The one bright spot is fosters, which are up 235 form a year ago and 257 from 2 years ago. For this, a yea.
LAAS is killing 1,400 fewer neonates than 2 years ago, but intake is also down 1,267 animals, explaining almost all of the fewer animals killed.
Moral of the story: the more animals turned away, the fewer euthanized. Of course, as I said before, I agree with this policy even though we don't know how many lives it saves or not, and it is a cheap way of improving Boks numbers: just don't do your job and then brag about how little you did.
.
Comment Left re Vet-Gate-My rebuttal
.
A comment that came in:
The city already allocated those funds. If they don't use them for spay neuter, they go back to the general city fund. It would be more effective to give more coupons but not that many vets will take them. And, the person still has to pay for blood tests, vaccinations before they will do surgery. The $30 and $60 coupons only help a little in some cases. While it wasn't the best deal for the city, it's better than nothing and the money is basically free to the department.
I don't get it. This person thinks we get a deal for setting this guy up in private practice in a LAAS, with free rent, free equipment, free utilities, and he doesn't have to do even one free spay/neuter for the city, and that's supposed to be a bargain????
If he does 1000 spay/neuters for LAAS and charges $100 each, the City pays him an additional $100,000 less a $7,000 dollar discount? For this $7,000 discount we pay $320,000 contract amount plus $93,000 for LAAS spay/neuters?
I don't get how anyone thinks this is fair for the city at all.
The objection is that the $30-$60 certificates do not cover the entire price of the spay/neuter. That's true, but blood tests for surgery are not need if the cat is young and most will be kittens. Many vets accept the $60 certificate as full payment (Noreda Clinic, Value Vet), and $320,000 would buy 10,000 certificates.
As it is, the $320,000 does not buy even one free spay/neuter for LAAS. Am I missing something? This guy is getting a free lunch, free dinner and free beakfast, plus snacks.
.
.
A comment that came in:
The city already allocated those funds. If they don't use them for spay neuter, they go back to the general city fund. It would be more effective to give more coupons but not that many vets will take them. And, the person still has to pay for blood tests, vaccinations before they will do surgery. The $30 and $60 coupons only help a little in some cases. While it wasn't the best deal for the city, it's better than nothing and the money is basically free to the department.
I don't get it. This person thinks we get a deal for setting this guy up in private practice in a LAAS, with free rent, free equipment, free utilities, and he doesn't have to do even one free spay/neuter for the city, and that's supposed to be a bargain????
If he does 1000 spay/neuters for LAAS and charges $100 each, the City pays him an additional $100,000 less a $7,000 dollar discount? For this $7,000 discount we pay $320,000 contract amount plus $93,000 for LAAS spay/neuters?
I don't get how anyone thinks this is fair for the city at all.
The objection is that the $30-$60 certificates do not cover the entire price of the spay/neuter. That's true, but blood tests for surgery are not need if the cat is young and most will be kittens. Many vets accept the $60 certificate as full payment (Noreda Clinic, Value Vet), and $320,000 would buy 10,000 certificates.
As it is, the $320,000 does not buy even one free spay/neuter for LAAS. Am I missing something? This guy is getting a free lunch, free dinner and free beakfast, plus snacks.
.
.
Comments on Vet-Gate
.
An insider comment was left below:
Boks said he'd get the clinics up and running. Turns out the spay neuter clinics in the new shelters won't be done until next year. He wants to make it seem like he's doing something so he approves any offer. There was only one person interested in this RFP, Dr. Eric Jones. He could name his price, and he did.
Another way to look at it I guess is to figure out how much money it would cost for the city to run such a clinic on their own. $95,000 for a vet, $40,000 for a vet tech, insurance, medical supplies, phones, receptionist... Maybe it is cheaper this way. I have no idea. I do think that it's probably faster to subcontract it out like this. I think they just wanted any contract approved, just like with the spay neuter clinic in NC. They just gave it to that feral cat group. Better to have someone using that clinic rather than no one.
All this may be true, but the City is not getting value received.Most vets have to pay rent, for equipment and utilities, Jones gets those paid by the City.
Jones is running a private practice, not a spay/neuter services for the City. LAAS may be a prime customer, but it is on a private practice basis. If Jones performed 5,000 spay/neuters for the City for free, it might make sense if he provides spay/neuter, shot clinics and general vet service for the public ALSO.
But being in a City shelter, Jones has a built in guaranteed clientele with no risk of failure and $320,000 a year to pay his expenses in addition to any money he makes.
.
An insider comment was left below:
Boks said he'd get the clinics up and running. Turns out the spay neuter clinics in the new shelters won't be done until next year. He wants to make it seem like he's doing something so he approves any offer. There was only one person interested in this RFP, Dr. Eric Jones. He could name his price, and he did.
Another way to look at it I guess is to figure out how much money it would cost for the city to run such a clinic on their own. $95,000 for a vet, $40,000 for a vet tech, insurance, medical supplies, phones, receptionist... Maybe it is cheaper this way. I have no idea. I do think that it's probably faster to subcontract it out like this. I think they just wanted any contract approved, just like with the spay neuter clinic in NC. They just gave it to that feral cat group. Better to have someone using that clinic rather than no one.
All this may be true, but the City is not getting value received.Most vets have to pay rent, for equipment and utilities, Jones gets those paid by the City.
Jones is running a private practice, not a spay/neuter services for the City. LAAS may be a prime customer, but it is on a private practice basis. If Jones performed 5,000 spay/neuters for the City for free, it might make sense if he provides spay/neuter, shot clinics and general vet service for the public ALSO.
But being in a City shelter, Jones has a built in guaranteed clientele with no risk of failure and $320,000 a year to pay his expenses in addition to any money he makes.
.
Eric Jones, Boks' Vetgate?
.
Boks said he'd get the spay/neuter clinics up and running. He didn't say that it would be of little or no benefit to the City, and that he'd have to pay the vet $320,000 a year for a 7% discount on LAAS spay/neuters.
He didn't say the vet would also be allowed to run a private practice on City property, using City supplied equipment with City paid utilities, all for a 7% discount on LAAS spay/neuters.
Eric Jones, DVM will also have a private shot clinic practice, for which he gives the City 50% up to $15,000 a year.
If his private practice makes a few hundred thousand net, he has to pay the City 10%.
Why is the City paying the expenses to support a private practice on City property? How did Boks ram this through? What is Boks association with Jones?
I am really, really shocked by this apparent corruption.
.
Boks said he'd get the spay/neuter clinics up and running. He didn't say that it would be of little or no benefit to the City, and that he'd have to pay the vet $320,000 a year for a 7% discount on LAAS spay/neuters.
He didn't say the vet would also be allowed to run a private practice on City property, using City supplied equipment with City paid utilities, all for a 7% discount on LAAS spay/neuters.
Eric Jones, DVM will also have a private shot clinic practice, for which he gives the City 50% up to $15,000 a year.
If his private practice makes a few hundred thousand net, he has to pay the City 10%.
Why is the City paying the expenses to support a private practice on City property? How did Boks ram this through? What is Boks association with Jones?
I am really, really shocked by this apparent corruption.
.
Eric Jones, DVM Boondoggle
.
Here is a rip off you seldom see.
There was a motion before Council this past Friday to authorize a contract to Eric Jones DVM to pay him $1,600,000 for 5 years to provide spay neuter services to LAAS and the community as part of a private practice. It passed.
The City gives Jones free rent, free utilities, provides the major equipment so that he can move his private practice from Pacoima to the SLA shelter.
He can run a private practice out of the shelter, offering services to the public.
What does the City get?
It gets a 7% discount on spay/neuters he does on shelter animals, up to $15,000 from a shot clinc, and 10% of Jones private practice net income.
Forgot. The City also gives him $1,600,000.
From Council Agenda notes and minutes of Boks message to the Commission.
From my Blog (http://www.imalwatch.blogspot.com/):
LAAS/Jones sweetheart deal; City to pay Jones $320,000 to move his private practice from Pacoima to the SLA shelter to run a spay neuter clinic/ So, whatْs wrong?
Jones only gives the City a 7% discount for spay/neuters for LAAS!!
Jones gets free utilities.
Jones gets most of the major equipment needed for the clinic from the City.
Jones can run a private practice out of SLA and he gives 10% of the net to the City.
Jones give the City up to $15,000 a year out of shot clinics.
AND , the City pays him $1,600,000 over 5 years with an extra four years of yearly options.
From Commission minutes; my comments are in blue.
Transmittal from the Mayor of a City Administrative Officer0150-08240-0000 report, dated June 14, 2007, relative to a contractbetween the Department of animal Services and Dr. Eric D. Jones, DVM toprovide animal spay/neuter surgeries at the South Los Angeles Spay andNeuter Clinic, for a term of five years, with up to four one-yearrenewal options, at an estimated $1.6 million over the five year period.Date Received
This RFP and subsequent recommendation of award of the Agreement is an important early step before the Departmentْs expansion of its animal shelter and care facilities, which will feature fully-equipped spay/neuter veterinary clinics, and therefore will enhance the Cityْs continuing efforts to spay/neuter the animal population.
What is does not say here is that LAAS is only getting a 7% discount on spay neuters on LAAS animals.
With the South Los Angeles clinic in the lead, these other five new clinics will provide spay and neuter services for shelter dogs and cats, feral cats as part of a sterilization program, and rabbits; services may also be provided to the public who may bring in their pets for sterilization and related medical assistance. These services are key to the Departmentْs goal of becoming the largest City in the United States with a successful ôNo-Kill¤ policy.
Yes, but letْs look at the agreement. Jones only gives the city a 7% discount on spay/neutering of LAAS animals!!! This is astounding. The public gets a 7% discount!! AND, get this, he can also conduct a private practice but must keep his fees at fair market rates and, he only has to give the City 10% of his private practice net income.
Under the proposed Agreement, which is based substantially on the RFP, Dr. Jones will perform spay/neuter surgeries on dogs, cats, and rabbits, and other ancillary medical procedures associated with the surgical sterilization, in conformance with all surgical standards as dictated by the California Veterinary Medical Practice Act. Dr. Jones shall also provide related veterinary services such as cursory pre-surgical physical examinations on all surgical candidates; Wellness Clinics (vaccine clinics); emergency medical treatments; micro-chipping all dogs, cats, and rabbits that are adopted from the Shelters if mutually agreed upon by Dr. Jones, the adopter, or requested by the Department; post-treatment care; and other services.
Notice, this long winded paragraph says nothing about provided exclusive no-cost services for LAAS animals. We are paying him $1,600,000 over 5 years for him to run his own private practice on the Cityْs dime. He gives LAAS a 7% discount. The City pays his utilities.
SIGNIFICANT AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
Prices of Services
Charges for spay/ neuter services are as set by the Board; prices of other services to the public shall be subject to Department disapproval, but are not to exceed prevailing market prices in the immediate area.
(That is, he can proved services to the public as a private practitioner.)
Equipment
The Department shall provide most major equipment required, such as surgical tables and sterilizers, and make them available for use by the contractor. Dr. Jones will be required to purchase all additional equipment and all medical supplies necessary to provide services.
Well, well, LAAS also provides the major equipment also.
Payments to City
In consideration for the use of City property and equipment, Dr. Jones shall reimburse the Cityْs Animal Sterilization Fund for its costs and expenses quarterly as follows: a seven percent (7%) discount below pre-set base prices on all spay/neuter services billed to the Department; a payment to the Department of fifty percent (50%) of net profits from Wellness (vaccine) clinics up to $15,000 per year; and a payment to the Department of ten percent (10%) of other proposed veterinary services to be provided to the public by this clinic.
What the City gets out of this contract:
A 7% discount on all spay/neuters for the City. 7%!!! He will also give $15,000 to the City out of shot clinic profits.
Cost of Operations
The cost of setting up, staffing, maintaining, and performing related services under the Agreement shall be the responsibility of Dr. Jones. No extra charges shall be paid by the Department or the pet owner for dog, cat, and rabbit spay, and neuter surgery beyond those stated in the Agreement.
Utilities
The City shall provide electricity, water, heating and air conditioning, and maintain the delivery systems thereof. Dr. Jones will be responsible for all additional utilities, including telephone service and data.
Dr. Jones has to pay for his own phone, but power, heating and water are paid for by the City.
Faithful Performance Bond
A Faithful Performance Bond shall be required of Dr. Jones prior to starting operations, for an amount of $36,600.00, to guarantee faithful performance of all work, within the time period prescribed, in a manner satisfactory to the City.
EVALUATION:
Dr. Jones exceeds the minimum experience in spay/neuter programs required in the RFP, having been practicing veterinary medicine for the past six years. He has provided such services within the City of Los Angeles, operating a veterinary clinic in Pacoima since 2002, during which time he provided spay/neuter services to the Department. As Dr. Jones proposed to move his staff and equipment from his current location to the South Los Angeles clinic, start-up operating costs will be minimized, which will allow him to focus his resources on continuing service levels and not on significant start-up costs.
Dr. Jones proposed a seven percent (7%) discount below pre-set base prices on all spay/neuter services billed to the Department; a payment to the Department of fifty percent (50%) of net profits from Wellness (vaccine) clinics up to $15,000 per year; and a payment to the Department of ten percent (10%) of other proposed veterinary services to be provided by this clinic to the public.
The City gets 10% of Jones net profit of services offered to the public OUT OF CITY FACILITIES!! He is bringing his private practice from Pacoima.
The review of Jonesْ proposal, his interview, and confirmation of his credentials indicated sufficient qualifications and experience to operate the clinic as proposed. The evaluation of his proposal did not lend itself to use of a point system as there were no other competing proposals received in response to the RFP.
It is hard to believe that with this cushy agreement, there were no other bids.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no impact to the General Fund. Funds will be used from Fund 543, Spay and Neuter Trust Fund; Fund 842, Animal Sterilization Trust Fund; and Fund 841, Veterinary Medical Trust Fund, in accordance with trust fund limitations and as they would be paid to an outside veterinarian. Due to savings of 7% on sterilizations, funds will be available to accomplish more surgeries. Revenue from work for the public will also supplement the funding for additional spay and neutering.
That is, what the City gets ouit of all this is a 7% discount on spay/neuter for LAAS animals, and 10% of his net private practice income.
What this particular announcement does not say is that the City is also paying him $320,000 per year for a 7% discount on LAAS spay/neuters.
Here is a rip off you seldom see.
There was a motion before Council this past Friday to authorize a contract to Eric Jones DVM to pay him $1,600,000 for 5 years to provide spay neuter services to LAAS and the community as part of a private practice. It passed.
The City gives Jones free rent, free utilities, provides the major equipment so that he can move his private practice from Pacoima to the SLA shelter.
