.
Ed Boks gave us numbers on the decrease in kill of cats and dogs in 2007 vs. 2006, January through March.
But what about "Other Animals; i.e., hamsters, birds, turtles, snakes, etc.?
A brief looks at the January-March 2005-2007 stats on the LAAS website shows:
Left the shelter alive 2005:..........704 .............63%
Left the shelter alive 2006:.........855...............54%
Left the shelter alive 2007:........ 467................34%
388 fewer other animals left the shelters alive in 2007
AND, the save RATE fell from 63% to 34%!!
Died of Illness/Injury 2005: 50
Died of Illness/injury 2006: 178
Died of Illness/Injury 2007: 374
196 more animals died of disease in 2007
versus 178 in 2006
and 50 in 2005.
The death by disease and injury was higher 748% than Stuckey’s first 3 months.
This is what happens when you hold animals longer: euthanasia goes down, but death by disease increases.
268 more cats and dogs left alive in 2007 than the year before, but 388 fewer "Other Animals" left alive in 2007, meaning overall,
Boks saved 120 fewer lives during the 1st quarter of 2007 (129 if you count rabbits.)
.
Boks' Progress is a Dud; Greenwalt Accomplished 1000% More in One Year
.
The Associated Press took Carla Hall's article in the LA Times, edited it, and made Boks seem like a hero because he killed 282 fewer cats and dogs during the last half of calendar 2006. Wow! Ed brought the kill numbers down 2.4%!!
Open the wine bottle!!
Of course, Boks performance should be compared to previous general managers for each 12 month period ending March 31:
4/1/06-07 Boks........Kill number down by ...........653
4/1/05-06 Stuckey.........Kill number down by.............3,035
4/1/04-05 Greenwalt.....Kill number down by ............4,402
4/1/03-04 Greenwalt.....Kill number down by ............3,062
4/1/02-03 Greenwalt.....Kill number down by ............6,101
Well, I guess Ed has made some progress. Of course, Greenwalt during his best year decreased the killing by a factor of ten times that of Boks--meaning almost 1,000%. During his worst year, Greenwalt decreased the killing rate by 470% of what Boks did this past 12 months.
Stuckey also bettered Boks kill rate decrease by 470%.
Break out the wine, but make it a cheap bottle.
Does anyone have Stuckey's phone number?
The Associated Press took Carla Hall's article in the LA Times, edited it, and made Boks seem like a hero because he killed 282 fewer cats and dogs during the last half of calendar 2006. Wow! Ed brought the kill numbers down 2.4%!!
Open the wine bottle!!
Of course, Boks performance should be compared to previous general managers for each 12 month period ending March 31:
4/1/06-07 Boks........Kill number down by ...........653
4/1/05-06 Stuckey.........Kill number down by.............3,035
4/1/04-05 Greenwalt.....Kill number down by ............4,402
4/1/03-04 Greenwalt.....Kill number down by ............3,062
4/1/02-03 Greenwalt.....Kill number down by ............6,101
Well, I guess Ed has made some progress. Of course, Greenwalt during his best year decreased the killing by a factor of ten times that of Boks--meaning almost 1,000%. During his worst year, Greenwalt decreased the killing rate by 470% of what Boks did this past 12 months.
Stuckey also bettered Boks kill rate decrease by 470%.
Break out the wine, but make it a cheap bottle.
Does anyone have Stuckey's phone number?
More Reasons to Boycott Anything Made in China
.
Consumers have reported the deaths of as many as 8,500 dogs and cats as a result of tainted pet food, federal officials said Thursday.
More Reasons to Boycott Anything Made In China
An entrepreneur meets resistance in changing unhealthful practices. (Edited for Brevity)
By Don Lee, Times Staff WriterMay 3, 2007
Honey and thousands of other Chinese food products are showing up more and more on dining tables around the world. Last year, China said it exported $3.8 billion worth of food to the U.S., including vast quantities of apple juice, garlic, sausage casings, canned mushrooms and honey.
(The beekeepers are): storing honey in metal containers; those can taint the sweet goo with toxic iron and lead.
(Beekeepers long have used): antibiotics in their colonies; the drugs can make people sick. (They are): storing honey in metal containers; those can taint the sweet goo with toxic iron and lead.(Many beekeepers): are hostile to his efforts, which they see as a threat to their decades-old way of doing business on the cheap and making easy profits.
Short-term profits are so important that farmers, traders and brokers have little incentive to change old practices.The result is a constant stream of tainted and sometimes poisonous food. Last year, duck farmers added cancer-causing Sudan dye to their animal feed to make yolks redder and bring a higher price.
But for many beekeepers, old habits die hard.Earlier this year, Wang (a beekeeper) says, he averted a near-disaster when his bees suddenly became lethargic and their numbers appeared to decline.
Wang went to a local drugstore and bought 10 pinkie-size tubes of penicillin for about $1. He says he mixed the medicine with sugar water and fed it to his bees. It didn't take long before they became active and produced honey.Wang knew that chloramphenicol was illegal, but he said he had no idea that penicillin was another type of antibiotic and that its use also had been restricted. He says he stores the honey he collects in iron and plastic containers.
"The government doesn't care what we do.Li thinks 30% of Chinese honey comes from bees treated with antibiotics, but Sun Baoli believes the figure is as high as 70%.
Some traders and sellers don't care about ensuring quality for the domestic market because prices are so low."
The Chinese life is not valuable," Sun said. "All the food is like junk food."
.
Consumers have reported the deaths of as many as 8,500 dogs and cats as a result of tainted pet food, federal officials said Thursday.
More Reasons to Boycott Anything Made In China
An entrepreneur meets resistance in changing unhealthful practices. (Edited for Brevity)
By Don Lee, Times Staff WriterMay 3, 2007
Honey and thousands of other Chinese food products are showing up more and more on dining tables around the world. Last year, China said it exported $3.8 billion worth of food to the U.S., including vast quantities of apple juice, garlic, sausage casings, canned mushrooms and honey.
(The beekeepers are): storing honey in metal containers; those can taint the sweet goo with toxic iron and lead.
(Beekeepers long have used): antibiotics in their colonies; the drugs can make people sick. (They are): storing honey in metal containers; those can taint the sweet goo with toxic iron and lead.(Many beekeepers): are hostile to his efforts, which they see as a threat to their decades-old way of doing business on the cheap and making easy profits.
Short-term profits are so important that farmers, traders and brokers have little incentive to change old practices.The result is a constant stream of tainted and sometimes poisonous food. Last year, duck farmers added cancer-causing Sudan dye to their animal feed to make yolks redder and bring a higher price.
But for many beekeepers, old habits die hard.Earlier this year, Wang (a beekeeper) says, he averted a near-disaster when his bees suddenly became lethargic and their numbers appeared to decline.
Wang went to a local drugstore and bought 10 pinkie-size tubes of penicillin for about $1. He says he mixed the medicine with sugar water and fed it to his bees. It didn't take long before they became active and produced honey.Wang knew that chloramphenicol was illegal, but he said he had no idea that penicillin was another type of antibiotic and that its use also had been restricted. He says he stores the honey he collects in iron and plastic containers.
"The government doesn't care what we do.Li thinks 30% of Chinese honey comes from bees treated with antibiotics, but Sun Baoli believes the figure is as high as 70%.
Some traders and sellers don't care about ensuring quality for the domestic market because prices are so low."
The Chinese life is not valuable," Sun said. "All the food is like junk food."
.
Some No-Kill Expert
.
In his Annual Report, Boks said his live release will go down during Fiscal 2006=2007 because intake is up.
Only the intake of cats is up a little. Total cat/dog intake is down in 2006 by 1,000. Intake last 12 months is up 232 animals or .05%. First quarter 2007 intake is 8338, 2006 was 8137. Up 2%. This is cats/dogs only.
His said his live release will go down 1-2%. That means he'll be euthanizing more animals than before he got here as 2006 was flat. Some nokill specialist, killing more than before.
.
In his Annual Report, Boks said his live release will go down during Fiscal 2006=2007 because intake is up.
Only the intake of cats is up a little. Total cat/dog intake is down in 2006 by 1,000. Intake last 12 months is up 232 animals or .05%. First quarter 2007 intake is 8338, 2006 was 8137. Up 2%. This is cats/dogs only.
His said his live release will go down 1-2%. That means he'll be euthanizing more animals than before he got here as 2006 was flat. Some nokill specialist, killing more than before.
.
Zine Asks Boks for a Review and Plan
.
It appears Zine and Cardenas have heard the unending litany of public complaints regarding Boks' poor performance in every way, except his unparalleled ability to spin.
It also appears that Council wants to set Ed straight as to what his, and LAAS' priorities should be: saving lives. Reducing euthanasia should be Boks' primary goal, not reforming a dysfunctional department. Council will call for a review and a plan to reduce euthanasia.
Jim Bickhart long told me that getting an eight cylinder department to operate on ever 4 cylinders has been hard and time-consuming. Now that we are working on 4 cylinders, why hasn't there been improvement, not even 1%?