He can run a private practice out of the shelter, offering services to the public.
What does the City get?
It gets a 7% discount on spay/neuters he does on shelter animals, up to $15,000 from a shot clinc, and 10% of Jones private practice net income.
Forgot. The City also gives him $1,600,000.
From Council Agenda notes and minutes of Boks message to the Commission.
From my Blog (http://www.imalwatch.blogspot.com/):
LAAS/Jones sweetheart deal; City to pay Jones $320,000 to move his private practice from Pacoima to the SLA shelter to run a spay neuter clinic/ So, whatْs wrong?
Jones only gives the City a 7% discount for spay/neuters for LAAS!!
Jones gets free utilities.
Jones gets most of the major equipment needed for the clinic from the City.
Jones can run a private practice out of SLA and he gives 10% of the net to the City.
Jones give the City up to $15,000 a year out of shot clinics.
AND , the City pays him $1,600,000 over 5 years with an extra four years of yearly options.
From Commission minutes; my comments are in blue.
Transmittal from the Mayor of a City Administrative Officer0150-08240-0000 report, dated June 14, 2007, relative to a contractbetween the Department of animal Services and Dr. Eric D. Jones, DVM toprovide animal spay/neuter surgeries at the South Los Angeles Spay andNeuter Clinic, for a term of five years, with up to four one-yearrenewal options, at an estimated $1.6 million over the five year period.Date Received
This RFP and subsequent recommendation of award of the Agreement is an important early step before the Departmentْs expansion of its animal shelter and care facilities, which will feature fully-equipped spay/neuter veterinary clinics, and therefore will enhance the Cityْs continuing efforts to spay/neuter the animal population.
What is does not say here is that LAAS is only getting a 7% discount on spay neuters on LAAS animals.
With the South Los Angeles clinic in the lead, these other five new clinics will provide spay and neuter services for shelter dogs and cats, feral cats as part of a sterilization program, and rabbits; services may also be provided to the public who may bring in their pets for sterilization and related medical assistance. These services are key to the Departmentْs goal of becoming the largest City in the United States with a successful ôNo-Kill¤ policy.
Yes, but letْs look at the agreement. Jones only gives the city a 7% discount on spay/neutering of LAAS animals!!! This is astounding. The public gets a 7% discount!! AND, get this, he can also conduct a private practice but must keep his fees at fair market rates and, he only has to give the City 10% of his private practice net income.
Under the proposed Agreement, which is based substantially on the RFP, Dr. Jones will perform spay/neuter surgeries on dogs, cats, and rabbits, and other ancillary medical procedures associated with the surgical sterilization, in conformance with all surgical standards as dictated by the California Veterinary Medical Practice Act. Dr. Jones shall also provide related veterinary services such as cursory pre-surgical physical examinations on all surgical candidates; Wellness Clinics (vaccine clinics); emergency medical treatments; micro-chipping all dogs, cats, and rabbits that are adopted from the Shelters if mutually agreed upon by Dr. Jones, the adopter, or requested by the Department; post-treatment care; and other services.
Notice, this long winded paragraph says nothing about provided exclusive no-cost services for LAAS animals. We are paying him $1,600,000 over 5 years for him to run his own private practice on the Cityْs dime. He gives LAAS a 7% discount. The City pays his utilities.
SIGNIFICANT AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
Prices of Services
Charges for spay/ neuter services are as set by the Board; prices of other services to the public shall be subject to Department disapproval, but are not to exceed prevailing market prices in the immediate area.
(That is, he can proved services to the public as a private practitioner.)
Equipment
The Department shall provide most major equipment required, such as surgical tables and sterilizers, and make them available for use by the contractor. Dr. Jones will be required to purchase all additional equipment and all medical supplies necessary to provide services.
Well, well, LAAS also provides the major equipment also.
Payments to City
In consideration for the use of City property and equipment, Dr. Jones shall reimburse the Cityْs Animal Sterilization Fund for its costs and expenses quarterly as follows: a seven percent (7%) discount below pre-set base prices on all spay/neuter services billed to the Department; a payment to the Department of fifty percent (50%) of net profits from Wellness (vaccine) clinics up to $15,000 per year; and a payment to the Department of ten percent (10%) of other proposed veterinary services to be provided to the public by this clinic.
What the City gets out of this contract:
A 7% discount on all spay/neuters for the City. 7%!!! He will also give $15,000 to the City out of shot clinic profits.
Cost of Operations
The cost of setting up, staffing, maintaining, and performing related services under the Agreement shall be the responsibility of Dr. Jones. No extra charges shall be paid by the Department or the pet owner for dog, cat, and rabbit spay, and neuter surgery beyond those stated in the Agreement.
Utilities
The City shall provide electricity, water, heating and air conditioning, and maintain the delivery systems thereof. Dr. Jones will be responsible for all additional utilities, including telephone service and data.
Dr. Jones has to pay for his own phone, but power, heating and water are paid for by the City.
Faithful Performance Bond
A Faithful Performance Bond shall be required of Dr. Jones prior to starting operations, for an amount of $36,600.00, to guarantee faithful performance of all work, within the time period prescribed, in a manner satisfactory to the City.
EVALUATION:
Dr. Jones exceeds the minimum experience in spay/neuter programs required in the RFP, having been practicing veterinary medicine for the past six years. He has provided such services within the City of Los Angeles, operating a veterinary clinic in Pacoima since 2002, during which time he provided spay/neuter services to the Department. As Dr. Jones proposed to move his staff and equipment from his current location to the South Los Angeles clinic, start-up operating costs will be minimized, which will allow him to focus his resources on continuing service levels and not on significant start-up costs.
Dr. Jones proposed a seven percent (7%) discount below pre-set base prices on all spay/neuter services billed to the Department; a payment to the Department of fifty percent (50%) of net profits from Wellness (vaccine) clinics up to $15,000 per year; and a payment to the Department of ten percent (10%) of other proposed veterinary services to be provided by this clinic to the public.
The City gets 10% of Jones net profit of services offered to the public OUT OF CITY FACILITIES!! He is bringing his private practice from Pacoima.
The review of Jonesْ proposal, his interview, and confirmation of his credentials indicated sufficient qualifications and experience to operate the clinic as proposed. The evaluation of his proposal did not lend itself to use of a point system as there were no other competing proposals received in response to the RFP.
It is hard to believe that with this cushy agreement, there were no other bids.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no impact to the General Fund. Funds will be used from Fund 543, Spay and Neuter Trust Fund; Fund 842, Animal Sterilization Trust Fund; and Fund 841, Veterinary Medical Trust Fund, in accordance with trust fund limitations and as they would be paid to an outside veterinarian. Due to savings of 7% on sterilizations, funds will be available to accomplish more surgeries. Revenue from work for the public will also supplement the funding for additional spay and neutering.
That is, what the City gets ouit of all this is a 7% discount on spay/neuter for LAAS animals, and 10% of his net private practice income.
What this particular announcement does not say is that the City is also paying him $320,000 per year for a 7% discount on LAAS spay/neuters.
The Eric Jones, DVM Boondoggle
.
No one has explained to me how the $1.6 million dollar, five year contract to Eric Jones, DVM to start a spay/neuter clinic on City property is of any benefit to the city.
I may be wrong, but from what I've read in the past of the proposal, the City supplies free office space, and probably utilities as I don't think that have separate utility metering for his clinic, and also pays him $1.8 million to do spay/neuter; yet, LAAS receives only a 15% discount over the prevailing spay/neuter fee for LAAS animals. Did I miss something?
Then, when the clinic is free and clear of debt, it begins paying 50% of the net proceeds to the City for rent.
Jones does provide all the clinic's equipment, but notning else except his overpriced labor.
Jones is free to provide as many private practice spay/neuters as he wants.
Can I buy shares into this boondoggle?
No one has explained to me how the $1.6 million dollar, five year contract to Eric Jones, DVM to start a spay/neuter clinic on City property is of any benefit to the city.
I may be wrong, but from what I've read in the past of the proposal, the City supplies free office space, and probably utilities as I don't think that have separate utility metering for his clinic, and also pays him $1.8 million to do spay/neuter; yet, LAAS receives only a 15% discount over the prevailing spay/neuter fee for LAAS animals. Did I miss something?
Then, when the clinic is free and clear of debt, it begins paying 50% of the net proceeds to the City for rent.
Jones does provide all the clinic's equipment, but notning else except his overpriced labor.
Jones is free to provide as many private practice spay/neuters as he wants.
Can I buy shares into this boondoggle?
Feedback on 2 for 1 from Philadelphia
.
In comments below, a critic opined that there was a 1/3 return rates on 2 for 1 sales of cats. The critic said this was hearsay from a volunteer, and the numbers could not be verified.
As I also stated below, the critics of these life-saving programs never have any hard evidence to back their speculations. They state their opinions are based on their own experience, and therefore true for everyone, everywhere, always.
Therefore I was delighted to receive the comment sent in by the CEO of the Philly shelter, Susan Cosby, who does provide statistical evidence to support the life-saving impact of 2 for 1's.
Susan Cosby said...
I am the Chief Operating Officer of the Philadelphia shelter mentioned and I would like to expand on this topic by noting that our "adopt one, get a second friend for free" program runs 365 days a year for cats and kittens of all ages. It is particularly beneficial for young, playful kittens who can expend energy playing with each other or adult cats who arrived together from a home and have a better chance of leaving together. Additionally, although it does not count cats who may have been adopted then surrendered to other shelters, our return rate averages less than 4%.
Go Susan!!!
In comments below, a critic opined that there was a 1/3 return rates on 2 for 1 sales of cats. The critic said this was hearsay from a volunteer, and the numbers could not be verified.
As I also stated below, the critics of these life-saving programs never have any hard evidence to back their speculations. They state their opinions are based on their own experience, and therefore true for everyone, everywhere, always.
Therefore I was delighted to receive the comment sent in by the CEO of the Philly shelter, Susan Cosby, who does provide statistical evidence to support the life-saving impact of 2 for 1's.
Susan Cosby said...
I am the Chief Operating Officer of the Philadelphia shelter mentioned and I would like to expand on this topic by noting that our "adopt one, get a second friend for free" program runs 365 days a year for cats and kittens of all ages. It is particularly beneficial for young, playful kittens who can expend energy playing with each other or adult cats who arrived together from a home and have a better chance of leaving together. Additionally, although it does not count cats who may have been adopted then surrendered to other shelters, our return rate averages less than 4%.
Go Susan!!!
Critics Continue to Attack the Seniors and 2 for 1 Sales
.
As below, one says in her experience, many seniors cannot take care of their cats and some develop horrendous medical conditions.
Another says 2 for 1 sales are followed by a 1/3 return rate.
Neither can present proof, especially about the seniors program; these critics never do. They say “In my experience,” as if that ended all discussion and argument.
One says she opts for quality of life over duration. She is also opting for exterminating life because the cat might fare poorly. Perhaps she will expand that argument to humans too. If a child is born into filthy conditions or in extreme poverty, they should be killed to save them from suffering.
My response to both criticisms is the same: so?
Do we deny a senior, or anyone, a cat based on income? Is the LAAS staff going to do an income evaluation on all potential adopters, senior or otherwise?
Is a 1/3 return rate, if true, a valid argument for killing kittens rather than adopting them out?
Perhaps that argument should be used for all adoptions. If generally there is a 25% return rate, we should stop adopting animals out and just kill them as soon as they come in.
The same with seniors. Unless they have a disposable income after rent of $1,000 a month or more, they should not get a cat, because in the evaluator’s estimation, such cats do poorly.
Generalizing the logic of these critics, no animal should ever be adopted out unless the adopter passes a thorough background check and also loves the cat enough to take care of it.
.
As below, one says in her experience, many seniors cannot take care of their cats and some develop horrendous medical conditions.
Another says 2 for 1 sales are followed by a 1/3 return rate.
Neither can present proof, especially about the seniors program; these critics never do. They say “In my experience,” as if that ended all discussion and argument.
One says she opts for quality of life over duration. She is also opting for exterminating life because the cat might fare poorly. Perhaps she will expand that argument to humans too. If a child is born into filthy conditions or in extreme poverty, they should be killed to save them from suffering.
My response to both criticisms is the same: so?
Do we deny a senior, or anyone, a cat based on income? Is the LAAS staff going to do an income evaluation on all potential adopters, senior or otherwise?
Is a 1/3 return rate, if true, a valid argument for killing kittens rather than adopting them out?
Perhaps that argument should be used for all adoptions. If generally there is a 25% return rate, we should stop adopting animals out and just kill them as soon as they come in.
The same with seniors. Unless they have a disposable income after rent of $1,000 a month or more, they should not get a cat, because in the evaluator’s estimation, such cats do poorly.
Generalizing the logic of these critics, no animal should ever be adopted out unless the adopter passes a thorough background check and also loves the cat enough to take care of it.
.
The Two For One Sale
.
Everyone is roundly criticizing Boks, mostly because he exaggerates, lies, doesn't keep promises, always proclaims himself faultless, and that he is close to walking on water. Oh, I forgot, he hasn't been saving many lives either--at least until now.
But I think his recent programs, the seniors and the 2 for 1 sale, are good, whether or not they succeed, and they probably won't knowing the history of Ed's new programs.
But the 2 for 1's sale. Think the idea an abomination?
Well Tara Derby and others trained by Winograd in Philadelphia are promoting a 2 for 1 program right now. From the Phillypaws.org website:
Cat "Dollar Days," July 18-Aug. 1
PAWS announces the return of its summer cat adoption promotion: "Dollar Days." Between July 18 and August 1, the adoption fee for a cat will be only $1.
The two-week event, during these summer months when literally hundreds of animals come into the shelter each day, is one way PAWS is working to save the lives of Philadelphia's homeless animals.
When you adopt a cat, you will be able to adopt a second one at no additional charge. Owning two cats involves little more expense or trouble than owning just one. In addition, it provides each with a companion, saves two lives rather than one, and provides space in the shelter for two more animals waiting for a home.
If you have been considering adopting a new best friend, we urge you to come in and meet the cats just waiting for a chance at life. By opening your home to a PAWS cat (or cats), you will truly be saving a life that may not have a chance without your kindness.
Especially now, during the height of "cat season," there is simply not enough room or resources at the shelter to accommodate all of the animals who come in. Those who are not adopted or placed in foster care are often euthanized. With your help, though, we can put an end to the killing of animals simply because they don't have a home.
During last year's "Cat Sale," 576 cats found forever homes. This year, the event will last a full two weeks in an effort to save even more lives. Please join us!
.
Now Philadelphia has a much smaller shelter than LA, taking in a less than 1/2 of LA. Yet, last year placed 576 kittens in one week. That is equivalent to LAAS placing 1,350 kittens in a week.