We did not bring Boks here to spend 2 years reforming the department in order to improve the euthanasia rate by zero percent after 15 months. According to Boks' recent projection, we will have gone backwards during 2006-2007. This is unacceptable after reviewing the successful efforts of multiple shelters across the country to radically reduce euthanasia and increase lives saved.
The LAAS annual report states the department is still moving backwards regarding live-saves. In fact, they now save fewer animals than during 2005.
It is quite clear Boks has no idea regarding what he is doing to implement progress towards No-Kill. I see no improvement in the near future. The City is not paying LAAS $20 million to decrease the live save rate when other cities have, with 1/8 the employees and budget and have made rapid progress during the past few years.
Philly went from 88% kill in 2004 to 53% in 2006 and looks like it will overtake LA this year on 1/7 the budget with 1/7 the number of employees. This is despite having to perform all "processing" in one large shelter than in six more publicly accessible shelters across the city as in LA. It is a lot easier for the public to travel a short distance to a shelter rather than long. Ditto field impounds. Logistics of handling animals improves, even though logistics of supplies, vehicles, etc. becomes slightly more difficult.
Bickhart continues to be a Boks' apologist long after I ceased my identical activities. I made a mistake. I also wish Bickhart would put the animals first over keeping his job. Both he and Boks better be looking for employment elsewhere.
.
It appears Zine and Cardenas have heard the unending litany of public complaints regarding Boks' poor performance in every way, except his unparalleled ability to spin.
It also appears that Council wants to set Ed straight as to what his, and LAAS' priorities should be: saving lives. Reducing euthanasia should be Boks' primary goal, not reforming a dysfunctional department. Council will call for a review and a plan to reduce euthanasia.
Jim Bickhart long told me that getting an eight cylinder department to operate on ever 4 cylinders has been hard and time-consuming. Now that we are working on 4 cylinders, why hasn't there been improvement, not even 1%?
We did not bring Boks here to spend 2 years reforming the department in order to improve the euthanasia rate by zero percent after 15 months. According to Boks' recent projection, we will have gone backwards during 2006-2007. This is unacceptable after reviewing the successful efforts of multiple shelters across the country to radically reduce euthanasia and increase lives saved.
The LAAS annual report states the department is still moving backwards regarding live-saves. In fact, they now save fewer animals than during 2005.
It is quite clear Boks has no idea regarding what he is doing to implement progress towards No-Kill. I see no improvement in the near future. The City is not paying LAAS $20 million to decrease the live save rate when other cities have, with 1/8 the employees and budget and have made rapid progress during the past few years.
Philly went from 88% kill in 2004 to 53% in 2006 and looks like it will overtake LA this year on 1/7 the budget with 1/7 the number of employees. This is despite having to perform all "processing" in one large shelter than in six more publicly accessible shelters across the city as in LA. It is a lot easier for the public to travel a short distance to a shelter rather than long. Ditto field impounds. Logistics of handling animals improves, even though logistics of supplies, vehicles, etc. becomes slightly more difficult.
Bickhart continues to be a Boks' apologist long after I ceased my identical activities. I made a mistake. I also wish Bickhart would put the animals first over keeping his job. Both he and Boks better be looking for employment elsewhere.
.
Bickhart's Bogus Response to Mike Bell
.
In response to the Winograd news bulletin posted below, Jim Bickhart responded to Mike Bell as follows:
“Please note that the ADL/Winograd bulletin is about a private humane society, not a public shelter. There's also a Washoe County Animal Services and there's not mention of how they're doing. And, yes, in most of these dual animal agency situations there's a difference, and it's a difference that matters.
According to the Humane Society stats, their kill rate for dogs was already down to 14% in the same quarter of 2006 before and now it's at 7.8. And they're talking about 192 kills instead of 313 over three months. It's nice progress but it's also a completely different situation and order of magnitude than what we're dealing with here.”
Jim Bickhart
In fact, Bickhart is wrong. The original bulletin from Winogard reads:
The Players: A new leadership team at the Nevada Humane Society (NHS) headed by Bonney Brown, a comprehensive network of rescue groups and volunteers, and staff at both NHS and Washoe County Animal Services.
The Results So Far: Dog deaths down 44%, cat deaths down 43% county-wide (inc. animal control) for the same period as last year. Overall, 92% of dogs and 78% of cats being saved for the first quarter of 2007.
Nathan’s bulletin refers to cat and dog euthanasia county-wide, including animal control.
Bickhart and Boks incessantly drag out the same tired and invalid argument: “Those numbers apply to private shelters or small municipal shelters; LAAS is public and huge. Therefore, LAAS will never be able to attain those save figures.”
Bull. Carl Friedman, director of the San Francisco Animal Care and Control—a municipal shelter, says there is NO REASON why LAAS cannot match San Francisco’s 80% Live-Save rate. He said LA has huge resources compared to SF. We do, a budget 7 times theirs and 8 times as many employees.
Bickhart’s argument that SF is a whole magnitude smaller than LAAS is untrue. SF is 1/5 the size of LA. They have 9,500 live-impounds compared to LAAS’s 46,000, more than 1/5 as large as LA. They have 150 active volunteers, or 3.4 volunteers per employee. LAAS would have to have 1,100 active volunteers to be comparable. How many do we have in LA?
SFACAC does volunteers right; LAAS does it wrong.
They have 43 full time employees and a $2.8 million budget. LAAS has 320 employees (or 400 according to Boks to Council) and a $20 Millinon budget ($25,000,000 according to Boks to Council). Both our budget and employees are about 8 times larger than SF, but we handle only 5 times more.
They have one shelter handling almost 10,000 animals. We have 6 shelters handling an average of 7,500 ctas and dogs a year.
Philly is more impressive. Philly has 1.5 million people, or more than 1/3 of LA. They have a $3.2 million budget, not $20 million (or 25 according to Boks). They have 60 employees, not 320 or 400.They are a comparable shelter. Though slightly less live save rate in 2006, they decreased the number of animals killed from 88% to 35%, or 26.5% per year, compared to LAAS’s stable 41% kill rate over those two years.
Bickhart’s argument is entirely bogus and supports his defensive attitude that LAAS stands alone as having the most monumental problems of any shelter. Bull.
The “problem” is that LAAS does not work while other progressive shelters do.
Even small shelter systems have an intake only a little smaller than one of our six shelters, and a budget comparable to that of any one shelter: $3.2 million. Jim’s argument just does not hold no matter how he frames it.
.
In response to the Winograd news bulletin posted below, Jim Bickhart responded to Mike Bell as follows:
“Please note that the ADL/Winograd bulletin is about a private humane society, not a public shelter. There's also a Washoe County Animal Services and there's not mention of how they're doing. And, yes, in most of these dual animal agency situations there's a difference, and it's a difference that matters.
According to the Humane Society stats, their kill rate for dogs was already down to 14% in the same quarter of 2006 before and now it's at 7.8. And they're talking about 192 kills instead of 313 over three months. It's nice progress but it's also a completely different situation and order of magnitude than what we're dealing with here.”
Jim Bickhart
In fact, Bickhart is wrong. The original bulletin from Winogard reads:
The Players: A new leadership team at the Nevada Humane Society (NHS) headed by Bonney Brown, a comprehensive network of rescue groups and volunteers, and staff at both NHS and Washoe County Animal Services.
The Results So Far: Dog deaths down 44%, cat deaths down 43% county-wide (inc. animal control) for the same period as last year. Overall, 92% of dogs and 78% of cats being saved for the first quarter of 2007.
Nathan’s bulletin refers to cat and dog euthanasia county-wide, including animal control.
Bickhart and Boks incessantly drag out the same tired and invalid argument: “Those numbers apply to private shelters or small municipal shelters; LAAS is public and huge. Therefore, LAAS will never be able to attain those save figures.”
Bull. Carl Friedman, director of the San Francisco Animal Care and Control—a municipal shelter, says there is NO REASON why LAAS cannot match San Francisco’s 80% Live-Save rate. He said LA has huge resources compared to SF. We do, a budget 7 times theirs and 8 times as many employees.
Bickhart’s argument that SF is a whole magnitude smaller than LAAS is untrue. SF is 1/5 the size of LA. They have 9,500 live-impounds compared to LAAS’s 46,000, more than 1/5 as large as LA. They have 150 active volunteers, or 3.4 volunteers per employee. LAAS would have to have 1,100 active volunteers to be comparable. How many do we have in LA?
SFACAC does volunteers right; LAAS does it wrong.
They have 43 full time employees and a $2.8 million budget. LAAS has 320 employees (or 400 according to Boks to Council) and a $20 Millinon budget ($25,000,000 according to Boks to Council). Both our budget and employees are about 8 times larger than SF, but we handle only 5 times more.
They have one shelter handling almost 10,000 animals. We have 6 shelters handling an average of 7,500 ctas and dogs a year.
Philly is more impressive. Philly has 1.5 million people, or more than 1/3 of LA. They have a $3.2 million budget, not $20 million (or 25 according to Boks). They have 60 employees, not 320 or 400.They are a comparable shelter. Though slightly less live save rate in 2006, they decreased the number of animals killed from 88% to 35%, or 26.5% per year, compared to LAAS’s stable 41% kill rate over those two years.