Now I know LAAS will never be able to perform at the success rate of Philadelphia, though I do want to see how close they come to Philly's success. I also know that there is a strong possibility some will be fed to dogs for fun, or end up being tortured by a mean hearted 6 year old, but that is the breaks. This is what every human being and animal has to face in life: the luck of the draw. When you are overwhelmed with animals needing homes, and the choice is between them dying or taking their chances of finding a "good-enough" home, I think they would choose an opportunity to live.
.
What some of the critics do not realize, is that it is not just the cost, it is also the publicity and marketing value of of the program. It is a sale. Everyone likes a sale. many people will come for a discount cat that when they hear about it. Remember, we can never expect a "loving home," all that they need is a good-enough home.
.
Everyone is roundly criticizing Boks, mostly because he exaggerates, lies, doesn't keep promises, always proclaims himself faultless, and that he is close to walking on water. Oh, I forgot, he hasn't been saving many lives either--at least until now.
But I think his recent programs, the seniors and the 2 for 1 sale, are good, whether or not they succeed, and they probably won't knowing the history of Ed's new programs.
But the 2 for 1's sale. Think the idea an abomination?
Well Tara Derby and others trained by Winograd in Philadelphia are promoting a 2 for 1 program right now. From the Phillypaws.org website:
Cat "Dollar Days," July 18-Aug. 1
PAWS announces the return of its summer cat adoption promotion: "Dollar Days." Between July 18 and August 1, the adoption fee for a cat will be only $1.
The two-week event, during these summer months when literally hundreds of animals come into the shelter each day, is one way PAWS is working to save the lives of Philadelphia's homeless animals.
When you adopt a cat, you will be able to adopt a second one at no additional charge. Owning two cats involves little more expense or trouble than owning just one. In addition, it provides each with a companion, saves two lives rather than one, and provides space in the shelter for two more animals waiting for a home.
If you have been considering adopting a new best friend, we urge you to come in and meet the cats just waiting for a chance at life. By opening your home to a PAWS cat (or cats), you will truly be saving a life that may not have a chance without your kindness.
Especially now, during the height of "cat season," there is simply not enough room or resources at the shelter to accommodate all of the animals who come in. Those who are not adopted or placed in foster care are often euthanized. With your help, though, we can put an end to the killing of animals simply because they don't have a home.
During last year's "Cat Sale," 576 cats found forever homes. This year, the event will last a full two weeks in an effort to save even more lives. Please join us!
.
Now Philadelphia has a much smaller shelter than LA, taking in a less than 1/2 of LA. Yet, last year placed 576 kittens in one week. That is equivalent to LAAS placing 1,350 kittens in a week.
Now I know LAAS will never be able to perform at the success rate of Philadelphia, though I do want to see how close they come to Philly's success. I also know that there is a strong possibility some will be fed to dogs for fun, or end up being tortured by a mean hearted 6 year old, but that is the breaks. This is what every human being and animal has to face in life: the luck of the draw. When you are overwhelmed with animals needing homes, and the choice is between them dying or taking their chances of finding a "good-enough" home, I think they would choose an opportunity to live.
.
What some of the critics do not realize, is that it is not just the cost, it is also the publicity and marketing value of of the program. It is a sale. Everyone likes a sale. many people will come for a discount cat that when they hear about it. Remember, we can never expect a "loving home," all that they need is a good-enough home.
.
The Seniors for Seniors Program
.
There are two comments below criticizing the seniors for seniors program. I disagree with their criticisms. They only address negative what ifs, such as unmanageable vet expenses for low income seniors and how the animals may eventually be dumped.
These criticisms may all be well-founded and accurate. My senior guys have cost me a fortune. I am treating a cancer kitty to the tune of $4,000 so far. Many people would have dumped this sort of kitty already. A senior with no money would have to let the kitty die or rob a bank. But isn't this a situation that confronts many older or poor people throughout our wretchedly self-centered society?
Contrast this with dying immediately in the shelter by being euthanized. Which solution is better? Overwhelming a low-income senior with expenses? The senior taking the cat to a vet to be euthanized because they cannot afford treatment? A senior taking the animal to a shelter to be euthanized? Or a senior living in deep companionship with the animal until one or the other dies? The critics forget this part.
Are not these the outcomes a every human faces? Taking care of aged parents, bankrupting either the aged person or their families, or turning them over to convalescent homes?
The critics do not see that both the senior and the animal benefit from the longer or shorter companionship they may have with each other. Do we deny them that happiness and companionship because it does not last 15 years as with a kitten or puppy?
There is far more to the human/animal bond than the expense involved or what happens to the animals, or the senior, a year or four years down the line.
Let them both have happiness for however long it lasts.
I think the program is a good one.
I adopted what appeared to be a geriatric cat to a woman in her late 70s or older who did not want to adopt a younger animal, worrying about its care after she died. She wanted the cat to die first, or if she died, he had the same chance to life as any other aged cat. I was able to follow the two of them for three years before I moved away from Santa Monica. Both were very happy together.
The blame should not be put on LAAS for this program for possibly negative results, but on increasingly greedy and arrogant vets who need a comeuppance.
I really appreciate someone like Steve Feldman who leaves private practice, takes a large pay cut and devotes himself to trying to better take care of thousands of animals.
.
There are two comments below criticizing the seniors for seniors program. I disagree with their criticisms. They only address negative what ifs, such as unmanageable vet expenses for low income seniors and how the animals may eventually be dumped.
These criticisms may all be well-founded and accurate. My senior guys have cost me a fortune. I am treating a cancer kitty to the tune of $4,000 so far. Many people would have dumped this sort of kitty already. A senior with no money would have to let the kitty die or rob a bank. But isn't this a situation that confronts many older or poor people throughout our wretchedly self-centered society?
Contrast this with dying immediately in the shelter by being euthanized. Which solution is better? Overwhelming a low-income senior with expenses? The senior taking the cat to a vet to be euthanized because they cannot afford treatment? A senior taking the animal to a shelter to be euthanized? Or a senior living in deep companionship with the animal until one or the other dies? The critics forget this part.
Are not these the outcomes a every human faces? Taking care of aged parents, bankrupting either the aged person or their families, or turning them over to convalescent homes?
The critics do not see that both the senior and the animal benefit from the longer or shorter companionship they may have with each other. Do we deny them that happiness and companionship because it does not last 15 years as with a kitten or puppy?
There is far more to the human/animal bond than the expense involved or what happens to the animals, or the senior, a year or four years down the line.
Let them both have happiness for however long it lasts.
I think the program is a good one.
I adopted what appeared to be a geriatric cat to a woman in her late 70s or older who did not want to adopt a younger animal, worrying about its care after she died. She wanted the cat to die first, or if she died, he had the same chance to life as any other aged cat. I was able to follow the two of them for three years before I moved away from Santa Monica. Both were very happy together.
The blame should not be put on LAAS for this program for possibly negative results, but on increasingly greedy and arrogant vets who need a comeuppance.
I really appreciate someone like Steve Feldman who leaves private practice, takes a large pay cut and devotes himself to trying to better take care of thousands of animals.
.
Wonderful New LAAS Adoption Program--Ammended
.
A second hearing of a plan to increase adoption of pets will be heard this Friday before Council. Generally second hearings do not allow public comment, but you can call councilmembers to express your enthusiastic support.
The program involves for the adoption of a second animal with chipping and spay/neuter fees waived, after adopting the first with full fees.
Going before Council is the program as below:
http://cityclerk.lacity.org/CFI/DisplayOnlineDocument.cfm?SRT=D1&cfnum=07-1561
The plan would be effective August 14.
Boks has had to include a revenue impact statement, but even if the entire $47,000 lost revenue were never recaptured, you must help make Council adopt it.
Recently, despite the bizarre numbers Ed has generated for April-June, adoptions actually "appear" to be up by several hundred, and fosters are up from a handful to over 100. That, combined with LAAS (Boks-denied) turning away animals from impound, is saving lives.
Several people have argued that selling animals so cheaply means they may not get good homes or will be used in research or to train attack dogs. All these are VERY REAL possibilities, but I think the benefits MAY outweigh the risks. No one really knows, they just speculate.
Their argument that paying hefty fees increases the likelihood they will be better cared for is a speculation in itself. Both sides of that issue speculate and believe their speculations to be truth, but no one can prove anything.
In any event, we will not see a stunning increase in the number of animals adopted, maybe 2-300, so it is only that number at risk. You have to weigh that against 50% kill rate we would see in summer, and it is a worthwhile risk.
As to Boks making it clear it is not a 2 for 1 sale, who is kidding whom? Anyone can claim animals came from the same litter or were best buddies in the shelter. Remember, it is staff talking to you; that in itself that should cause disbelief.
I wouldn't be surprised if every animal in the shelter won't have 10 or 20 best buddies as of August 14, but so what?
However, due to the overcrowding, more animals are dying from fighting, and more employees are getting mauled.
One rescuer told me, “Employees are being mauled; I've seen it. They had to pay two employees tons of money for being mauled by pits. They even had a class for volunteers on handling fighting and taking dogs in and out of the kennels.
The class was pretty lame. They bought all this expensive dog handling equipment but no one uses it. They still just hose down fighting dogs but it does nothing to the pits. Captain Dedeaux did the class. An employee who'd been bitten many times asked him to go into the kennels and show her how to use the equipment on the dogs, how to get them in and out of their kennels... He wouldn't do it. This woman really wanted to learn how to not get bitten. She'd been bitten 8 times already
.
A second hearing of a plan to increase adoption of pets will be heard this Friday before Council. Generally second hearings do not allow public comment, but you can call councilmembers to express your enthusiastic support.
The program involves for the adoption of a second animal with chipping and spay/neuter fees waived, after adopting the first with full fees.
Going before Council is the program as below:
http://cityclerk.lacity.org/CFI/DisplayOnlineDocument.cfm?SRT=D1&cfnum=07-1561
The plan would be effective August 14.
Boks has had to include a revenue impact statement, but even if the entire $47,000 lost revenue were never recaptured, you must help make Council adopt it.
Recently, despite the bizarre numbers Ed has generated for April-June, adoptions actually "appear" to be up by several hundred, and fosters are up from a handful to over 100. That, combined with LAAS (Boks-denied) turning away animals from impound, is saving lives.
Several people have argued that selling animals so cheaply means they may not get good homes or will be used in research or to train attack dogs. All these are VERY REAL possibilities, but I think the benefits MAY outweigh the risks. No one really knows, they just speculate.
Their argument that paying hefty fees increases the likelihood they will be better cared for is a speculation in itself. Both sides of that issue speculate and believe their speculations to be truth, but no one can prove anything.
In any event, we will not see a stunning increase in the number of animals adopted, maybe 2-300, so it is only that number at risk. You have to weigh that against 50% kill rate we would see in summer, and it is a worthwhile risk.
As to Boks making it clear it is not a 2 for 1 sale, who is kidding whom? Anyone can claim animals came from the same litter or were best buddies in the shelter. Remember, it is staff talking to you; that in itself that should cause disbelief.
I wouldn't be surprised if every animal in the shelter won't have 10 or 20 best buddies as of August 14, but so what?
However, due to the overcrowding, more animals are dying from fighting, and more employees are getting mauled.
One rescuer told me, “Employees are being mauled; I've seen it. They had to pay two employees tons of money for being mauled by pits. They even had a class for volunteers on handling fighting and taking dogs in and out of the kennels.
The class was pretty lame. They bought all this expensive dog handling equipment but no one uses it. They still just hose down fighting dogs but it does nothing to the pits. Captain Dedeaux did the class. An employee who'd been bitten many times asked him to go into the kennels and show her how to use the equipment on the dogs, how to get them in and out of their kennels... He wouldn't do it. This woman really wanted to learn how to not get bitten. She'd been bitten 8 times already
.
Employees
.
I mentioned Ed's frequent "clarifications" and the most recent, which contradicts what the shelter sign says, not because I disagree with his policy of limiting owner impounds, but because it points out that you can't trust him. You don't know if he will keep a promise; you don't know when he is telling the truth; you don't know what he is saying about you behind your back.
I agree with his policy. This is the wrong time of the year to drop any animal off. I think there may be a higher survival rate on the streets or left with an uncaring neighbor.
The previous comentor is right. I should talk about the screw up employees. Tell me about them with specifics if you want. Most of you can't say anything because you won't be able to work with them again.
.
I mentioned Ed's frequent "clarifications" and the most recent, which contradicts what the shelter sign says, not because I disagree with his policy of limiting owner impounds, but because it points out that you can't trust him. You don't know if he will keep a promise; you don't know when he is telling the truth; you don't know what he is saying about you behind your back.
I agree with his policy. This is the wrong time of the year to drop any animal off. I think there may be a higher survival rate on the streets or left with an uncaring neighbor.
The previous comentor is right. I should talk about the screw up employees. Tell me about them with specifics if you want. Most of you can't say anything because you won't be able to work with them again.
.
Boks Revokes His Numerous Policy Change Clarifications
.
Just a week after declaring a hard-line policy that would have limited the hours, Boks said he only had intended to educate the public."It has been issued as a restriction," Boks said. "But internally, it has always been our intention to never refuse an animal. Just educate."
"We wanted to be crystal clear," Boks said. "We will never turn an animal away. We don't want to put any animal in harm's way."brandon.lowrey@dailynews.com
Remember when Boks told the Daily News writer Brandon Lowery he never intended to enforce a rule that would have sharply limited the hours for people to turn in unwanted pets at city shelters? He turned out three "clarifications" that essentially reversed the restricted hours for accepting animals.
Lowery writes:
Just a week after declaring a hard-line policy that would have limited the hours, Boks said he only had intended to educate the public."It has been issued as a restriction," Boks said. "But internally, it has always been our intention to never refuse an animal. Just educate."
”Boks had said the plan to cut the department's 24-hour, seven-day policy of accepting pets - to just 14 hours over four weekdays - was designed to avoid killing more animals to make room in shelters during a busy time of year.
"We wanted to be crystal clear," Boks said. "We will never turn an animal away. We don't want to put any animal in harm's way."brandon.lowrey@dailynews.com
Well, surprise, surprise, Ed is lying again. I guess he has "clarified" once more, and reversed his reversal. Look at the sign posted on the door of the North Central Shelter:
Philly/Winograd Looking for a Chief Operating Officer
.
Philadelphia, the fifth largest city and city (vs. County) shelter system in the country, is looking for what is equivalent to the operations AGM position--at LAAS. Of course the commitment is to become the first large, No-Kill city shelter in the country.
The job search is being coordinated by Winograd.
http://phillypaws.org/pdfs/PACCAOps.pdf
I hope someone of us locally applies and gets it.
.
Philadelphia, the fifth largest city and city (vs. County) shelter system in the country, is looking for what is equivalent to the operations AGM position--at LAAS. Of course the commitment is to become the first large, No-Kill city shelter in the country.
The job search is being coordinated by Winograd.
http://phillypaws.org/pdfs/PACCAOps.pdf
I hope someone of us locally applies and gets it.
.
Re-opening Allegations of Hayden Act Violations
.
In February I posted that LAAS may have violated the Hayden Act by killing 1,155 healthy animals within the first four days of holding, which was prohibited by the Hayden Act.
Boks responded in Rumor vs. Truth # 3, that of the 809 cats listed as healthy and killed within 4 days, 453 were either sick or suffering and were killed that first day or in the next four days. With dogs, 276 of the 346 healthy dogs killed, were relisted as sick or suffering and then killed. That is, over 60% of healthy cats and dogs were killed because their status changed within the day of impound or soon after. Most of the others killed were neonates.
The charge came in today that Boks was having NYC personnel go in and change the condition of animals when Boks was in NY, then euthanizing them.
I think someone should take a close look at the total records of the 1,145 animals listed as healthy on intake to see how, when and why they went from being healthy, to unhealthy or suffering. Boks says there are photographs of the treatment records that would validate that the animals were sick (Some with an infectious disease) or suffering. I am not sure, but it appears he said there also were photos of the animals.
The allegation today:
“Boks did the exact same thing in NY.
The animal would come in and they'd give it a health rating, 1-5. I think "1" was healthy.
Anyway the animal would get sick in the shelter. Boks wanted the techs to change the initial rating of "healthy" to "unhealthy" so he could say all the animals he killed were sick and came in sick.
I can't believe he said "very few healthy animals are killed." So 38% of all animals that come into the shelter are unhealthy? Bullshit.”
ACTUALLY, THE NUMBER IS 56% FOR CATS AND 79% FOR DOGS.!!
From Rumor vs. Truth #3:
RECORDS OF CATS
For the period of January 1, 2006, through December 1, 2006, records for 809 cats had the Intake condition as Apparently Healthy, but were shown as Euthanized within four or less days.
Summary of Findings
10 Euthanized by Private Vet After Exam Strays sent on AFE same or next day
2 Behavior - Biting –
Owner Surrendered and Requested Euthanasia Euthanized same day 23
Feral, Euthanized on fourth day, i.e. after third day, as permitted by law (see below)
Most were strays, some were Owner Surrender
103 Irremediably suffering (Selection of Apparently Healthy was done with only superficial visual check.)
353 Medical condition (many due to infectious nature of illness)
Selection of Apparently Healthy was done with only superficial visual check 1 Shown in Subtype as Time/Space reasons, but examination of the Medical Treatment form (confirmed by photo) showed sick, (or) unweaned kitten.
Evident error in completion of Euthanasia portion of kennel record
317 Unweaned Majority show multiple number series (2-5 sequential numbers) and came in between April and July
809 TOTAL
As an observation, after reviewing several hundred kennel records, there is a pattern in regard to cats as coming in cages and boxes, and often photographed that way, which render it believable that in passing an animal could be deemed apparently healthy, but found sick when the Veterinary Technician tries to pull the animal out of the box or cage.
Unweaned kittens were often shown as Apparently Healthy, which is likely the case, but were recorded as unweaned in other classification fields. Without sufficient rescues or foster volunteers, unweaned simply cannot be sustained, and it is inhumane to allow them to fail through lack of nursing.
Well, Boks said there are photographs of the medical treatment records, that confirm that hundreds of healthy animals were not and were then killed.
Let us see the records and the photos!
In February I posted that LAAS may have violated the Hayden Act by killing 1,155 healthy animals within the first four days of holding, which was prohibited by the Hayden Act.
Boks responded in Rumor vs. Truth # 3, that of the 809 cats listed as healthy and killed within 4 days, 453 were either sick or suffering and were killed that first day or in the next four days. With dogs, 276 of the 346 healthy dogs killed, were relisted as sick or suffering and then killed. That is, over 60% of healthy cats and dogs were killed because their status changed within the day of impound or soon after. Most of the others killed were neonates.
The charge came in today that Boks was having NYC personnel go in and change the condition of animals when Boks was in NY, then euthanizing them.
I think someone should take a close look at the total records of the 1,145 animals listed as healthy on intake to see how, when and why they went from being healthy, to unhealthy or suffering. Boks says there are photographs of the treatment records that would validate that the animals were sick (Some with an infectious disease) or suffering. I am not sure, but it appears he said there also were photos of the animals.
The allegation today:
“Boks did the exact same thing in NY.
The animal would come in and they'd give it a health rating, 1-5. I think "1" was healthy.
Anyway the animal would get sick in the shelter. Boks wanted the techs to change the initial rating of "healthy" to "unhealthy" so he could say all the animals he killed were sick and came in sick.
I can't believe he said "very few healthy animals are killed." So 38% of all animals that come into the shelter are unhealthy? Bullshit.”
ACTUALLY, THE NUMBER IS 56% FOR CATS AND 79% FOR DOGS.!!
From Rumor vs. Truth #3:
RECORDS OF CATS
For the period of January 1, 2006, through December 1, 2006, records for 809 cats had the Intake condition as Apparently Healthy, but were shown as Euthanized within four or less days.
Summary of Findings
10 Euthanized by Private Vet After Exam Strays sent on AFE same or next day
2 Behavior - Biting –
Owner Surrendered and Requested Euthanasia Euthanized same day 23
Feral, Euthanized on fourth day, i.e. after third day, as permitted by law (see below)
Most were strays, some were Owner Surrender
103 Irremediably suffering (Selection of Apparently Healthy was done with only superficial visual check.)
353 Medical condition (many due to infectious nature of illness)
Selection of Apparently Healthy was done with only superficial visual check 1 Shown in Subtype as Time/Space reasons, but examination of the Medical Treatment form (confirmed by photo) showed sick, (or) unweaned kitten.
Evident error in completion of Euthanasia portion of kennel record
317 Unweaned Majority show multiple number series (2-5 sequential numbers) and came in between April and July
809 TOTAL
As an observation, after reviewing several hundred kennel records, there is a pattern in regard to cats as coming in cages and boxes, and often photographed that way, which render it believable that in passing an animal could be deemed apparently healthy, but found sick when the Veterinary Technician tries to pull the animal out of the box or cage.
Unweaned kittens were often shown as Apparently Healthy, which is likely the case, but were recorded as unweaned in other classification fields. Without sufficient rescues or foster volunteers, unweaned simply cannot be sustained, and it is inhumane to allow them to fail through lack of nursing.
Well, Boks said there are photographs of the medical treatment records, that confirm that hundreds of healthy animals were not and were then killed.
Let us see the records and the photos!
Prediction--Boks will subtract Medical Euthanasia from All Euthanasia
.
In order to get his kill numbers down I predict Boks will soon subtract medical euthanasia from all euthanasia as a new categry. This would apply to owner turn-ins with terminal illnesses or injuries, and animals coming in ill, or animals that get sick and injured in the shelters.
As soon as this is the case, since died in the shelter and illness have been skyrocketing, non-medical euthanasia will plummet. Maybe all intakes will be considered ill after the category is created.
Then, retroactively, he will have made LAAS no-kill as of the day he started as GM.
In order to get his kill numbers down I predict Boks will soon subtract medical euthanasia from all euthanasia as a new categry. This would apply to owner turn-ins with terminal illnesses or injuries, and animals coming in ill, or animals that get sick and injured in the shelters.
As soon as this is the case, since died in the shelter and illness have been skyrocketing, non-medical euthanasia will plummet. Maybe all intakes will be considered ill after the category is created.
Then, retroactively, he will have made LAAS no-kill as of the day he started as GM.
Boks Snows Council, a Rebuttal
.
Ed Boks lied big time in his presentation to Council in June 20. They bought his lies, hook line and sinker. I am ashamed of Rosendahl.
Boks told them that euthanasia is down. It's down 1%, but the number of animals dying in the shelter has doubled during the past 12 months. The number of animals leaving the shelter dead has not changed. AND. the number and percent leaving alive is down. He completely snowed council.
June 20, 2007 City Council meeting
http://lacity.org/cdvideo_wm.htm and click June 20 video.
Boks: Thanks Zine (Z) and Cardenas (C) for making the motion so I can share things with you and address your concerns. I will talk about lowering the kill rate and success with volunteers. We are trying to broaden our program to reach into the community to create a Humane LA.
I was recruited to help transform LA into the first major metropolitan city to be nokill in the US. What is nokill? In LA, or the 46,000 brought in each year, 18K killed, a 40% kill rate, lower than the state average.
Boks stated that the most scientific way to define nokill is the number killed per thousand people.
He stated that when you get to 5.0, most in the animal community feel that this is nokill.
Rebuttal:
This is nonsense. A few consider it no kill, especially Boks himself. But big cities have fewer animals per household and thus a lower number per 1,000 people end in a shelter. For example, New York is over twice as big as LA but impounds and kills about the same number of animals. Therefore, their rate per 1,000 is about 2.5 versus LA at 5.0. No one in their right mind considers New York No-Kill.
While GM of Maricopa County, in 2002 Boks stated he wanted the County to be No-Kill by 2007. He defined No-Kill then as 3.0 euthanized per 1,000 population.
For him, no kill was 3.0 back then, now he lowers the bar to 5.0/1,000. I’ll also mention that Maricopa Co. never even came close to 3/1,000 kill rate. Currently, just for their County shelters, it is 9/1,000, three times greater that his then definition of no-kill.
Besides, we are only talking about the municipal shelters there. There are private shelters, as in LA. Each of these shelters kill animals, meaning an extra 1/1,000, 2/1,000, etc.
In Maricopa Co. the kill rate is about 11.5/1,000 using the combined euthanasia numbers of all shelters in the area. In order to get down to 3/1,000 in Phoenix, the municipal shelters alone would have to cut their killing by 80%.
A much better measure of No-kill is that used by the father of No-Kill, Nathan Winograd, whose own shelter had a euthanasia rate of 8% of all live animals brought in. Applied to LA, this would mean less than 3,700 animals killed each year, instead of 18,000.
I would note that Winograd has consulted several other smaller shelter systems and each have been brought to an 8% kill rate within about a year. It seems the area around 8-9% euthanized is the best any municipal shalter has done.
In Philadelphia, Winograd brought the killing down from an estimated 90% to 46% in 2 years with a budget of $3,900,000 and 46 employees.
Boks:
There will always be sick or aggressive animals that must be killed.
Rebuttal:
Yes there always will be, but who can believe 40% of all animals impounded, over 18,000, are sick enough or vicious enough to require killing? No one.
However, Ed is only talking about cats and dogs, he does not mention the kill rate for rabbits is almost triple what it was under Stuckey, and the in-shelter deaths due to sickness and injury has doubled for dogs and cats, while the in-shelter deaths for other animals, such as birds, turtles, hamsters, etc., has gone up by 600%.
Boks:
The US average is 14.8. LA is 4.5. We are lower than that thresh hold. There has been a 50% decline in the last five years in euthanasia. This is the most rapid decline in killing in any major city in the US. Jan to May an extra 22% decline.
Rebuttal:
Misleading. He is reporting only kill figures for cats and dogs. The death rate for all animals other than cats and dogs has increased by the same rate as cat and dog deaths have decreased. No net gain.
In addition, 18,000 euthanasias a year means 1,500 per month. If you overcrowd 1,500 additional animals into the shelters, you can reduce the kill rate by 33% for any given quarter. But the killing resumes in the summer after all extra space has been squeezed.
As of July 1, 10 p.m., the LAAS website lists 2,446 animals in the shelter under the category "lost," and a smaller number up for adoption. It does not list the number of animals in the Annex. So, we are talking 3,000 animals. That is two months of intake.
Boks:
We placed 22K dogs and cats in 12 months. We are the #1 pet adoption agency in the world!
Rebuttal:
He said that about Maricopa County too. In 2003 (the latest figure I have) they, along with private rescue partners, adopted out 21,425. During the past 12 months, LAAS with outside rescue groups have adopted out 20,728. I also understand he said NYC was the largest adoption agency also when he was there.
Boks:
We will have 3 vets in a few days, 6 within a month.
Rebuttal:
We’ll see. It is not promising that this is a week and a half since that meeting and we still have just 2 vets.
He said we would have a partnership with a vet school in San Bernadino. That never happened.
Rosendahl: Great report; great leadership.
I wish Rosendahl would get his staffers to actually look at the Boks operation and the Boks numbers.
Ed Boks lied big time in his presentation to Council in June 20. They bought his lies, hook line and sinker. I am ashamed of Rosendahl.
Boks told them that euthanasia is down. It's down 1%, but the number of animals dying in the shelter has doubled during the past 12 months. The number of animals leaving the shelter dead has not changed. AND. the number and percent leaving alive is down. He completely snowed council.
June 20, 2007 City Council meeting
http://lacity.org/cdvideo_wm.htm and click June 20 video.
Boks: Thanks Zine (Z) and Cardenas (C) for making the motion so I can share things with you and address your concerns. I will talk about lowering the kill rate and success with volunteers. We are trying to broaden our program to reach into the community to create a Humane LA.
I was recruited to help transform LA into the first major metropolitan city to be nokill in the US. What is nokill? In LA, or the 46,000 brought in each year, 18K killed, a 40% kill rate, lower than the state average.
Boks stated that the most scientific way to define nokill is the number killed per thousand people.
He stated that when you get to 5.0, most in the animal community feel that this is nokill.
Rebuttal:
This is nonsense. A few consider it no kill, especially Boks himself. But big cities have fewer animals per household and thus a lower number per 1,000 people end in a shelter. For example, New York is over twice as big as LA but impounds and kills about the same number of animals. Therefore, their rate per 1,000 is about 2.5 versus LA at 5.0. No one in their right mind considers New York No-Kill.
While GM of Maricopa County, in 2002 Boks stated he wanted the County to be No-Kill by 2007. He defined No-Kill then as 3.0 euthanized per 1,000 population.
For him, no kill was 3.0 back then, now he lowers the bar to 5.0/1,000. I’ll also mention that Maricopa Co. never even came close to 3/1,000 kill rate. Currently, just for their County shelters, it is 9/1,000, three times greater that his then definition of no-kill.
Besides, we are only talking about the municipal shelters there. There are private shelters, as in LA. Each of these shelters kill animals, meaning an extra 1/1,000, 2/1,000, etc.
In Maricopa Co. the kill rate is about 11.5/1,000 using the combined euthanasia numbers of all shelters in the area. In order to get down to 3/1,000 in Phoenix, the municipal shelters alone would have to cut their killing by 80%.