Bickhart’s argument is entirely bogus and supports his defensive attitude that LAAS stands alone as having the most monumental problems of any shelter. Bull.
The “problem” is that LAAS does not work while other progressive shelters do.
Even small shelter systems have an intake only a little smaller than one of our six shelters, and a budget comparable to that of any one shelter: $3.2 million. Jim’s argument just does not hold no matter how he frames it.
.
Boks Hid the Annual Report
.
Forgot to tell you. Boks tried to hide the annual report. I wonder why. He did not mention it in his blog; he did not send an email or PR about the annual report being finished.
It was stumbled upon while looking for commission minutes. It's in the drop down menu for "about us." He didn't want people to see it. If anyone does read it, it has lots of positive fluff--and is very pretty--with the real info hidden deep into the report written in a misleading way. What a shyster.
http://laanimalservices.org/PDF/reports/annual_report_fy2005-2006.pdf
.
Forgot to tell you. Boks tried to hide the annual report. I wonder why. He did not mention it in his blog; he did not send an email or PR about the annual report being finished.
It was stumbled upon while looking for commission minutes. It's in the drop down menu for "about us." He didn't want people to see it. If anyone does read it, it has lots of positive fluff--and is very pretty--with the real info hidden deep into the report written in a misleading way. What a shyster.
http://laanimalservices.org/PDF/reports/annual_report_fy2005-2006.pdf
.
Winograd and Brown Take Reno Almost to No-Kill in a Few Months
.
After only a few months of launching an ambitious No Kill initiative, Washoe County (Reno) NV is saving 92% of dogs and nearly 80% of cats.
Read how No Kill is happening virtually overnight.
The Community: Washoe County ( Reno ), NV
Our Assistance: We helped recruit a new Executive Director and senior management team, did a ten-day onsite evaluation of operations, and helped formulate policies and revamping of operations.
The Players: A new leadership team at the Nevada Humane Society (NHS) headed by Bonney Brown, a comprehensive network of rescue groups and volunteers, and staff at both NHS and Washoe County Animal Services.
The Results So Far: Dog deaths down 44%, cat deaths down 43% county-wide (inc. animal control) for the same period as last year. Overall, 92% of dogs and 78% of cats being saved for the first quarter of 2007.
In Summary: In December 2006, the Nevada Humane Society (NHS) asked us to help guide them into the future, including assisting them in hiring a new management team, performing a ten-day onsite evaluation of operations and participating in the development of new policies and procedures.
We recruited and recommended Bonney Brown, formerly of Best Friends and Alley Cat Allies, to be the new Executive Director of NHS.
She embraced the programs and services of the No Kill Equation, worked with us to formulate new policies, and is now running NHS in line with the No Kill Declaration, which - among other programs - includes partnering with volunteers and rescue groups, and comprehensive adoption programs including evening and weekend hours, and offsite events.
Her first quarter results are in. And while many communities promise similar success in five years or ten years, Brown reports the following after only a couple months on the job:
The first three months of 2007 has seen a dramatic reduction in the number of dogs and cats dying in animal shelters in Washoe County . For dogs, there has been a 44% drop and for cats a 43% drop in the number of animal being killed in the area shelters.Over all, 92% of the dogs who came into the sheltering system (including Washoe County Animal Services) during the first three months of this year have been saved.
That puts Washoe County up there as one of the safest communities in the nation for dogs.We still have some considerable work to do for our feline friends as the save rate for them, while dramatically better than last year, was 78%.
Bonney Brown's Goal: Making Reno , NV the safest community in the U.S. for dogs and cats.
.
After only a few months of launching an ambitious No Kill initiative, Washoe County (Reno) NV is saving 92% of dogs and nearly 80% of cats.
Read how No Kill is happening virtually overnight.
The Community: Washoe County ( Reno ), NV
Our Assistance: We helped recruit a new Executive Director and senior management team, did a ten-day onsite evaluation of operations, and helped formulate policies and revamping of operations.
The Players: A new leadership team at the Nevada Humane Society (NHS) headed by Bonney Brown, a comprehensive network of rescue groups and volunteers, and staff at both NHS and Washoe County Animal Services.
The Results So Far: Dog deaths down 44%, cat deaths down 43% county-wide (inc. animal control) for the same period as last year. Overall, 92% of dogs and 78% of cats being saved for the first quarter of 2007.
In Summary: In December 2006, the Nevada Humane Society (NHS) asked us to help guide them into the future, including assisting them in hiring a new management team, performing a ten-day onsite evaluation of operations and participating in the development of new policies and procedures.
We recruited and recommended Bonney Brown, formerly of Best Friends and Alley Cat Allies, to be the new Executive Director of NHS.
She embraced the programs and services of the No Kill Equation, worked with us to formulate new policies, and is now running NHS in line with the No Kill Declaration, which - among other programs - includes partnering with volunteers and rescue groups, and comprehensive adoption programs including evening and weekend hours, and offsite events.
Her first quarter results are in. And while many communities promise similar success in five years or ten years, Brown reports the following after only a couple months on the job:
The first three months of 2007 has seen a dramatic reduction in the number of dogs and cats dying in animal shelters in Washoe County . For dogs, there has been a 44% drop and for cats a 43% drop in the number of animal being killed in the area shelters.Over all, 92% of the dogs who came into the sheltering system (including Washoe County Animal Services) during the first three months of this year have been saved.
That puts Washoe County up there as one of the safest communities in the nation for dogs.We still have some considerable work to do for our feline friends as the save rate for them, while dramatically better than last year, was 78%.
Bonney Brown's Goal: Making Reno , NV the safest community in the U.S. for dogs and cats.
.
Things Getting Worse at LAAS According to Boks' Report
.
Boks says the live release rate is decreasing under his management, from 54% in fiscal 05-06, to 52% for 2006-2007. No-Kill gurus are supposed to increase the live release rate, especially with a hugely increasing budget and manpower.
He says the spay/neuter programs, vouchers, licensing are not decreasing impound levels. Therefore, he says, more of the same is required (Einstein’s definition of insanity is more of the same with no change in the results. Ed quotes him.): enforcement activity.
What he appears to be saying is that if we get more people out there checking for dog license scofflaws, the feral cat and kitten intake will decrease. (This is humor for those serious people out there.) Maybe he is saying if we catch more hoarders, and LAAS impounds their animals, then the intake will be less. I don’t know what he means by enforcement.
In any event, LAAS-subsidized spay/neuters have nearly doubled since 2003-2004, but the intake is going up.
I have been saying for some time that spay/neuter is not the only way, maybe not even the #1 way. Mackie’s opinion is that 70% of the cat and dog population have to be sterilized before impounds will stabilize.
On page 4 of the report, Boks says 72% of the dogs and 55% of the cats impounded were not altered. If that percentage is representative, and if there are 500,000 feral and roaming housed cats on the streets, then we will need to do 120,000 spay/neuters a year just to stabilize the cat impound numbers.
This leads me to believe that the biggest warehousing of animals is in the streets and that we are seeing only a small, small percentage of them leaking into the shelters where Boks warehouses them even more.
Unless we do basic science and have some grasp on the numbers of feral and homeless cats and dogs are out there, we will have no idea of how much spay/neutering we will need to do. As it is, Ed is poking around with a stick in the dark without a clue. Now he is saying what we are doing is not working, so let’s call out the doggie police, but the doggie impounds are declining, not the cat’s.
So, the big news is things are getting worse at LAAS and Ed doesn’t know what to do..
Boks says the live release rate is decreasing under his management, from 54% in fiscal 05-06, to 52% for 2006-2007. No-Kill gurus are supposed to increase the live release rate, especially with a hugely increasing budget and manpower.
He says the spay/neuter programs, vouchers, licensing are not decreasing impound levels. Therefore, he says, more of the same is required (Einstein’s definition of insanity is more of the same with no change in the results. Ed quotes him.): enforcement activity.
What he appears to be saying is that if we get more people out there checking for dog license scofflaws, the feral cat and kitten intake will decrease. (This is humor for those serious people out there.) Maybe he is saying if we catch more hoarders, and LAAS impounds their animals, then the intake will be less. I don’t know what he means by enforcement.
In any event, LAAS-subsidized spay/neuters have nearly doubled since 2003-2004, but the intake is going up.
I have been saying for some time that spay/neuter is not the only way, maybe not even the #1 way. Mackie’s opinion is that 70% of the cat and dog population have to be sterilized before impounds will stabilize.
On page 4 of the report, Boks says 72% of the dogs and 55% of the cats impounded were not altered. If that percentage is representative, and if there are 500,000 feral and roaming housed cats on the streets, then we will need to do 120,000 spay/neuters a year just to stabilize the cat impound numbers.
This leads me to believe that the biggest warehousing of animals is in the streets and that we are seeing only a small, small percentage of them leaking into the shelters where Boks warehouses them even more.
Unless we do basic science and have some grasp on the numbers of feral and homeless cats and dogs are out there, we will have no idea of how much spay/neutering we will need to do. As it is, Ed is poking around with a stick in the dark without a clue. Now he is saying what we are doing is not working, so let’s call out the doggie police, but the doggie impounds are declining, not the cat’s.
So, the big news is things are getting worse at LAAS and Ed doesn’t know what to do..
Tale of the Tape: LA vs. Philadelphia
.
First Quarter, 2007 Philadelphia
Live Impounds: 5,119 (LAAS: 8,338)
Euthanasia: 1,754 (LAAS: 1,938)
Died in shelter: 22 (LAAS: 180)
Live save Cats: 70%
Live save Dogs: 61%
Live Dog and Cat: 66% (LAAS: Live save, 1st Quarter, 72%)
1st quarter stats are hard to judge by as they are the slowest months. We know Boks is doing it by crowding and it is not sustainable. Tara told me they were doing fine in terms of occupancy until this very day.
It is possible they will end the year with a live save rate of 56% or better. Boks is projecting a decrease in animals leaving LAAS alive from 54% to 51-52% under his reign.
How on earth can he call himself a No-Kill guru? He is taking small steps backward. The longer he is here, the more steps backward we are talking.
Please Mayor, help us!
In any event, given 1/8th the budget and less than 1/6th the employees of LAAS, and given they have been only working on No-Kill for 25 months, the job they did is almost magical.
1st Quarter Died in Shelter, Philly (22): 0.4%
(DIS LAAS (180) : 2.2%)
Eight times more animals died in LAAS of disease/fighting than in Philly, even though Philly did not even have even 2 X the number of animals.
Total budget: ….. $3,278,628 (Boks told Council, LAAS has $25,000,000)
City: $2,953,628
Other: $ 325,000
Total number of employees:
60 FTE (Boks told Council that LAAS had 400)
10 PT
Total volunteers: 250 Active (LAAS-Unknown; non-transparent)
Total foster homes: 179 (LAAS-Unknown; non-transparent)
The remarkable point is that Philly was 89% kill in 2004, while LAAS was 48% kill and they likely will pull ahead for calendar 2007--with 1/8th the budget!
.
First Quarter, 2007 Philadelphia
Live Impounds: 5,119 (LAAS: 8,338)
Euthanasia: 1,754 (LAAS: 1,938)
Died in shelter: 22 (LAAS: 180)
Live save Cats: 70%
Live save Dogs: 61%
Live Dog and Cat: 66% (LAAS: Live save, 1st Quarter, 72%)
1st quarter stats are hard to judge by as they are the slowest months. We know Boks is doing it by crowding and it is not sustainable. Tara told me they were doing fine in terms of occupancy until this very day.
It is possible they will end the year with a live save rate of 56% or better. Boks is projecting a decrease in animals leaving LAAS alive from 54% to 51-52% under his reign.
How on earth can he call himself a No-Kill guru? He is taking small steps backward. The longer he is here, the more steps backward we are talking.
Please Mayor, help us!
In any event, given 1/8th the budget and less than 1/6th the employees of LAAS, and given they have been only working on No-Kill for 25 months, the job they did is almost magical.
1st Quarter Died in Shelter, Philly (22): 0.4%
(DIS LAAS (180) : 2.2%)
Eight times more animals died in LAAS of disease/fighting than in Philly, even though Philly did not even have even 2 X the number of animals.
Total budget: ….. $3,278,628 (Boks told Council, LAAS has $25,000,000)
City: $2,953,628
Other: $ 325,000
Total number of employees:
60 FTE (Boks told Council that LAAS had 400)
10 PT
Total volunteers: 250 Active (LAAS-Unknown; non-transparent)
Total foster homes: 179 (LAAS-Unknown; non-transparent)
The remarkable point is that Philly was 89% kill in 2004, while LAAS was 48% kill and they likely will pull ahead for calendar 2007--with 1/8th the budget!
.
Boks Annual Report In
At first blush, things are even worse than I had expected. Live save rate is projected downward 2%. To avoid further embarrassment, he refers 2006 results to 2001, not 2005. On the other hand, he appears much less "spinny" at this point. Analysis to follow. Got to get some real work done now.
http://www.laanimalservices.com/PDF/reports/annual_report_fy2005-2006.pdf
http://www.laanimalservices.com/PDF/reports/annual_report_fy2005-2006.pdf
Woe Is Us!
.
The number of animals in the shelter now is higher than we have encountered since we started counting, four months ago.
Dogs (848)
Cats (399)
Other (544)
This is a disaster and the main part of kitten sason has not hit yet. Before the new facility opened, we had 236 kennels; this would be 3.6 dogs per kennel. I've never been able to find out how many cat or other cages there are. I don't know how many new cages or kennels have come on line during the past six months.
Man, the shelters need us desperately!
.
The number of animals in the shelter now is higher than we have encountered since we started counting, four months ago.
Dogs (848)
Cats (399)
Other (544)
This is a disaster and the main part of kitten sason has not hit yet. Before the new facility opened, we had 236 kennels; this would be 3.6 dogs per kennel. I've never been able to find out how many cat or other cages there are. I don't know how many new cages or kennels have come on line during the past six months.
Man, the shelters need us desperately!
.
Update on Philly Surpasses LAAS
.
I talked to Tara Derby-Perrin, Executive Director of PAWS/PACCA in Philly.
They went from 88% kill in 2004 to 50% kill two years later, and now they are down to 35% kill--in two years! LAAS is at 40% after 5 years with 1% of that improvement coming under Boks during the last 15 months.
Their save rate on all cat + dog impounds was 66% January-March 2007. They had about 26,000 dog/cat impounds. Deaths for neonatal kittens so far this year, is almost "non-existent."
I asked for more complete stats than posted on their site which I referred to on my blog yesterday, especially disposition. They do not use Chameleon tracking software. They did not have impound stats for neonatal last year but have started this year. She will send all shortly.
They have a budget of $3.2 million and 60 full-times equivalent employees, compared to our $25 million and 400 employees. They have 250 active volunteers, which is 4 volunteers for every employee. They have 60% of LAAS impound load, but only 13% of its budget and 15% of its manpower.
This is comparable to the disparity between LAAS resources and SFACC's under Carl Friedman, who has an even greater success rate than Philadelphia, but who has been at it far longer and has less than half the impounds of Philadelphia.
They have 11 associated private shelters that take some of their animals and another 30 "New Hope" partners. She will send the transfer stats.
She said the save rate for neonatal kittens was 90% during the 1st quarter compared to 60% for LAAS. Just got their bottle foster program off the ground during the past 8 months. Last year their save rate for neonatals was not so good, about 15%, worse than LAAS. Things will get worse fast now. Said it was a warm winter and cats are flying in. The tale will be told by October.
Can you imagine their save rate per employee or dollar?
I asked her about their experience with Winograd.
She was extremely enthusiastic. She said his energy, knowledge and pushiness energized the shelter, the public and city gov. She said his style tended to invoke opposition in city government somewhat, but she helped walk the changes through the City hoops. She said his continued support has been wonderful.
When I get the final stats, I will post them. Give me a couple of days.
They have a current save rate for cats of 70%, and 61% for dogs. They don't screw cats in Philly.
Boks and Bickhart will always present reasons why LAAS is harder to improve and why he have to wait longer. But, 8 X the budget and employees?
Tara said the biggest component of change is the leadership of the CEO (Of course she is the CEO and might be biased.) She also said Boks has the big hurdle of civil service although Philly is unionized by the same union as LAAS.
.
I talked to Tara Derby-Perrin, Executive Director of PAWS/PACCA in Philly.
They went from 88% kill in 2004 to 50% kill two years later, and now they are down to 35% kill--in two years! LAAS is at 40% after 5 years with 1% of that improvement coming under Boks during the last 15 months.
Their save rate on all cat + dog impounds was 66% January-March 2007. They had about 26,000 dog/cat impounds. Deaths for neonatal kittens so far this year, is almost "non-existent."
I asked for more complete stats than posted on their site which I referred to on my blog yesterday, especially disposition. They do not use Chameleon tracking software. They did not have impound stats for neonatal last year but have started this year. She will send all shortly.
They have a budget of $3.2 million and 60 full-times equivalent employees, compared to our $25 million and 400 employees. They have 250 active volunteers, which is 4 volunteers for every employee. They have 60% of LAAS impound load, but only 13% of its budget and 15% of its manpower.
This is comparable to the disparity between LAAS resources and SFACC's under Carl Friedman, who has an even greater success rate than Philadelphia, but who has been at it far longer and has less than half the impounds of Philadelphia.
They have 11 associated private shelters that take some of their animals and another 30 "New Hope" partners. She will send the transfer stats.
She said the save rate for neonatal kittens was 90% during the 1st quarter compared to 60% for LAAS. Just got their bottle foster program off the ground during the past 8 months. Last year their save rate for neonatals was not so good, about 15%, worse than LAAS. Things will get worse fast now. Said it was a warm winter and cats are flying in. The tale will be told by October.
Can you imagine their save rate per employee or dollar?