A much better measure of No-kill is that used by the father of No-Kill, Nathan Winograd, whose own shelter had a euthanasia rate of 8% of all live animals brought in. Applied to LA, this would mean less than 3,700 animals killed each year, instead of 18,000.
I would note that Winograd has consulted several other smaller shelter systems and each have been brought to an 8% kill rate within about a year. It seems the area around 8-9% euthanized is the best any municipal shalter has done.
In Philadelphia, Winograd brought the killing down from an estimated 90% to 46% in 2 years with a budget of $3,900,000 and 46 employees.
Boks:
There will always be sick or aggressive animals that must be killed.
Rebuttal:
Yes there always will be, but who can believe 40% of all animals impounded, over 18,000, are sick enough or vicious enough to require killing? No one.
However, Ed is only talking about cats and dogs, he does not mention the kill rate for rabbits is almost triple what it was under Stuckey, and the in-shelter deaths due to sickness and injury has doubled for dogs and cats, while the in-shelter deaths for other animals, such as birds, turtles, hamsters, etc., has gone up by 600%.
Boks:
The US average is 14.8. LA is 4.5. We are lower than that thresh hold. There has been a 50% decline in the last five years in euthanasia. This is the most rapid decline in killing in any major city in the US. Jan to May an extra 22% decline.
Rebuttal:
Misleading. He is reporting only kill figures for cats and dogs. The death rate for all animals other than cats and dogs has increased by the same rate as cat and dog deaths have decreased. No net gain.
In addition, 18,000 euthanasias a year means 1,500 per month. If you overcrowd 1,500 additional animals into the shelters, you can reduce the kill rate by 33% for any given quarter. But the killing resumes in the summer after all extra space has been squeezed.
As of July 1, 10 p.m., the LAAS website lists 2,446 animals in the shelter under the category "lost," and a smaller number up for adoption. It does not list the number of animals in the Annex. So, we are talking 3,000 animals. That is two months of intake.
Boks:
We placed 22K dogs and cats in 12 months. We are the #1 pet adoption agency in the world!
Rebuttal:
He said that about Maricopa County too. In 2003 (the latest figure I have) they, along with private rescue partners, adopted out 21,425. During the past 12 months, LAAS with outside rescue groups have adopted out 20,728. I also understand he said NYC was the largest adoption agency also when he was there.
Boks:
We will have 3 vets in a few days, 6 within a month.
Rebuttal:
We’ll see. It is not promising that this is a week and a half since that meeting and we still have just 2 vets.
He said we would have a partnership with a vet school in San Bernadino. That never happened.
Rosendahl: Great report; great leadership.
I wish Rosendahl would get his staffers to actually look at the Boks operation and the Boks numbers.
Boks' Letter to the Editor Rebutted
.
Ed Boks responds to the Daily News article on his progressive clarified statements regarding his new policy on restricted hours for owner turn-ins:
“Readers must wonder how the Daily News can find fault with L.A. Animal Services' attempt to educate pet owners on what might be the most fatal decision they will ever make for their once-loved pet.”
My response:
“Education” is a lie. He thought he could slip by his new policy that would help his numbers and was caught in an avalanche of public protest. He back pedaled so many times I thought he was going to go out and snatch pets from their homes to show how willing he is to impound animals—and then kill them.
His final clarification came after Council and the mayor were inundated with protests? “I didn’t really mean it. This was my puerile attempt at educating the public about the shelter overcrowding problem and also to save my artificially created numbers so I am not fired by the mayor.”
Boks goes on to say:
Readers should ask why more time is not spent on real news, like the challenges we face, the progress we're making in modernizing the department and saving animals, and making Los Angeles the first major metropolitan "no-kill" city in the United States.
My response:
This means, “Why am I not getting away with this increased dumping policy? It worked in Arizona. Muzika, Bell, Guss and Sorentino are really bastards.”
The real news is that LAAS has made almost no improvement towards no-kill. The euthanasia rate for all animals combined with the died-in-shelter due to disease and injury has actually caused a downturn in the live save rate.
Things are getting worse not better. Boks is the first More-Kill general manager hired by any mayor. Why isn’t Villaraigosa, who promised to make the new GM accountable to the community, not accounting?
Boks:
“Instead of editorials like "Just kidding," why not focus on how the department places nearly 21,000 pets into loving homes and returns 4,500 lost pets to their grateful guardians each year ù and has reduced pet euthanasia to a historic low.”
My response:
Yes, “pet” euthanasia has decreased to a historic low, but stored animals has increased to a historic high, as have the number of animals—especially “other animals and rabbits” who have been euthanized or have died in shelter.
The number of animals actually saved is dead even with before, even while the rate of saving has decreased.
“Progress to no-kill?” Another you must be kidding. He used the same statement in Phoenix and NYC. In Phoenix, his strategy was to charge owners for turn-ins. Less animals were turned in and more dumped in a ravine, hit by cars or eaten by coyotes.
I do agree with his policy of charging for turn ins, especially for feral cats. But this needs to work in conjunction with stiff anti-dumping laws, which we have in California, but are never enforced by LAAS or anyone else.
.
Ed Boks responds to the Daily News article on his progressive clarified statements regarding his new policy on restricted hours for owner turn-ins:
“Readers must wonder how the Daily News can find fault with L.A. Animal Services' attempt to educate pet owners on what might be the most fatal decision they will ever make for their once-loved pet.”
My response:
“Education” is a lie. He thought he could slip by his new policy that would help his numbers and was caught in an avalanche of public protest. He back pedaled so many times I thought he was going to go out and snatch pets from their homes to show how willing he is to impound animals—and then kill them.
His final clarification came after Council and the mayor were inundated with protests? “I didn’t really mean it. This was my puerile attempt at educating the public about the shelter overcrowding problem and also to save my artificially created numbers so I am not fired by the mayor.”
Boks goes on to say:
Readers should ask why more time is not spent on real news, like the challenges we face, the progress we're making in modernizing the department and saving animals, and making Los Angeles the first major metropolitan "no-kill" city in the United States.
My response:
This means, “Why am I not getting away with this increased dumping policy? It worked in Arizona. Muzika, Bell, Guss and Sorentino are really bastards.”
The real news is that LAAS has made almost no improvement towards no-kill. The euthanasia rate for all animals combined with the died-in-shelter due to disease and injury has actually caused a downturn in the live save rate.
Things are getting worse not better. Boks is the first More-Kill general manager hired by any mayor. Why isn’t Villaraigosa, who promised to make the new GM accountable to the community, not accounting?
Boks:
“Instead of editorials like "Just kidding," why not focus on how the department places nearly 21,000 pets into loving homes and returns 4,500 lost pets to their grateful guardians each year ù and has reduced pet euthanasia to a historic low.”
My response:
Yes, “pet” euthanasia has decreased to a historic low, but stored animals has increased to a historic high, as have the number of animals—especially “other animals and rabbits” who have been euthanized or have died in shelter.
The number of animals actually saved is dead even with before, even while the rate of saving has decreased.
“Progress to no-kill?” Another you must be kidding. He used the same statement in Phoenix and NYC. In Phoenix, his strategy was to charge owners for turn-ins. Less animals were turned in and more dumped in a ravine, hit by cars or eaten by coyotes.
I do agree with his policy of charging for turn ins, especially for feral cats. But this needs to work in conjunction with stiff anti-dumping laws, which we have in California, but are never enforced by LAAS or anyone else.
.
Live Save Rate Down Since Boks Started
.
Live save is the terrm describing what percentage of animals that go into the shelter alive, leave alive.
They can go out dead to, from euthanasia, disease and fighting/injury.
If you cut euthanasia but the died in shelter rate increases, you could have a lower live save rate than the year before.
Now what is the current live release rate vs. that before Boks arrived?
The following is from Ann Angelino.
The results are really horrible. Things have gotten worse since he got here!
2006
cats/dogs 54%
rabbits 51%
others 56%
total 54.40%
2005
cats/dogs 53%
rabbits 80%
others 63%
total 55.12%
Currently, in the last 12 months it is 53.92% but it was 55.12% before he got here. He's made things worse. Big deal fewer are euth'd when more are dying.
Broken down last 12 months vs previous 12 months by category.
last 12 months
cats/dogs 55.11%
rabbits 51%
others 47%
previous 12 months
cats/dogs 54.4%
rabbits 69%
others 64%
Rabbits and others are paying the heavier price. They are also the ones dying in the shelter.
Live save is the terrm describing what percentage of animals that go into the shelter alive, leave alive.
They can go out dead to, from euthanasia, disease and fighting/injury.
If you cut euthanasia but the died in shelter rate increases, you could have a lower live save rate than the year before.
Now what is the current live release rate vs. that before Boks arrived?
The following is from Ann Angelino.
The results are really horrible. Things have gotten worse since he got here!
2006
cats/dogs 54%
rabbits 51%
others 56%
total 54.40%
2005
cats/dogs 53%
rabbits 80%
others 63%
total 55.12%
Currently, in the last 12 months it is 53.92% but it was 55.12% before he got here. He's made things worse. Big deal fewer are euth'd when more are dying.
Broken down last 12 months vs previous 12 months by category.
last 12 months
cats/dogs 55.11%
rabbits 51%
others 47%
previous 12 months
cats/dogs 54.4%
rabbits 69%
others 64%
Rabbits and others are paying the heavier price. They are also the ones dying in the shelter.
Astounding Info From Arizona
.
If this is true, Boks is one of the worst scoundrels around. However, given the reliability of some of the information provided to me in the past by employees or ex-employees, I will not venture to assign a truth value to this information.
I can assure you, I will attempt to find secondary validation.
I have been speaking to someone from Arizona. They said Boks refused animals in when he got full. People dumped them in the parking lot. Fortunately there is a ravine there between the shelter and the road and most of the animals stayed in the ravine. Some didn't and were hit by cars. Rescuers would try to catch the animals in the parking lot. For those they couldn't catch they left food and water.
Boks did the same overcrowding and refusing tactics in Arizona that he is doing here. It had the same horrible effect on animals being dumped, or dying in the shelter from illness and injury. He knows this doesn't help animals but he is doing it for his numbers. This person said that the same thing happened in New York. (This would be hearsay about hearsay, and the truth value may drop to close to zero.
Concerning the consequences of his overcrowding in our own shelters, I hear more animals are being returned because they are sick. Same thing happened in New York. This is a more substantiated rumor.
I lived in Arizona for some time in the Phoenix area. It is an aweful place to be during the summer where temperatures routinely reach 114 degrees or more. Sometimes a month may pass where the daytime high is over a hundred.
On top of that, rural Phoenix is coyote central. As in some parts of LA, they wander through the streets and fields all during the night and early morning.
There is such consistent bad news about Boks it is hard to know what to say.
If this is true, Boks is one of the worst scoundrels around. However, given the reliability of some of the information provided to me in the past by employees or ex-employees, I will not venture to assign a truth value to this information.
I can assure you, I will attempt to find secondary validation.
I have been speaking to someone from Arizona. They said Boks refused animals in when he got full. People dumped them in the parking lot. Fortunately there is a ravine there between the shelter and the road and most of the animals stayed in the ravine. Some didn't and were hit by cars. Rescuers would try to catch the animals in the parking lot. For those they couldn't catch they left food and water.
Boks did the same overcrowding and refusing tactics in Arizona that he is doing here. It had the same horrible effect on animals being dumped, or dying in the shelter from illness and injury. He knows this doesn't help animals but he is doing it for his numbers. This person said that the same thing happened in New York. (This would be hearsay about hearsay, and the truth value may drop to close to zero.
Concerning the consequences of his overcrowding in our own shelters, I hear more animals are being returned because they are sick. Same thing happened in New York. This is a more substantiated rumor.
I lived in Arizona for some time in the Phoenix area. It is an aweful place to be during the summer where temperatures routinely reach 114 degrees or more. Sometimes a month may pass where the daytime high is over a hundred.
On top of that, rural Phoenix is coyote central. As in some parts of LA, they wander through the streets and fields all during the night and early morning.
There is such consistent bad news about Boks it is hard to know what to say.
Live Save Rate Down Since Boks Started
.
Live save is the terrm describing what percentage of animals that go into the shelter alive, leave alive.
They can go out dead to, from euthanasia, disease and fighting/injury.
If you cut euthanasia but the died in shelter rate increases, you could have a lower live save rate than the year before.
Now what is the current live release rates for 2005, 2006 and currently?
The following is from Ann Angelino.
The results are really horrible. Things have gotten worse since Boks got here!
2006
cats/dogs 54%
rabbits 51%
others 56%
total 54.40%
2005
cats/dogs 53%
rabbits 80%
others 63%
total 55.12%
Currently, in the last 12 months it is 53.92% but it was 55.12% before he got here. He's made things worse. Big deal fewer are euth'd and more are dying.
Broken down last 12 months vs previous 12 months by category.
last 12 months
cats/dogs 55.11%
rabbits 51%
others 47%
previous 12 months
cats/dogs 54.4%
rabbits 69%
others 64%
It's rabbits and others that are paying the heavier price. those are also the ones dying in the shelter.
.
Live save is the terrm describing what percentage of animals that go into the shelter alive, leave alive.
They can go out dead to, from euthanasia, disease and fighting/injury.
If you cut euthanasia but the died in shelter rate increases, you could have a lower live save rate than the year before.
Now what is the current live release rates for 2005, 2006 and currently?
The following is from Ann Angelino.
The results are really horrible. Things have gotten worse since Boks got here!
2006
cats/dogs 54%
rabbits 51%
others 56%
total 54.40%
2005
cats/dogs 53%
rabbits 80%
others 63%
total 55.12%
Currently, in the last 12 months it is 53.92% but it was 55.12% before he got here. He's made things worse. Big deal fewer are euth'd and more are dying.
Broken down last 12 months vs previous 12 months by category.
last 12 months
cats/dogs 55.11%
rabbits 51%
others 47%
previous 12 months
cats/dogs 54.4%
rabbits 69%
others 64%
It's rabbits and others that are paying the heavier price. those are also the ones dying in the shelter.
.
Boks More Kill Totals for the Past 12 Months
.
Ed's performance for the past 12 months vs thew previous 12 months:
LIVE RELEASES - Adoption, New Hope, Foster, Released to foster,
Returned to owner
Last 12 months for all animals 30007/55649 = 53.92%
Previous 12 months all animals 31173/55535=56.13%
THE LIVE RELEASE RATE IS DOWN!!
It is down by 2%, just as his past annual report predicted.
Boks has made things worse since he got here.
1,166 fewer animals made it out alive during the last 12 months.