I asked her about their experience with Winograd.
She was extremely enthusiastic. She said his energy, knowledge and pushiness energized the shelter, the public and city gov. She said his style tended to invoke opposition in city government somewhat, but she helped walk the changes through the City hoops. She said his continued support has been wonderful.
When I get the final stats, I will post them. Give me a couple of days.
They have a current save rate for cats of 70%, and 61% for dogs. They don't screw cats in Philly.
Boks and Bickhart will always present reasons why LAAS is harder to improve and why he have to wait longer. But, 8 X the budget and employees?
Tara said the biggest component of change is the leadership of the CEO (Of course she is the CEO and might be biased.) She also said Boks has the big hurdle of civil service although Philly is unionized by the same union as LAAS.
.
Philadelphia Surpasses LAAS in Two Years
.
Back when I was a Boks “spokesperson,” whenever I discovered what appeared to be a successful No-Kill shelter, both Boks and the Mayor’s office pooh-poohed that success, either by implying the shelter was falsifying numbers, or that the shelter system, such as Winograd’s Tompkin’s County shelter, was so small that his techniques would never work in LA. Tompkins, Charlottesville and other No-Kill shelters were sarcastically referred to as “boutique” shelters.
On February 7 of this year, Winograd sent me an email stating Philadelphia had gone from 88% kill to a 65% save rate in a little over two years. If true, this would be unimaginable success in such a short time. But no confirming stats from Philly were available at the time. I talked to Philly’s director, Tara Derby-Perrin, who told me in February that the cats were flying out the door and few neonates were dying because of a large cadre of volunteer fosters (200 active).
Well, I just got the Philly stats off of their website. If true, they destroy Boks’ excuse that large shelter systems do not improve quickly. Philly is still impounding about 30,000 cats and dogs a year, or 2/3 the number as LA. Their budget is not 2/3 of LAAS’s $25,000,000, nor did they have 2/3 of LAAS’ 400 employees. I forget what she told me, but it was a small fraction to LAAS’ budget, just as is SFACC. The Philly budget is $3,200,000 with 50 FTE employees, or 1/8th LAAS budget and employees. However, they have 250 active volunteers, or 5 for every full-time employee.
This is a very important point. Boks and his apologists say that the other shelters handle so few animals compared to LAAS that any success anywhere in country is irrelevant to LAAS situation. BUT, LAAS has vastly greater resources in comparison.
This blog will not allow me to post tables and there are a lot of stats here. So go to this site and do your own analysis.
http://phillypaws.org/downloads.cfm
The gist is that they (Winograd and auditors) found out the previous shelter managers had lied about the number of adoptions, RTO and other saves they had claimed in 2004, and that while the shelter claimed a 27% save rate, it most probably was about an 11% save rate for cats and dogs combined.
Winograd began consulting in early 2005 sometime.
At the end of 2005, the combined save rate was 39%, 280% improvement!
At the end of 2006, the save rate was 47%, a 360% improvement over 2004.
The 1st quarter stats for Philly just came out. The the first quarter would have the best results because it is the slowest quarter. Still, the combined save rate is 66%--61% for dogs, 70% for cats.
If these figures are true, Philly went from being far worse than LAAS in 2004, to well surpassing LAAS in about 2 years. Though LAAS has the same save rate for dogs, it has a far worse save rate for cats.
But, as we know from our experience with Boks, statistics don’t mean much without having very detailed and complete statistics and an independent reviewer. I will let you know what I find.
Boks floated his excuse for no improvement, that LA was already “so close to no-kill,” that all the easy successes were accomplished before he came, and that now was the time for the “heavy lifting.”
Has anyone asked him—or the Mayor’s Office—why did all the easy successes stop the day he started?
Did I forget to mention? Both the Philadelphia and Charlottesville shelters are run by women.
.
Back when I was a Boks “spokesperson,” whenever I discovered what appeared to be a successful No-Kill shelter, both Boks and the Mayor’s office pooh-poohed that success, either by implying the shelter was falsifying numbers, or that the shelter system, such as Winograd’s Tompkin’s County shelter, was so small that his techniques would never work in LA. Tompkins, Charlottesville and other No-Kill shelters were sarcastically referred to as “boutique” shelters.
On February 7 of this year, Winograd sent me an email stating Philadelphia had gone from 88% kill to a 65% save rate in a little over two years. If true, this would be unimaginable success in such a short time. But no confirming stats from Philly were available at the time. I talked to Philly’s director, Tara Derby-Perrin, who told me in February that the cats were flying out the door and few neonates were dying because of a large cadre of volunteer fosters (200 active).
Well, I just got the Philly stats off of their website. If true, they destroy Boks’ excuse that large shelter systems do not improve quickly. Philly is still impounding about 30,000 cats and dogs a year, or 2/3 the number as LA. Their budget is not 2/3 of LAAS’s $25,000,000, nor did they have 2/3 of LAAS’ 400 employees. I forget what she told me, but it was a small fraction to LAAS’ budget, just as is SFACC. The Philly budget is $3,200,000 with 50 FTE employees, or 1/8th LAAS budget and employees. However, they have 250 active volunteers, or 5 for every full-time employee.
This is a very important point. Boks and his apologists say that the other shelters handle so few animals compared to LAAS that any success anywhere in country is irrelevant to LAAS situation. BUT, LAAS has vastly greater resources in comparison.
This blog will not allow me to post tables and there are a lot of stats here. So go to this site and do your own analysis.
http://phillypaws.org/downloads.cfm
The gist is that they (Winograd and auditors) found out the previous shelter managers had lied about the number of adoptions, RTO and other saves they had claimed in 2004, and that while the shelter claimed a 27% save rate, it most probably was about an 11% save rate for cats and dogs combined.
Winograd began consulting in early 2005 sometime.
At the end of 2005, the combined save rate was 39%, 280% improvement!
At the end of 2006, the save rate was 47%, a 360% improvement over 2004.
The 1st quarter stats for Philly just came out. The the first quarter would have the best results because it is the slowest quarter. Still, the combined save rate is 66%--61% for dogs, 70% for cats.
If these figures are true, Philly went from being far worse than LAAS in 2004, to well surpassing LAAS in about 2 years. Though LAAS has the same save rate for dogs, it has a far worse save rate for cats.
But, as we know from our experience with Boks, statistics don’t mean much without having very detailed and complete statistics and an independent reviewer. I will let you know what I find.
Boks floated his excuse for no improvement, that LA was already “so close to no-kill,” that all the easy successes were accomplished before he came, and that now was the time for the “heavy lifting.”
Has anyone asked him—or the Mayor’s Office—why did all the easy successes stop the day he started?
Did I forget to mention? Both the Philadelphia and Charlottesville shelters are run by women.
.
Ed Needs a Lie Detector
From Ed Boks blog:
“267 dogs and 273 cats were euthanized in March 2007. 25% of the cats were orphaned neonate kittens (68). Thanks to LA Animal Services' Baby Bottle Foster Parents and many New Hope Partners 204 neonates were safely placed in loving homes in March 2007 and were spared euthanasia. (Orphaned neonates are kittens too young to survive on their own and require round the clock foster care until they are weaned at eight weeks of age.)”
What does this paragraph say to you? LAAS paced 204 neonate kittens through rescues and bottle feeding fosters in March?
Ed was talking “orphaned neonate kittens,” in the second sentence, and “orphaned neonate kittens” in the last sentence. Since the whole article was about killing thousands of kittens, the context of everything would point to his saying 204 neonate kittens were placed in homes.
Here is what Carla Hall, LA Times reporter wrote:
“The foster program helps, but it has not stopped the killing of kittens. Even as L.A. Animal Services touted a dramatically low euthanasia rate for March, the city put down 68 orphaned kittens. The agency did, however, place 204 neonatal kittens in foster homes.”
As pointed out in my earlier post, 96 New Hope rescues and 37 fosters = 133 placed. Add 6 unmentioned adoptions, and we get 139.
After Carla Hall questioned Ed about the discrepancy, he said what he meant as opposed to what he told her and what he posted in his blog:
267 dogs and 273 cats were euthanized in March 2007. 25% of the cats were orphaned neonate kittens (68). Thanks to LA Animal Services' Baby Bottle Foster Parents and many New Hope Partners 204
Here is the retraction the LA Times ran today:
FOR THE RECORD:Shelter kittens: An article in Thursday's California section about kittens in Los Angeles city and county animal shelters said L.A. Animal Services had placed 204 neonatal kittens in foster homes in March. The actual number placed outside city shelters was 139. —
A commentor to a previous post suggested that Boks misled the public and reporter Hall to make it appear that LAAS was placing 3 times as many kittens as they were killing, instead of twice as many.
-------------------------------------
Someone in the Mayor’s office who had warned Ed about the poster in the Hooter’s event, told me that Ed said, “Go ahead with the poster; it is easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission.”
These two examples reveal a person whose fundamental nature is to deceive and who only requires truth from his detractors. As a matter of fact, I have seen many employees in government bureaucracies who are like this, they lie not because they have to, but because it is convenient and prevents trouble for them.
This brings up issues ADL and others have raised, such as:
1. Did Boks say on his application for the LAAS GM position that he had a B.A?
2. Was he fired after all from NYC?
3. Was he forced to leave town in Phoenix in “a hurry?” (I have heard this from many sources at very high levels outside of LA.)
4. Did he lie (YES) when he denied that he supplied the LA Animal Lover blogger and I with insider information in order to counteract what he called false charges leveled by ADL, Dan Guss and others? Was much of the information he gave us a “spin” on the truth such as neonates?
5. Is Boks now lying and saying that former supporters who are now critics, just jilted lovers with an axe to grind? I think this might be labeled slander if true and something to be tacked onto a potential lawsuit.
6. Is he lying when he denied sending porno emails to female rescuers?
7.Was he lying to me when he said he worked 18 hour days, or did he “really” mean he was conscious for 18 hours a day?
8. Was he lying to me when he said LAAS would be doing 120,000 spay/neuters a year? (Of course, he could have meant during 2045 A.D.)
9. Was he lying when he said he'd present his 2006 annual report to the Commissioners during April? 10.Did Villaraigosa really offer Winograd an opportunity to consult with LAAS before Boks started?
Last, but not least, was he lying when he said:
"LA made a great leap towards No-Kill in 2006," and, "March was a No-Kill month."
.
Annual Report--Where is it Ed?
.
The last GM report we had was last August's; we have not had one for 7 months. The annual GM report is three months late. I heard from Jim Bickhart that there would be a No-Spin annual report in April. I think that is not going to happen either.
Instead of a GM report, we did get a March 2007 blogspot post about a March N0-Kill month where over 650 animals were killed.
Just for a refresher, the "real" March figures are:
REGARDING “PROGRESS” MADE DURING MARCH 2007
Boks stated "March 2007 - A No-Kill Month! March 2007 is the lowest monthly euthanasia rate since LA Animal Services began collecting this data! Not only were no healthy dogs or cats killed in the month of March, but also only nine treatable animals were euthanized and only after three regimens of treatment failed to produce any improvement in the health of the animals."
He killed 675 animals in March 2007.
He said 18% of all animals that entered the shelter had irremediable suffering, contagious diseases, were feral or aggressive so he had to kill them.
In other words, they deserved to die so the shelter was really No-Kill.
In review of the March 2007 statistics I see:
One, animals actually leaving the shelter alive has decreased.
Two, animals dying in the shelter has increased dramatically.
Three, animals being held in the shelter has increased dramatically. Boks is holding onto the animals so he doesn't have to euthanize them. He is not juggling the numbers, he is juggling the animals in order to improve his numbers. Had he not held those animals much longer, his euth rate and numbers would have been up.
To see what's really happening in the shelter we need to look at the out-alive rate. How many were adopted, returned to owner, fostered or taken by New Hope.
The number of animals that left the shelter alive in March 2007 was down in number and percentage. Fewer animals made it out alive. This is for cats, dogs, bunnies and others.
Out alive numbers for March 2007, 2328 or 63% of intake.
March 2006, 2356 out alive, or 67%.
March 2005, 2543 out alive, or 54%.
The point of a nokill director is to get the animals out alive, not to warehouse them in cramped, stressful and unhealthy conditions.
More animals are now dying in the shelter than ever before:
One, because there are more animals in the shelter.
Two, because he's holding them longer and they are getting sick and dying.
Three, because the vets are overtaxed and can't treat them all as well.
Here is the total dying in the shelter. Almost four times as many animals are dying in the shelter than before he got here.
2007, 247 died, or 11%.
2006, 167 died, or 7%.
2005, 70 died, or 3%
That is, the number of animals that died in the shelters during March 2007 because of disease, fighting, etc., is 352% of the March, 2005 figures..
Combined cat and dog adoptions are only up by two animals in March.
New Hopes rescues were up over 2006, but down over 2005.
CATS:
Cat adoptions way down from last March, down 30%. Cat euth is down because he's holding onto them. Cat intake is the same.
Died in shelter the same as 2006, which was way up from 2005.
Cats out alive is way down. He failed cats.
RABBITS:
Rabbit adoptions down 50%, euth almost 300% over 2006; dying in shelter up, intake is down. He failed rabbits.
OTHER ANIMALS:
Other adoptions only up by two animals. New Hope is way down, 50% down. Dying in shelter 2007 was 9 times 2005, or an 800% increase, 166 died in shelter 2007, 18 died in shelter in 2005 (9.2 times) for an 820% increase.
Euth is up over 2006. Intake is up. He failed "others."
Notice, he is keeping more animals longer but adopting way fewer.
Cats adopted in March 2006, 367
Cats adopted in March 2007, 259, down 30%.
Holding the animals longer is not improving their chance of adoption. In fact, it seems to be making the adoptions go down. Maybe because they look sick, are frightened, stressed out from being kept longer? Maybe because the shelters are full which overwhelms potential adopters?
Maybe the annual report will be about February or March of 2006 instead of the entire year. I think though the will be no 2006 annual report.
The last GM report we had was last August's; we have not had one for 7 months. The annual GM report is three months late. I heard from Jim Bickhart that there would be a No-Spin annual report in April. I think that is not going to happen either.
Instead of a GM report, we did get a March 2007 blogspot post about a March N0-Kill month where over 650 animals were killed.
Just for a refresher, the "real" March figures are:
REGARDING “PROGRESS” MADE DURING MARCH 2007
Boks stated "March 2007 - A No-Kill Month! March 2007 is the lowest monthly euthanasia rate since LA Animal Services began collecting this data! Not only were no healthy dogs or cats killed in the month of March, but also only nine treatable animals were euthanized and only after three regimens of treatment failed to produce any improvement in the health of the animals."
He killed 675 animals in March 2007.
He said 18% of all animals that entered the shelter had irremediable suffering, contagious diseases, were feral or aggressive so he had to kill them.
In other words, they deserved to die so the shelter was really No-Kill.
In review of the March 2007 statistics I see:
One, animals actually leaving the shelter alive has decreased.
Two, animals dying in the shelter has increased dramatically.
Three, animals being held in the shelter has increased dramatically. Boks is holding onto the animals so he doesn't have to euthanize them. He is not juggling the numbers, he is juggling the animals in order to improve his numbers. Had he not held those animals much longer, his euth rate and numbers would have been up.
To see what's really happening in the shelter we need to look at the out-alive rate. How many were adopted, returned to owner, fostered or taken by New Hope.
The number of animals that left the shelter alive in March 2007 was down in number and percentage. Fewer animals made it out alive. This is for cats, dogs, bunnies and others.
Out alive numbers for March 2007, 2328 or 63% of intake.
March 2006, 2356 out alive, or 67%.
March 2005, 2543 out alive, or 54%.
The point of a nokill director is to get the animals out alive, not to warehouse them in cramped, stressful and unhealthy conditions.
More animals are now dying in the shelter than ever before:
One, because there are more animals in the shelter.
Two, because he's holding them longer and they are getting sick and dying.
Three, because the vets are overtaxed and can't treat them all as well.
Here is the total dying in the shelter. Almost four times as many animals are dying in the shelter than before he got here.
2007, 247 died, or 11%.
2006, 167 died, or 7%.
2005, 70 died, or 3%
That is, the number of animals that died in the shelters during March 2007 because of disease, fighting, etc., is 352% of the March, 2005 figures..
Combined cat and dog adoptions are only up by two animals in March.
New Hopes rescues were up over 2006, but down over 2005.
CATS:
Cat adoptions way down from last March, down 30%. Cat euth is down because he's holding onto them. Cat intake is the same.
Died in shelter the same as 2006, which was way up from 2005.
Cats out alive is way down. He failed cats.
RABBITS:
Rabbit adoptions down 50%, euth almost 300% over 2006; dying in shelter up, intake is down. He failed rabbits.
OTHER ANIMALS:
Other adoptions only up by two animals. New Hope is way down, 50% down. Dying in shelter 2007 was 9 times 2005, or an 800% increase, 166 died in shelter 2007, 18 died in shelter in 2005 (9.2 times) for an 820% increase.
Euth is up over 2006. Intake is up. He failed "others."
Notice, he is keeping more animals longer but adopting way fewer.
Cats adopted in March 2006, 367
Cats adopted in March 2007, 259, down 30%.
Holding the animals longer is not improving their chance of adoption. In fact, it seems to be making the adoptions go down. Maybe because they look sick, are frightened, stressed out from being kept longer? Maybe because the shelters are full which overwhelms potential adopters?
Maybe the annual report will be about February or March of 2006 instead of the entire year. I think though the will be no 2006 annual report.
Boks-Style Math: 37 + 6 = 204
.
Boks gets confused by his own numbers--again.
Ed Boks has a penchant for telling reporters what he wants them to hear vs. the facts, such as telling Dana Bartholomew that new vets make $92,000, when in fact they make $83,500 and the LAAS website says they make $81,000.
Yesterday he told Times reporter Carla Hall that LAAS placed 204 neonatal kittens in foster homes in March. He says the same thing on one of his previous blog posts.