For cats/dogs only:
Last 12 months 25628/46495=55.1%
Previous 12 months 24937/45839=54.4%
This is the only category that shows EVEN SMALL PROGRESS--up .5%
Rabbits only:
Last 12 months 626/1217=51%
Previous 12 months 784/1142=69%
LIVE RELEASE IS DOWN 18%
Others only:
Last 12 months 3753/7937=47%
Previous 12 months 5452/8554=64%
LIVE RELEASE IS DOWN 17%
DEAD RELEASES - Animals euthanized and animals that died in the shelter. This does not include DOA.
Last 12 months total animals that died in shelter (sick, injured) 2075
Previous 12 months total animals that died 1109
ALMOST DOUBLE!
last 12 months total animals euthanized 21070
Previous 12 months total animals euthanized 22008
Total that were euthanized and died last 12 months 23145
Total that were euthanized and died previous 12 months 23117
This is a dead wash. There has been no improvement.
All he did was let 1,000 more animals die a cruel and painful death from illness and injury.
Ed's performance for the past 12 months vs thew previous 12 months:
LIVE RELEASES - Adoption, New Hope, Foster, Released to foster,
Returned to owner
Last 12 months for all animals 30007/55649 = 53.92%
Previous 12 months all animals 31173/55535=56.13%
THE LIVE RELEASE RATE IS DOWN!!
It is down by 2%, just as his past annual report predicted.
Boks has made things worse since he got here.
1,166 fewer animals made it out alive during the last 12 months.
For cats/dogs only:
Last 12 months 25628/46495=55.1%
Previous 12 months 24937/45839=54.4%
This is the only category that shows EVEN SMALL PROGRESS--up .5%
Rabbits only:
Last 12 months 626/1217=51%
Previous 12 months 784/1142=69%
LIVE RELEASE IS DOWN 18%
Others only:
Last 12 months 3753/7937=47%
Previous 12 months 5452/8554=64%
LIVE RELEASE IS DOWN 17%
DEAD RELEASES - Animals euthanized and animals that died in the shelter. This does not include DOA.
Last 12 months total animals that died in shelter (sick, injured) 2075
Previous 12 months total animals that died 1109
ALMOST DOUBLE!
last 12 months total animals euthanized 21070
Previous 12 months total animals euthanized 22008
Total that were euthanized and died last 12 months 23145
Total that were euthanized and died previous 12 months 23117
This is a dead wash. There has been no improvement.
All he did was let 1,000 more animals die a cruel and painful death from illness and injury.
What is Ed's True Resume?
.
Ed is going back and rewriting or deleting a lot of previous blog posts. He also no longer says he was the first shelter director to bring a municipal shelter to No-Kill while he was in Arizona. This after Brad Jensen's challenge to Boks to show the Maricopa Co. stats while Boks was there.
Now Ed is saying his new restricted hours policy was just a little joke, a public education gambit. Why doesn't he just admit that he withdrew the policy because of public and Council pressure? Does he have to lie all the time to make himself look perfect?
Now comes a new item. Has Boks been lying consistently about the years in his life between 1976 and 1993? Was he involved in animal control in Tennesee? What happened during those missing 17 years?
From Craigslist:
Ed Boks Strikes Again <> 06/25 01:58:28
Hello LA (Well, I would really say, "Hey Ya'll)I'm sorry to hear of your woes in the animal community surrounding Ed Boks.
I was the Humane Educator for a major southern city near Chattannooga, TN for 5 years.
I've never been a fan of Ed's. He came to Chattanooga and failed miserably there, too. I read an article in their newspaper about how "wonderful" he was & the numbers at the shelter. I called him on it. I wrote a letter to the editor about the manipulation of the numbers and anyone can sound good if they only euthanize "depressed" animals...heck, they're all depressed at the shelter!
I hate that LA is going through the same thing that NY & TN went through with Ed. I think that he is the con man of the animal welfare industry. He seems to say all the right things to talk his way into top paying top jobs, but then he can't deliver....so he talks his way into another top job somewhere else where, again, he can't cut it.
I got in lots of trouble for what I wrote. Apparently Ed doesn't like anyone to see through his words or call him on it. He emailed the Mayor, city councilmen, my boss. I got in lots of trouble. I told my boss, though, that I stood behind what I wrote. Perhaps I should not have written it from an official capacity, but it was still my opinion.
Unfortunately, he continues to run riot in other major urban areas.I'm sorry for your troubles, but when Ed is in the neighborhood, it doesn't surprise me at all.
I was in the animal welfare industry for the past 15 years. I've held almost every job possible within the industry. The last 3 years, I was the poster-child for compassion fatigue. I traded my "fun" M-F 8-4 job for a third shift desk job just to get out.
People like Ed are the reason people like me don't stay. It's futile.Thank you for your time.
It just gets curiouser and curiouser, doesn't it?
.
Ed is going back and rewriting or deleting a lot of previous blog posts. He also no longer says he was the first shelter director to bring a municipal shelter to No-Kill while he was in Arizona. This after Brad Jensen's challenge to Boks to show the Maricopa Co. stats while Boks was there.
Now Ed is saying his new restricted hours policy was just a little joke, a public education gambit. Why doesn't he just admit that he withdrew the policy because of public and Council pressure? Does he have to lie all the time to make himself look perfect?
Now comes a new item. Has Boks been lying consistently about the years in his life between 1976 and 1993? Was he involved in animal control in Tennesee? What happened during those missing 17 years?
From Craigslist:
Ed Boks Strikes Again <> 06/25 01:58:28
Hello LA (Well, I would really say, "Hey Ya'll)I'm sorry to hear of your woes in the animal community surrounding Ed Boks.
I was the Humane Educator for a major southern city near Chattannooga, TN for 5 years.
I've never been a fan of Ed's. He came to Chattanooga and failed miserably there, too. I read an article in their newspaper about how "wonderful" he was & the numbers at the shelter. I called him on it. I wrote a letter to the editor about the manipulation of the numbers and anyone can sound good if they only euthanize "depressed" animals...heck, they're all depressed at the shelter!
I hate that LA is going through the same thing that NY & TN went through with Ed. I think that he is the con man of the animal welfare industry. He seems to say all the right things to talk his way into top paying top jobs, but then he can't deliver....so he talks his way into another top job somewhere else where, again, he can't cut it.
I got in lots of trouble for what I wrote. Apparently Ed doesn't like anyone to see through his words or call him on it. He emailed the Mayor, city councilmen, my boss. I got in lots of trouble. I told my boss, though, that I stood behind what I wrote. Perhaps I should not have written it from an official capacity, but it was still my opinion.
Unfortunately, he continues to run riot in other major urban areas.I'm sorry for your troubles, but when Ed is in the neighborhood, it doesn't surprise me at all.
I was in the animal welfare industry for the past 15 years. I've held almost every job possible within the industry. The last 3 years, I was the poster-child for compassion fatigue. I traded my "fun" M-F 8-4 job for a third shift desk job just to get out.
People like Ed are the reason people like me don't stay. It's futile.Thank you for your time.
It just gets curiouser and curiouser, doesn't it?
.
Bos as a More-Kill GM
.
How dare Ed Boks give a talk on No-Kill next week. He has no idea of how to do no-kill.
Boks says LAAS has made great strides since he came in terms of modernization and lowered euthanasia and he is being unfairly criticized by arm chair fanatics.
But the posted statistics on the LAAS site reveal:Animals dying in the shelter from disease and injury have increased more dramatically than the drop in euthanasia.
Cats and Dogs died in shelter for the past 12 months is 812.Died in shelter the year before Ed came was 620.158 more cats and dogs have died of disease and abuse this past year than under Stuckey.
Rabbits euthanized during the past 12 months is 500; two years ago under Stuckey, it was 159.341 more rabbits were euthanized.
He killed 137 more ôOther Animals¤ during the past 12 months, than under Stuckey.
754 more ôOther Animals¤ died of disease or overcrowding this past year than the comparable year under Stuckey (1,206 vs. 452).
Therefore, the died in shelter from disease, abuse and euthanasia of rabbits and others during the past 12 months is 1,391.
1,391 MORE ANIMALS DIED DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS THAN UNDER STUCKEY, completely offsetting the gains made in cutting dog and cat euthanasia!
And what about those cats?
Rescuers tell me there are so many cats in EV that the cages are stacked so high you canْt see the cats in the top cages.
There are even more cats stuffed into two rooms not open to the public.Why on earth is Boks doing this? Those animals will never be adopted.
He is only storing them to make his numbers look better.
The cats get URI repeatedly, and he euthanizes them after the third treatment.
His strategy of storing animals is causing an extreme rise in the number dying in the shelter and will result in a huge euthanasia kill off because the cages canْt hold any more animals.Boks is actually substantially worse than Stuckey.
How dare Ed Boks give a talk on No-Kill next week. He has no idea of how to do no-kill.
Boks says LAAS has made great strides since he came in terms of modernization and lowered euthanasia and he is being unfairly criticized by arm chair fanatics.
But the posted statistics on the LAAS site reveal:Animals dying in the shelter from disease and injury have increased more dramatically than the drop in euthanasia.
Cats and Dogs died in shelter for the past 12 months is 812.Died in shelter the year before Ed came was 620.158 more cats and dogs have died of disease and abuse this past year than under Stuckey.
Rabbits euthanized during the past 12 months is 500; two years ago under Stuckey, it was 159.341 more rabbits were euthanized.
He killed 137 more ôOther Animals¤ during the past 12 months, than under Stuckey.
754 more ôOther Animals¤ died of disease or overcrowding this past year than the comparable year under Stuckey (1,206 vs. 452).
Therefore, the died in shelter from disease, abuse and euthanasia of rabbits and others during the past 12 months is 1,391.
1,391 MORE ANIMALS DIED DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS THAN UNDER STUCKEY, completely offsetting the gains made in cutting dog and cat euthanasia!
And what about those cats?
Rescuers tell me there are so many cats in EV that the cages are stacked so high you canْt see the cats in the top cages.
There are even more cats stuffed into two rooms not open to the public.Why on earth is Boks doing this? Those animals will never be adopted.
He is only storing them to make his numbers look better.
The cats get URI repeatedly, and he euthanizes them after the third treatment.
His strategy of storing animals is causing an extreme rise in the number dying in the shelter and will result in a huge euthanasia kill off because the cages canْt hold any more animals.Boks is actually substantially worse than Stuckey.
Boks as a More-Kill Manager
.
How dare Ed Boks give a talk on No-Kill next week. He has no idea of how to do no-kill.
Boks says LAAS has made great strides since he came in terms of modernization and lowered euthanasia and he is being unfairly criticized by arm chair fanatics.
But the posted statistics on the LAAS site reveal:Animals dying in the shelter from disease and injury have increased more dramatically than the drop in euthanasia.
Cats and Dogs died in shelter for the past 12 months is 812.Died in shelter the year before Ed came was 620.158 more cats and dogs have died of disease and abuse this past year than under Stuckey.
Rabbits euthanized during the past 12 months is 500; two years ago under Stuckey, it was 159.341 more rabbits were euthanized.
He killed 137 more “Other Animals” during the past 12 months, than under Stuckey.
754 more “Other Animals” died of disease or overcrowding this past year than the comparable year under Stuckey (1,206 vs. 452).
Therefore, the died in shelter from disease, abuse and euthanasia of rabbits and others during the past 12 months is 1,391.
1,391 MORE ANIMALS DIED DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS THAN UNDER STUCKEY, completely offsetting the gains made in cutting dog and cat euthanasia!
And what about those cats?
Rescuers tell me there are so many cats in EV that the cages are stacked so high you can’t see the cats in the top cages.
There are even more cats stuffed into two rooms not open to the public.Why on earth is Boks doing this? Those animals will never be adopted.
He is only storing them to make his numbers look better.
The cats get URI repeatedly, and he euthanizes them after the third treatment.
His strategy of storing animals is causing an extreme rise in the number dying in the shelter and will result in a huge euthanasia kill off because the cages can’t hold any more animals.Boks is actually substantially worse than Stuckey.
.
How dare Ed Boks give a talk on No-Kill next week. He has no idea of how to do no-kill.
Boks says LAAS has made great strides since he came in terms of modernization and lowered euthanasia and he is being unfairly criticized by arm chair fanatics.
But the posted statistics on the LAAS site reveal:Animals dying in the shelter from disease and injury have increased more dramatically than the drop in euthanasia.
Cats and Dogs died in shelter for the past 12 months is 812.Died in shelter the year before Ed came was 620.158 more cats and dogs have died of disease and abuse this past year than under Stuckey.
Rabbits euthanized during the past 12 months is 500; two years ago under Stuckey, it was 159.341 more rabbits were euthanized.
He killed 137 more “Other Animals” during the past 12 months, than under Stuckey.
754 more “Other Animals” died of disease or overcrowding this past year than the comparable year under Stuckey (1,206 vs. 452).
Therefore, the died in shelter from disease, abuse and euthanasia of rabbits and others during the past 12 months is 1,391.
1,391 MORE ANIMALS DIED DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS THAN UNDER STUCKEY, completely offsetting the gains made in cutting dog and cat euthanasia!
And what about those cats?
Rescuers tell me there are so many cats in EV that the cages are stacked so high you can’t see the cats in the top cages.
There are even more cats stuffed into two rooms not open to the public.Why on earth is Boks doing this? Those animals will never be adopted.
He is only storing them to make his numbers look better.
The cats get URI repeatedly, and he euthanizes them after the third treatment.
His strategy of storing animals is causing an extreme rise in the number dying in the shelter and will result in a huge euthanasia kill off because the cages can’t hold any more animals.Boks is actually substantially worse than Stuckey.
.
Yet Another Clarification on the New Policy
.
If Ed backpedals any further on his new policy by yet another "clarification," soon the department will be accepting owner and non-owner turn ins, 24/7, of any kind of neonatal cat, cat, dog, cow, mule, mink, fox, squirrel, insect, reptile and mollusk, no questions asked. Staff will even give them a thank you note. Of course, this is what Ed says, but the shelters will still be turning away animals as they were two months ago.
Imagine, even Scott is outraged.
There is no way now for Ed to avoid a July kill-off of epic proportions. At least now he is actually doing things he should have been doing 15 months ago.
He is transferring animals to West LA; a policy change. I hope it works; we all hope it works.
Boks is bashed enough; time to rescue the animals or set them free in Griffith Park with five staffers as shepherds.
.
If Ed backpedals any further on his new policy by yet another "clarification," soon the department will be accepting owner and non-owner turn ins, 24/7, of any kind of neonatal cat, cat, dog, cow, mule, mink, fox, squirrel, insect, reptile and mollusk, no questions asked. Staff will even give them a thank you note. Of course, this is what Ed says, but the shelters will still be turning away animals as they were two months ago.