If you look at the official statistics on the LAAS, only 37 unweaned kittens were placed in foster homes during March. Well, I guess a disparity of 167 kittens is conceivable using Boks-style mathematics.
I tried to see how he arrived at the number 204. Was it from a dream? Did he include San Francisco’s fostered kittens as his own? Did he accidentally add the fosters of the last three years and then multiply by 2? Did he include kittens fostered during February who were still in foster homes?
During February, 6 kittens were placed in foster homes and zero in January according the LAAS website. Altogether during the entire first quarter, 43 kittens were placed in foster homes by LAAS. The mystery deepened.
Maybe he included kittens rescued by New Hope partners, I wondered. There were 96 New Hope rescues in March. 96 + 37 = 133. Humm, that's not it.
There were also 39 New Hope placements in February and 18 in January.
Adding up all the neonatal fostered and rescued for the entire first quarter, we get 196, still short of the 204 Boks said LAAS fostered.
Maybe Ed, I speculated, was referring to "All Cats" fostered in January through March of this year.
So, I looked at the department statistics, which said of "All Cats," 37 were fostered in March and 6 in February, the same number of neonatals fostered. I thought maybe he double counted cats and neonatals, not recognizing that neonatals were also cats. But that only adds up to 74.
Also, I thought, Ed cannot be including New Hope rescues as his accomplishment, because New Hope placements have little to do with the department efforts to save neonatals except to supply the kittens.
So, I looked back at his blog entry, where he says:
267 dogs and 273 cats were euthanized in March 2007. 25% of the cats were orphaned neonate kittens (68). Thanks to LA Animal Services' Baby Bottle Foster Parents and many New Hope Partners 204 neonates were safely placed in loving homes in March 2007 and were spared euthanasia. (Orphaned neonates are kittens too young to survive on their own and require round the clock foster care until they are weaned at eight weeks of age.)
To me, it is absolutley clear he is talking about neonate kittens (He defined neonates as kittens too young to srvive on their own), and he talked about euthnaizing 68 neonate kittens. Then he said 204 neonates were placed in fosters and New Hope rescues.
So, I felt mystified.
Then I thought to myself, “Oh, I got it, Boks lied again.” With that explanation, I felt satisfied, complete, everything fell into place. Ed lied--again.
.
.
Boks gets confused by his own numbers--again.
Ed Boks has a penchant for telling reporters what he wants them to hear vs. the facts, such as telling Dana Bartholomew that new vets make $92,000, when in fact they make $83,500 and the LAAS website says they make $81,000.
Yesterday he told Times reporter Carla Hall that LAAS placed 204 neonatal kittens in foster homes in March. He says the same thing on one of his previous blog posts.
If you look at the official statistics on the LAAS, only 37 unweaned kittens were placed in foster homes during March. Well, I guess a disparity of 167 kittens is conceivable using Boks-style mathematics.
I tried to see how he arrived at the number 204. Was it from a dream? Did he include San Francisco’s fostered kittens as his own? Did he accidentally add the fosters of the last three years and then multiply by 2? Did he include kittens fostered during February who were still in foster homes?
During February, 6 kittens were placed in foster homes and zero in January according the LAAS website. Altogether during the entire first quarter, 43 kittens were placed in foster homes by LAAS. The mystery deepened.
Maybe he included kittens rescued by New Hope partners, I wondered. There were 96 New Hope rescues in March. 96 + 37 = 133. Humm, that's not it.
There were also 39 New Hope placements in February and 18 in January.
Adding up all the neonatal fostered and rescued for the entire first quarter, we get 196, still short of the 204 Boks said LAAS fostered.
Maybe Ed, I speculated, was referring to "All Cats" fostered in January through March of this year.
So, I looked at the department statistics, which said of "All Cats," 37 were fostered in March and 6 in February, the same number of neonatals fostered. I thought maybe he double counted cats and neonatals, not recognizing that neonatals were also cats. But that only adds up to 74.
Also, I thought, Ed cannot be including New Hope rescues as his accomplishment, because New Hope placements have little to do with the department efforts to save neonatals except to supply the kittens.
So, I looked back at his blog entry, where he says:
267 dogs and 273 cats were euthanized in March 2007. 25% of the cats were orphaned neonate kittens (68). Thanks to LA Animal Services' Baby Bottle Foster Parents and many New Hope Partners 204 neonates were safely placed in loving homes in March 2007 and were spared euthanasia. (Orphaned neonates are kittens too young to survive on their own and require round the clock foster care until they are weaned at eight weeks of age.)
To me, it is absolutley clear he is talking about neonate kittens (He defined neonates as kittens too young to srvive on their own), and he talked about euthnaizing 68 neonate kittens. Then he said 204 neonates were placed in fosters and New Hope rescues.
So, I felt mystified.
Then I thought to myself, “Oh, I got it, Boks lied again.” With that explanation, I felt satisfied, complete, everything fell into place. Ed lied--again.
.
.
LAAS to Anesthetize Animals Before Killing Them
.
Readers may know that Boks has steadfastly refused to anesthetize animals before killing them with sodium pentabarbital much to the dismay of the humane community. Mike Bell has led the charge to change this situation.
Boks has had an about face on the issue, and a new three phased protocol for anesthetizing animals will be announced soon.
Apparently Boks asked his new Acting Chief Veterinarian, Steven Feldman, DVM, his thoughts on Bell's demand that animal be anesthetized prior to euthanasia. Feldman strongly supported anesthetizing all animals prior to being killed.
The anesthesia protocol will be administered in three phases.
According to an email addressed at Dr. Laws and forwarded to me:
Charlotte, et al,
As promised in earlier communications, LA Animal Services has been reviewing its euthanasia protocol under the able leadership of our new lead veterinarian. We have been specifically working on the issue of pre-sedation.
Although many veterinarians have advised us that our past/current practices are appropriate and humane, we agree with the community that they should actually be exemplary.
With that goal in mind, we have developed a three phased plan for the implementation of sedation as appropriate prior to euthanasia. Our goal is to attain Phase 3 euthanasia practice by August 31, 2007.
PHASE 1: Sedation will be used for felines that are unsocialized to humans (feral) or those showing even a small amount of fearful behavior. (In process)
PHASE 2: All cats and wildlife/exotics; and dogs exhibiting fearful and or/anxious behavior will be sedated prior to euthanasia. We are presently evaluating various "cocktails" that can be utilized for animals over 10-20 lbs. So we will specify later the recommended agent to use prior to sodium pentobartbital. (In process)
PHASE 3: Every animal that is conscious and aware will receive sedation prior to euthanasia with sodium pentobarbital.
Target Date for implementation:August 31, 2007.
We are also reviewing all of our euthanasia rooms to enhance them into more respectful areas for administering euthanasia. The rooms are abominable, and much work has to be done, but we don't want to wait for the new centers to implement this.
I want to thank Dr. Feldman for the breath of fresh air he has brought to the department as evidenced by this progressive approach to this practice. I also want to thank Mike Bell for not relaxing his indomitable spirit during this debate. We're even thinking of naming one of the rooms in his honor...
Ed
Readers may know that Boks has steadfastly refused to anesthetize animals before killing them with sodium pentabarbital much to the dismay of the humane community. Mike Bell has led the charge to change this situation.
Boks has had an about face on the issue, and a new three phased protocol for anesthetizing animals will be announced soon.
Apparently Boks asked his new Acting Chief Veterinarian, Steven Feldman, DVM, his thoughts on Bell's demand that animal be anesthetized prior to euthanasia. Feldman strongly supported anesthetizing all animals prior to being killed.
The anesthesia protocol will be administered in three phases.
According to an email addressed at Dr. Laws and forwarded to me:
Charlotte, et al,
As promised in earlier communications, LA Animal Services has been reviewing its euthanasia protocol under the able leadership of our new lead veterinarian. We have been specifically working on the issue of pre-sedation.
Although many veterinarians have advised us that our past/current practices are appropriate and humane, we agree with the community that they should actually be exemplary.
With that goal in mind, we have developed a three phased plan for the implementation of sedation as appropriate prior to euthanasia. Our goal is to attain Phase 3 euthanasia practice by August 31, 2007.
PHASE 1: Sedation will be used for felines that are unsocialized to humans (feral) or those showing even a small amount of fearful behavior. (In process)
PHASE 2: All cats and wildlife/exotics; and dogs exhibiting fearful and or/anxious behavior will be sedated prior to euthanasia. We are presently evaluating various "cocktails" that can be utilized for animals over 10-20 lbs. So we will specify later the recommended agent to use prior to sodium pentobartbital. (In process)
PHASE 3: Every animal that is conscious and aware will receive sedation prior to euthanasia with sodium pentobarbital.
Target Date for implementation:August 31, 2007.
We are also reviewing all of our euthanasia rooms to enhance them into more respectful areas for administering euthanasia. The rooms are abominable, and much work has to be done, but we don't want to wait for the new centers to implement this.