Imagine, even Scott is outraged.
There is no way now for Ed to avoid a July kill-off of epic proportions. At least now he is actually doing things he should have been doing 15 months ago.
He is transferring animals to West LA; a policy change. I hope it works; we all hope it works.
Boks is bashed enough; time to rescue the animals or set them free in Griffith Park with five staffers as shepherds.
.
Re the Restricted Surrender Hours
.
Actually, the below is quite well argued. It makes a lot of sense. I may change my position.
Rescue & Humane Alliance-Los Angeles
As you may know, LA Animal Services recently announced a new policy substantially restricting the hours that shelters will accept owner-surrendered animals from the public (see attached press release).
According to this policy, members of the public will only be permitted to surrender animals during specific "receiving hours" (2-5pm Wednesday/Friday and 2-7pm Tuesday/Thursday). There will be no weekend relinquishment hours.
Within days after the initial press release, General Manager Ed Boks wrote a follow-up blog (reprinted below for your convenience) stating that in practice the staff will not refuse animals at other times if the member of the public persists.
In order to fully evaluate this policy (even as amended), one needs to look not at an "ideal world," where this policy might have arguable merit, but in the "world in which we live," where the consequences will almost certainly be disastrous. Among the many reasons this policy is unworkable, here are five:
1. People rebuffed at the shelter (and only some will be insistent) are not going to suddenly have a "change of heart." Neither will those who by chance become aware of the policy and feel the times are too inconvenient. They will likely tie their animals to a tree, simply let them go, or dump them somewhere else. This shows blatant disregard for public safety, a charter-mandated function of animal services, and the welfare of the animals.
2. When animal services picks up these newly-dumped animals as strays, they will no longer be immediately available for adoption (as they otherwise would have been as owner-surrendered), but instead will be unavailable for 4 days. This will have the unintended effect of additionally taxing shelter staff and resources.
3. This policy does not affect strays, so people will simply say the animals they are dumping are stray. Has no one in management discussed this with experienced staff who see this every day?
4. Some people will be confused and think the policy does apply to strays, and thus be less likely to help a stray they might encounter in a dangerous situation (on the freeway, on a busy street, etc.). Staff are frequently confused about shelter policies, so imagine how confused the public will be.
5. The restricted hours seem to be deliberately inconvenient so that very few people would be available at these times. In fact, these hours are openly antagonistic to the public, which will likely lead to a high volume of complaints.
This is a careless, thoughtless, and reckless policy - almost an act of desperation. It says that despite all of the "new" programs, the shelters are more overwhelmed than ever and have no real plan and no real solutions. It seeks to address the problem by not addressing the problem. It amounts to a refusal by LA Animal Services to perform its charter-mandated public safety function. It seeks to improve statistics at the expense of animal welfare. Its governing principle is: if the animals are not in the shelter (because we refuse to intake them), they are not our problem, they won't affect our statistics, and we don't give a damn what happens to them.
RHA-LA is outraged, and you should be, too! Please join us by imploring the City Council, the LAAS Commisioners and General Manager Ed Boks to immediately repeal this policy and implement proven programs and services that will actually address the underlying causes of pet relinquishment.
When the shelter has experienced, compassionate volunteer or staff relinquishment counselors at every shelter, and when comprehensive pet retention programs are in place, THEN maybe limitations on hours for relinquishment would make sense. But even then, the hours will have to be convenient for the public. In fact, because this education is so important, the hours should be the most convenient for the public.
REPLY to this message in the next 24 hours and we will compile the responses and share them with your City Councilmembers, LAAS Commissioners, LAAS Senior Staff and the Mayor's office. Thank you.
Board of Directors
Rescue & Humane Alliance-Los Angeles
.
Actually, the below is quite well argued. It makes a lot of sense. I may change my position.
Rescue & Humane Alliance-Los Angeles
As you may know, LA Animal Services recently announced a new policy substantially restricting the hours that shelters will accept owner-surrendered animals from the public (see attached press release).
According to this policy, members of the public will only be permitted to surrender animals during specific "receiving hours" (2-5pm Wednesday/Friday and 2-7pm Tuesday/Thursday). There will be no weekend relinquishment hours.
Within days after the initial press release, General Manager Ed Boks wrote a follow-up blog (reprinted below for your convenience) stating that in practice the staff will not refuse animals at other times if the member of the public persists.
In order to fully evaluate this policy (even as amended), one needs to look not at an "ideal world," where this policy might have arguable merit, but in the "world in which we live," where the consequences will almost certainly be disastrous. Among the many reasons this policy is unworkable, here are five:
1. People rebuffed at the shelter (and only some will be insistent) are not going to suddenly have a "change of heart." Neither will those who by chance become aware of the policy and feel the times are too inconvenient. They will likely tie their animals to a tree, simply let them go, or dump them somewhere else. This shows blatant disregard for public safety, a charter-mandated function of animal services, and the welfare of the animals.
2. When animal services picks up these newly-dumped animals as strays, they will no longer be immediately available for adoption (as they otherwise would have been as owner-surrendered), but instead will be unavailable for 4 days. This will have the unintended effect of additionally taxing shelter staff and resources.
3. This policy does not affect strays, so people will simply say the animals they are dumping are stray. Has no one in management discussed this with experienced staff who see this every day?
4. Some people will be confused and think the policy does apply to strays, and thus be less likely to help a stray they might encounter in a dangerous situation (on the freeway, on a busy street, etc.). Staff are frequently confused about shelter policies, so imagine how confused the public will be.
5. The restricted hours seem to be deliberately inconvenient so that very few people would be available at these times. In fact, these hours are openly antagonistic to the public, which will likely lead to a high volume of complaints.
This is a careless, thoughtless, and reckless policy - almost an act of desperation. It says that despite all of the "new" programs, the shelters are more overwhelmed than ever and have no real plan and no real solutions. It seeks to address the problem by not addressing the problem. It amounts to a refusal by LA Animal Services to perform its charter-mandated public safety function. It seeks to improve statistics at the expense of animal welfare. Its governing principle is: if the animals are not in the shelter (because we refuse to intake them), they are not our problem, they won't affect our statistics, and we don't give a damn what happens to them.
RHA-LA is outraged, and you should be, too! Please join us by imploring the City Council, the LAAS Commisioners and General Manager Ed Boks to immediately repeal this policy and implement proven programs and services that will actually address the underlying causes of pet relinquishment.
When the shelter has experienced, compassionate volunteer or staff relinquishment counselors at every shelter, and when comprehensive pet retention programs are in place, THEN maybe limitations on hours for relinquishment would make sense. But even then, the hours will have to be convenient for the public. In fact, because this education is so important, the hours should be the most convenient for the public.
REPLY to this message in the next 24 hours and we will compile the responses and share them with your City Councilmembers, LAAS Commissioners, LAAS Senior Staff and the Mayor's office. Thank you.
Board of Directors
Rescue & Humane Alliance-Los Angeles
.
Brad's Challenge Renewed
.
Boks claimed that he brought the first municipal shelter to no-kill in Arizona when he was there. That would be either 2002 or 2003. Winograd definitely brought a municipal shelter to no-kill in 2002 in Ithaca.
Since Boks killed 51% of the animals impounded in Maricopa Co. in 2003, how can he claim to have have brought any shelter to No-Kill?
I understand Maricopa Co. has two shelters and an adoption center. He claimed he brought one of the shelters to no-kill, not the entire county.
I want to reissue Brad Jensen's challenge to Boks to supply all of the Maricopa County's statistics for the time Ed was there--for all shelters and adoption centers. Brad will study and render a verdict. I'll publish the results.
Ed, this is the challenge. Will you accept, or will you avoid comment altogether?
.
Boks claimed that he brought the first municipal shelter to no-kill in Arizona when he was there. That would be either 2002 or 2003. Winograd definitely brought a municipal shelter to no-kill in 2002 in Ithaca.
Since Boks killed 51% of the animals impounded in Maricopa Co. in 2003, how can he claim to have have brought any shelter to No-Kill?
I understand Maricopa Co. has two shelters and an adoption center. He claimed he brought one of the shelters to no-kill, not the entire county.
I want to reissue Brad Jensen's challenge to Boks to supply all of the Maricopa County's statistics for the time Ed was there--for all shelters and adoption centers. Brad will study and render a verdict. I'll publish the results.
Ed, this is the challenge. Will you accept, or will you avoid comment altogether?
.
Press Release Ani...
.
In our continuing efforts at increasing our transparency, starting with the April 2007 report, we break down the former "Stolen" category into three more precise categories. Animals still shown in the "Stolen" category had a police report for the theft. Animals for which the outcome is not certain due to inputing errors or other techie problems are simply "Missing." We then added a few more unprecise categories which are also not "Euthanized" but some other condition.
These new categories include the following: "Abducted by aliens," "Spontaneous combustion," "Struck by lightning," "Kidnapped by the Russian mob," "Ran away to join the circus," "Transferred Lord only knows where," and the ever popular "Animal signed consent form to be used in animal research." Consequently, LA is now the first large municipal City to become "NoKill !
Honestly yours,
Ed Boks
.
In our continuing efforts at increasing our transparency, starting with the April 2007 report, we break down the former "Stolen" category into three more precise categories. Animals still shown in the "Stolen" category had a police report for the theft. Animals for which the outcome is not certain due to inputing errors or other techie problems are simply "Missing." We then added a few more unprecise categories which are also not "Euthanized" but some other condition.
These new categories include the following: "Abducted by aliens," "Spontaneous combustion," "Struck by lightning," "Kidnapped by the Russian mob," "Ran away to join the circus," "Transferred Lord only knows where," and the ever popular "Animal signed consent form to be used in animal research." Consequently, LA is now the first large municipal City to become "NoKill !
Honestly yours,
Ed Boks
.
LA Animal Services Opens Cages - Shuts Doors
by No-Kill Joe
LOS ANGELES - General Manager Ed Boks of the Los Angeles Department of Animal Services, in a controversial move which has come under fire from City Hall, ordered all cages at the City's six Animal Care Centers opened and all animals set free. Citing desperation in its failure to manage, care for and adopt out the thousands of homeless pets impounded each year, Boks said the Department was forced to take this unprecedented action early Saturday morning.
At 8am, residents were awakened by barking, caterwauling, and braying as over 1,500 cats, dogs and rabbits, together with hundreds of reptiles, 2 donkeys, 7 horses, and assorted livestock ran out of the six facilities and into the streets of Los Angeles.
Council offices and City Hall were immediately flooded with calls. While many expressed outrage, some animal activists praised the move. "I guess we're no-kill now!" proclaimed a representative of ADL-LA, a group which has criticized Boks for killing shelter animals, and organized protests at the homes of various officials.
The move wreaked havoc on busy intersections throughout the City, as animals
darted in and out of traffic. In Van Nuys, the sudden appearance of hundreds of cats and dogs bounding joyfully down Vanowen Street caused 6 separate collisions, injuring 12 people.
Elsewhere, residents experienced memorable encounters with the newly-freed pets. In Lincoln Heights, three exotic dancers from a local strip club were initially frightened when a pack of pit bulls and rottweilers ran up to them as they were leaving work. Surprisingly, the young women were ultimately greeted with kisses and tail wags from the happy pooches finally released from bondage.
Boks, who has been the subject of controversy throughout his 18-month tenure, cited the Department's inability to manage the thousands of animals in their care. "We just didn't know what to do. We're completely overwhelmed. If someone has a better idea, I'd like to hear it so I can write a blog to refute it."
The doors of each facility were closed as soon as the last animal passed safely through. Department officials said that barring a court order, they would not reopen.
Many employees expressed relief that they would no longer have to see animals killed every day. "I think it's a good move," said one shelter worker. "Look, if the General Manager doesn't know what to do, and he makes a six-figure salary, how am I supposed to figure this out for $13.75 an hour."
The president of the union that represents most of the shelter staff reassured members via email that regardless of the shelter closings, employees would be paid indefinitely their full salaries.
The Mayor, who sources say spent the night at a hotel with "a good friend," was unavailable for comment.
.
LOS ANGELES - General Manager Ed Boks of the Los Angeles Department of Animal Services, in a controversial move which has come under fire from City Hall, ordered all cages at the City's six Animal Care Centers opened and all animals set free. Citing desperation in its failure to manage, care for and adopt out the thousands of homeless pets impounded each year, Boks said the Department was forced to take this unprecedented action early Saturday morning.
At 8am, residents were awakened by barking, caterwauling, and braying as over 1,500 cats, dogs and rabbits, together with hundreds of reptiles, 2 donkeys, 7 horses, and assorted livestock ran out of the six facilities and into the streets of Los Angeles.
Council offices and City Hall were immediately flooded with calls. While many expressed outrage, some animal activists praised the move. "I guess we're no-kill now!" proclaimed a representative of ADL-LA, a group which has criticized Boks for killing shelter animals, and organized protests at the homes of various officials.
The move wreaked havoc on busy intersections throughout the City, as animals
darted in and out of traffic. In Van Nuys, the sudden appearance of hundreds of cats and dogs bounding joyfully down Vanowen Street caused 6 separate collisions, injuring 12 people.
Elsewhere, residents experienced memorable encounters with the newly-freed pets. In Lincoln Heights, three exotic dancers from a local strip club were initially frightened when a pack of pit bulls and rottweilers ran up to them as they were leaving work. Surprisingly, the young women were ultimately greeted with kisses and tail wags from the happy pooches finally released from bondage.
Boks, who has been the subject of controversy throughout his 18-month tenure, cited the Department's inability to manage the thousands of animals in their care. "We just didn't know what to do. We're completely overwhelmed. If someone has a better idea, I'd like to hear it so I can write a blog to refute it."
The doors of each facility were closed as soon as the last animal passed safely through. Department officials said that barring a court order, they would not reopen.
Many employees expressed relief that they would no longer have to see animals killed every day. "I think it's a good move," said one shelter worker. "Look, if the General Manager doesn't know what to do, and he makes a six-figure salary, how am I supposed to figure this out for $13.75 an hour."
The president of the union that represents most of the shelter staff reassured members via email that regardless of the shelter closings, employees would be paid indefinitely their full salaries.
The Mayor, who sources say spent the night at a hotel with "a good friend," was unavailable for comment.
.
Curious
.
Boks is a politician, he tells everybody different stories. In an April 17, 2007 news release by LAAS, Boks told Council:
"I am here today representing the 400 employees of Animal Services and the hundreds of volunteers and partners we have throughout Los Angeles who carry the burden and brunt of pet overpopulation everyday – as we take in, care for and ultimately kill 50% of the animals in our charge. This act is both a fiscally responsible and humane solution to our City’s vexing pet overpopulation woes, and I ask for your support.”
Why on earth would he say 50% of animals turned in are killed? To Council no less? This is actually worse than the 41% kill it was then.
Why would he tell them he has 400 employees when 320 are budgeted? In the past he has told Council LAAS has a budget of $25,000,000, but the new annual report just published says $18,000,000.
Ed, sometimes people actually listen to what you say and make note.
.
Boks is a politician, he tells everybody different stories. In an April 17, 2007 news release by LAAS, Boks told Council:
"I am here today representing the 400 employees of Animal Services and the hundreds of volunteers and partners we have throughout Los Angeles who carry the burden and brunt of pet overpopulation everyday – as we take in, care for and ultimately kill 50% of the animals in our charge. This act is both a fiscally responsible and humane solution to our City’s vexing pet overpopulation woes, and I ask for your support.”
Why on earth would he say 50% of animals turned in are killed? To Council no less? This is actually worse than the 41% kill it was then.
Why would he tell them he has 400 employees when 320 are budgeted? In the past he has told Council LAAS has a budget of $25,000,000, but the new annual report just published says $18,000,000.
Ed, sometimes people actually listen to what you say and make note.
.
Boks Bounces Back!
.
Ed has posted four new Rumor vs. Truth posts on ww.laanimalservices.org.
His responses sound plausible, but I don't know how truthful.
He states neonatals and nursing moms are not excluded by his new restricted hours for owner turn-ins. I guess they are not considered owner turn-ins, even if they were turned in by owners. He didn't state this in his policy announcement.
But he is turning away neonatals as there were considerably fewer impounds this past May ccompared to 2006, 233 to be exact. This can only be explained by a very slow kitten season or turning them away.
I agree with his new limited turn-in hours. Naysayers will say more will die on the streets, but dying is dying, whether by truck or by euthanol, and it is mere speculation on the naysayers' that accepts only the worst case scenario as an outcome.
.
Ed has posted four new Rumor vs. Truth posts on ww.laanimalservices.org.
His responses sound plausible, but I don't know how truthful.
He states neonatals and nursing moms are not excluded by his new restricted hours for owner turn-ins. I guess they are not considered owner turn-ins, even if they were turned in by owners. He didn't state this in his policy announcement.
But he is turning away neonatals as there were considerably fewer impounds this past May ccompared to 2006, 233 to be exact. This can only be explained by a very slow kitten season or turning them away.
I agree with his new limited turn-in hours. Naysayers will say more will die on the streets, but dying is dying, whether by truck or by euthanol, and it is mere speculation on the naysayers' that accepts only the worst case scenario as an outcome.
.
Brad Jensen Challenges Boks:
I remarked a few posts back that Boks has a way of using words very deceptively. (Lies) In his annual report as well as on his blog in the bio section, he claims to be the first shelter director to bring a municipal shelter to no-kill. This would be in Maricopa County, Arizona in 2002.
When I contronted him asking how this was possible when the kill rate was 51% that year, he replied Maricopa Co. had three shelters, and he brought one of them to no-kill.
However, one of those shelters is not a shelter, but an adoption center. I assume it was the adoption center he claims he brought to no-kill status. Well, an adoption center is not a shelter.
Brad Jensen, the statistical genius who has been tracking LAAS intake and disposition numbers has issued a challenge:
"Boks, provide me the animal records for those 3 Arizona shelters prior to and while you were there and we'll see what you achieved. You know how to get hold of me.
PS. Oh and Boks, you still owe me LAAS animal records. I paid you in good faith and you have yet to provide all the information I was told would be sent. Very suspicious."
Brad Jensen
So far--surprise, surprise--Boks has not accepted Jensen's challenge. How on earth an anyone claim to have brought a municipal shelter to no-kill when he killed 29,000 cats and dogs in 2003 out of 57,000 impounded?
As Edward R. Murrow said to McCarthy, "Have you no shame?"
I remarked a few posts back that Boks has a way of using words very deceptively. (Lies) In his annual report as well as on his blog in the bio section, he claims to be the first shelter director to bring a municipal shelter to no-kill. This would be in Maricopa County, Arizona in 2002.
When I contronted him asking how this was possible when the kill rate was 51% that year, he replied Maricopa Co. had three shelters, and he brought one of them to no-kill.
However, one of those shelters is not a shelter, but an adoption center. I assume it was the adoption center he claims he brought to no-kill status. Well, an adoption center is not a shelter.
Brad Jensen, the statistical genius who has been tracking LAAS intake and disposition numbers has issued a challenge:
"Boks, provide me the animal records for those 3 Arizona shelters prior to and while you were there and we'll see what you achieved. You know how to get hold of me.
PS. Oh and Boks, you still owe me LAAS animal records. I paid you in good faith and you have yet to provide all the information I was told would be sent. Very suspicious."
Brad Jensen
So far--surprise, surprise--Boks has not accepted Jensen's challenge. How on earth an anyone claim to have brought a municipal shelter to no-kill when he killed 29,000 cats and dogs in 2003 out of 57,000 impounded?
As Edward R. Murrow said to McCarthy, "Have you no shame?"
A New First:
.
LAAS is the first municipal shelter in the country to implement a closed door policy.
Like I said before. I agree in principle that not taking animals into the shelters saves lives, but it also makes others suffer more.
The problem is thrown back onto the community to solve for itself with few resources.
This is irresponsible and artificially brings LAAS to No-Kill. No animals; no kill.
There has to be some way for LAAS to help the rescue groups at this time, and not just provide the public with “resource” lists of full-up non-profits. Regarding neonatals, who he killed 5,600 last year, the situation is most desperate. he has to have some of his lazy-assed employees greet people at the shelter door telling people the truth about neonatals, returning the kittens to their moms, teaching how to bottle-feed, and working with groups to help them deal with the flood of kittens.
Why not assign some of his lazy-assed employees do nothing but bottle-feed and work with New Hope groups? Why not have some employees bottle feeding kittens in the shelter reception area when the public brings the kittens in? Anything.
What is happening with East Valley and the SALA's 150 day neonatal center?
One thing is unquestionable. Ed is not sharing the wealth or success with anyone else. He is not embracing offered help and expertise from the community or from across the country. He is not bringing the New Hope and welfare groups together for the common good. There is too much of Ed in everything. New Hope rescues have been down all during his tenure here.
Ed has to accept help from No-Kill experts and offered help from out the city.
I know of one shelter director who offered his shelter management expertise, free for the asking. Ed did not return his phone calls. For his own good and that of the animals he really needs to bring Nathan in, no matter how much humiliation this brings him. It will show the community he is working to help the animals not just his reputation.
Hell, he could ask for consulting help from Carl Friedman from the San Francisco municipal shelter instead of investing in programs that do not work.
Boks is going. There is no doubt about that at this point, maybe by March of next year.
There is a tiny chance if he were to embrace outside help and resources he could keep his job longer and a lot more lives would be saved.
This is a comment from an outside shelter director:
Like I said before. I agree in principle that not taking animals into the shelters saves lives, but it also makes others suffer more.
The problem is thrown back onto the community to solve for itself with few resources.
This is irresponsible and artificially brings LAAS to No-Kill. No animals; no kill.
There has to be some way for LAAS to help the rescue groups at this time, and not just provide the public with “resource” lists of full-up non-profits.
What is happening with East Valley and the SALAS 150 day neonatal center?
One thing is unquestionable. Ed is not sharing the wealth or success with anyone else. He is not embracing offered help and expertise from the community or from across the country. He is not bringing the New Hope and welfare groups together for the common good. There is too much of Ed in everything. New Hope rescues have been down all during his tenure here.
Ed has to accept help from No-Kill experts and offered help from out the city.
I know of one shelter director who offered his shelter management expertise, free for the asking. Ed did not return his phone calls. For his own good and that of the animals he really needs to bring Nathan in, no matter how much humiliation this brings him. It will show the community he is working to help the animals not just his reputation.
Hell, he could ask for consulting help from Carl Friedman from the San Francisco municipal shelter instead of investing in programs that do not work.
Boks is going. There is no doubt about that at this point, maybe by March of next year.
There is a tiny chance if he were to embrace outside help and resources he could keep his job longer and a lot more lives would be saved.
This is a comment on Ed's closed door admission policy by another shelter system director:
This policy is so bad! What he needs to do is say bring all unwanted pets to the shelter and offer free S/N's to people who bring in pets. They will likely keep one, the mom, and volunteers can foster the others and find homes for them. This should increase adoptions of cats and dogs significantly.
Transferring the problem to another day is stupid.
Thanks for the update and info. I think Mr. Boks is listening to the chickens while the coop burns down.
.
LAAS is the first municipal shelter in the country to implement a closed door policy.
Like I said before. I agree in principle that not taking animals into the shelters saves lives, but it also makes others suffer more.
The problem is thrown back onto the community to solve for itself with few resources.
This is irresponsible and artificially brings LAAS to No-Kill. No animals; no kill.
There has to be some way for LAAS to help the rescue groups at this time, and not just provide the public with “resource” lists of full-up non-profits. Regarding neonatals, who he killed 5,600 last year, the situation is most desperate. he has to have some of his lazy-assed employees greet people at the shelter door telling people the truth about neonatals, returning the kittens to their moms, teaching how to bottle-feed, and working with groups to help them deal with the flood of kittens.
Why not assign some of his lazy-assed employees do nothing but bottle-feed and work with New Hope groups? Why not have some employees bottle feeding kittens in the shelter reception area when the public brings the kittens in? Anything.
What is happening with East Valley and the SALA's 150 day neonatal center?
One thing is unquestionable. Ed is not sharing the wealth or success with anyone else. He is not embracing offered help and expertise from the community or from across the country. He is not bringing the New Hope and welfare groups together for the common good. There is too much of Ed in everything. New Hope rescues have been down all during his tenure here.
Ed has to accept help from No-Kill experts and offered help from out the city.
I know of one shelter director who offered his shelter management expertise, free for the asking. Ed did not return his phone calls. For his own good and that of the animals he really needs to bring Nathan in, no matter how much humiliation this brings him. It will show the community he is working to help the animals not just his reputation.
Hell, he could ask for consulting help from Carl Friedman from the San Francisco municipal shelter instead of investing in programs that do not work.
Boks is going. There is no doubt about that at this point, maybe by March of next year.
There is a tiny chance if he were to embrace outside help and resources he could keep his job longer and a lot more lives would be saved.
This is a comment from an outside shelter director:
Like I said before. I agree in principle that not taking animals into the shelters saves lives, but it also makes others suffer more.
The problem is thrown back onto the community to solve for itself with few resources.
This is irresponsible and artificially brings LAAS to No-Kill. No animals; no kill.
There has to be some way for LAAS to help the rescue groups at this time, and not just provide the public with “resource” lists of full-up non-profits.
What is happening with East Valley and the SALAS 150 day neonatal center?
One thing is unquestionable. Ed is not sharing the wealth or success with anyone else. He is not embracing offered help and expertise from the community or from across the country. He is not bringing the New Hope and welfare groups together for the common good. There is too much of Ed in everything. New Hope rescues have been down all during his tenure here.
Ed has to accept help from No-Kill experts and offered help from out the city.
I know of one shelter director who offered his shelter management expertise, free for the asking. Ed did not return his phone calls. For his own good and that of the animals he really needs to bring Nathan in, no matter how much humiliation this brings him. It will show the community he is working to help the animals not just his reputation.
Hell, he could ask for consulting help from Carl Friedman from the San Francisco municipal shelter instead of investing in programs that do not work.
Boks is going. There is no doubt about that at this point, maybe by March of next year.
There is a tiny chance if he were to embrace outside help and resources he could keep his job longer and a lot more lives would be saved.
This is a comment on Ed's closed door admission policy by another shelter system director:
This policy is so bad! What he needs to do is say bring all unwanted pets to the shelter and offer free S/N's to people who bring in pets. They will likely keep one, the mom, and volunteers can foster the others and find homes for them. This should increase adoptions of cats and dogs significantly.
Transferring the problem to another day is stupid.
Thanks for the update and info. I think Mr. Boks is listening to the chickens while the coop burns down.
.
Comments on the Policy Change
.
I'm just shocked that things are getting worse. Who would have ever believed that they'd just shutter the shelter doors to stop intake to reduce euthanasia numbers?
Blame not just Boks, but much of LAAS personnel. Someone told me 80% are deadheads.
In fact when Stuckey first started here he told someone that he had no idea the staff could possibly be so stupid and lazy. Now with Boks they are more than just stupid and lazy. They hate him because he comes from more of an activist background. The staff turned Boks in to the LAPD telling them he was a terrorist with ADL.
The City’s red tape, sociopaths in the Mayor’s Office (not Bickhart), stupid lazy employees working against you, Boks doesn't have an easy job. He bit off way more than he could chew and the animals are paying for it. He didn't think it'd be this bad. He thought activists would love him. Of course he brought a lot of this on himself by lying and making impossible projections.
We were told Debbie Knaan quit because she was offered a job she couldn't refuse. But any job would be unrefusable compared to working for this department. Employee problems, Boks' alleged criminal actions, Hayden act violations, fudging the books, upcoming lawsuits, activist opposition; who wants to go down with Boks?
It is Interesting that Knaan announced her resignation the day after ADL protested at her house.
Before she was the AGM, she knew there were major problems. She just thought she could fix them. I think she made progress but there are just too many problems.
You could make great new policies and programs but if the employees aren't implementing things, what's the point?
.
I'm just shocked that things are getting worse. Who would have ever believed that they'd just shutter the shelter doors to stop intake to reduce euthanasia numbers?
Blame not just Boks, but much of LAAS personnel. Someone told me 80% are deadheads.
In fact when Stuckey first started here he told someone that he had no idea the staff could possibly be so stupid and lazy. Now with Boks they are more than just stupid and lazy. They hate him because he comes from more of an activist background. The staff turned Boks in to the LAPD telling them he was a terrorist with ADL.
The City’s red tape, sociopaths in the Mayor’s Office (not Bickhart), stupid lazy employees working against you, Boks doesn't have an easy job. He bit off way more than he could chew and the animals are paying for it. He didn't think it'd be this bad. He thought activists would love him. Of course he brought a lot of this on himself by lying and making impossible projections.
We were told Debbie Knaan quit because she was offered a job she couldn't refuse. But any job would be unrefusable compared to working for this department. Employee problems, Boks' alleged criminal actions, Hayden act violations, fudging the books, upcoming lawsuits, activist opposition; who wants to go down with Boks?
It is Interesting that Knaan announced her resignation the day after ADL protested at her house.
Before she was the AGM, she knew there were major problems. She just thought she could fix them. I think she made progress but there are just too many problems.
You could make great new policies and programs but if the employees aren't implementing things, what's the point?
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)