I want to thank Dr. Feldman for the breath of fresh air he has brought to the department as evidenced by this progressive approach to this practice. I also want to thank Mike Bell for not relaxing his indomitable spirit during this debate. We're even thinking of naming one of the rooms in his honor...
Ed
Chinese Melamine Now Found in Corn Gluten Products Were Deliberately Spiked. Chinese Government Says Screw You
LA Times and NBC today:
.
Chinese manufacturers may have intentionally added a chemical linked to pet deaths and illnesses into a protein-powder ingredient in pet foods, federal regulators said Thursday.Stephen Sundlof, chief veterinarian for the Food and Drug Administration, said melamine, which has turned up in more than 100 brands of cat and dog food, may have been used to falsely boost the apparent nutritional content of rice protein.
Melamine, an ingredient in plastics and fertilizers that could lead to kidney failure in animals, has contaminated rice protein and wheat gluten in pet foods made in Canada and the U.S.The chemical compound reportedly also has tainted corn gluten added to pet food sold in South Africa, the FDA said.FDA officials said they were investigating whether the melamine might have been added intentionally as a way to charge more for an inferior product. The fact that three protein sources from China contained melamine adds credibility to that theory.
The Chinese government has said that the contaminated wheat gluten was not meant for pet foods and therefore was not its regulatory responsibility.
The FDA said the North American manufacturers shared some responsibility for ensuring the safety of their pet foods.
Pacoima-based Natural Balance Pet Foods, which this week voluntarily recalled four types of dog food containing rice protein, said it would be wary of using any Chinese-made ingredients."I can't imagine we'll be using Chinese ingredients again."
The FDA and Agriculture Department also were investigating whether some pet food made by one of the five companies supplied by Wilbur-Ellis was diverted for use as hog feed after it was found unsuitable for pet consumption.
"We understand it did make it into some hog feed and we are following up on that as well," Sundlof said.
Later Thursday, California officials said they believe the melamine at the quarantined hog farm came from rice protein concentrate imported from China by Diamond Pet Food's Lathrop facility, which produces products under the Natural Balance brand and sold salvage pet food to the farm for pig feed.
"Although all animals appear healthy, we are taking this action out of an abundance of caution," State Veterinarian Richard Breitmeyer said in a statement. "It is unknown if the chemical will be detected in meat."
(Comment: Royal Canin also recalls several of its general and prescription pet food lines. http://www.royalcanin.us:80/)
PET FOOD RECALL EXPANDED AGAIN
.
According to CNN, the food recall now includes several Natural Balance products after reports that pets using them have developed symptoms of kidney failure. This recall expands the food element from wheat gluten to rice concentrate used in some of the New Balance foods. There is no info as to where the rice came from.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070418/pet_food_recall.html?.v=4
How many cases of organ failure have there been over the past 10 years before a manufacturer voluntarily recalled foods it knew caused kidney failure? What percentage of cats and dogs that have died over the decade due to bad pet food? Want to eat in a Chinese restaurant now?
The recall now affects everything from junk brands to the so-called elite brands. How universal is this problem? The FDA is still not sure that any of the substances identified caused the kidney failures; the mechanism of injury is still unknown.
Folks, I spent several months in South Korea. I will never go there again or eat any of their foods because of what I learned about their eating habits (dogs and cats). I have heard much worse--as have we all--about the Chinese attitude towards cats as hoer derv's, as well as manufacturing pet toys and garments out of cat skins.
I have boycotted every Chinese and Korean import since 1997 after I returned from Korea. I had been there studying and teaching Zen Buddhism at Chogyesa Temple in Soule. I renounced my teaching certificate as the First American International Teacher of Zen Buddhism to the Chogye administration as well as sent a letter of condemnation to the the Korean Consulate in Washington.
.
There is something desperately wrong with a world where baby seals, whales, cats and dogs as well as farm animals are eaten and skinned. Many Buddhists eat meat and in many countries even the monks eat meat, such as Sri Lanka.
Therefore, I don't think "spiritual evolution" ever will lead to ending animal killing for food and products. Well, maybe it could about the same time as LAAS goes No-Kill.
.
According to CNN, the food recall now includes several Natural Balance products after reports that pets using them have developed symptoms of kidney failure. This recall expands the food element from wheat gluten to rice concentrate used in some of the New Balance foods. There is no info as to where the rice came from.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070418/pet_food_recall.html?.v=4
How many cases of organ failure have there been over the past 10 years before a manufacturer voluntarily recalled foods it knew caused kidney failure? What percentage of cats and dogs that have died over the decade due to bad pet food? Want to eat in a Chinese restaurant now?
The recall now affects everything from junk brands to the so-called elite brands. How universal is this problem? The FDA is still not sure that any of the substances identified caused the kidney failures; the mechanism of injury is still unknown.
Folks, I spent several months in South Korea. I will never go there again or eat any of their foods because of what I learned about their eating habits (dogs and cats). I have heard much worse--as have we all--about the Chinese attitude towards cats as hoer derv's, as well as manufacturing pet toys and garments out of cat skins.
I have boycotted every Chinese and Korean import since 1997 after I returned from Korea. I had been there studying and teaching Zen Buddhism at Chogyesa Temple in Soule. I renounced my teaching certificate as the First American International Teacher of Zen Buddhism to the Chogye administration as well as sent a letter of condemnation to the the Korean Consulate in Washington.
.
There is something desperately wrong with a world where baby seals, whales, cats and dogs as well as farm animals are eaten and skinned. Many Buddhists eat meat and in many countries even the monks eat meat, such as Sri Lanka.
Therefore, I don't think "spiritual evolution" ever will lead to ending animal killing for food and products. Well, maybe it could about the same time as LAAS goes No-Kill.
.
COUNCIL SUPPORTS SPAY/NEUTER BILL
.
Today the City just endorsed ab1634. It was a long City Council session but it passed 12 for, none against. Marie Atake, Ed Boks, Teri Austin, Mary Catalano, Daniel Guss, Judie Mancuso, Cheri Shankar and others were there to support the bill. It was a wonderful positive discussion.
Alarcon said "why don't we just make this mandatory in LA City? Why do we have to wait for the State?" They promised to write a motion to do it in the City immediately. Rosendahl said he's not a breeder though he did let his dog have three litters. He gave the puppies to friends. He said the City must enforce licensing. There is revenue there.
Garcetti was upset because he didn't know that the canvassing program was no longer active. Cardenas said we need more money for more vouchers.Boks stated that LA leads the country in spayneuter. He said 1,000 neonates a month come into the shelter. He said $18 million of the $25 million budget goes to euthanize unwanted animals. He said they did 39,000 vouchers in 2006 and will do 44,000 in 2007. Previously he said he'd do 59,000, another time he ME 20,000 a month in 2008. He said all the spay neuter clinics will be open early next year. He said two will be open in a month. I really doubt that. 35 speakers for it, 4 against. The ones against had very weak arguments.
.
Today the City just endorsed ab1634. It was a long City Council session but it passed 12 for, none against. Marie Atake, Ed Boks, Teri Austin, Mary Catalano, Daniel Guss, Judie Mancuso, Cheri Shankar and others were there to support the bill. It was a wonderful positive discussion.
Alarcon said "why don't we just make this mandatory in LA City? Why do we have to wait for the State?" They promised to write a motion to do it in the City immediately. Rosendahl said he's not a breeder though he did let his dog have three litters. He gave the puppies to friends. He said the City must enforce licensing. There is revenue there.
Garcetti was upset because he didn't know that the canvassing program was no longer active. Cardenas said we need more money for more vouchers.Boks stated that LA leads the country in spayneuter. He said 1,000 neonates a month come into the shelter. He said $18 million of the $25 million budget goes to euthanize unwanted animals. He said they did 39,000 vouchers in 2006 and will do 44,000 in 2007. Previously he said he'd do 59,000, another time he ME 20,000 a month in 2008. He said all the spay neuter clinics will be open early next year. He said two will be open in a month. I really doubt that. 35 speakers for it, 4 against. The ones against had very weak arguments.
.
UC Davis Shelter Medicine Webcast-East Valley Emergency
.
UC Davis has a webcast series on shelter medicine. The lectures are live at 8:00 Friday evening. They are available afterwards indefinitely. I heard # 2. Very interesting, but the sound breaks up. The first two are on vaccines used in shelters, when to use them, etc. There is a simultaneous visual presentation as well as a video of the instructor. You'll find it all very interesting.
http://www.sheltermedicine.com/education/class.php#top4
Interesting to note, that there is a high correlation between budget and live save levels. LAAS' budget is about $500 per dog and cat impounded. San Francisco is about $400. The difference is the number of volunteers that make up for lack of budget in San Francisco. Typically, $500 per cat/dog is considered a low figure, and more like $1,000 per would be required to reach No-Kill. But the definition of No-Kill varies. The UC Davis series mentions one shelter that spends about $1,800 per animal and has about 96.5% save. To be comparable, LAAS would need $75,000,000.
Since it does not have the money, it needs to build a volunteer staff. This should be a crash priority.
ATTENTION East Valley Emergency
Well, it is Friday afternoon and East Valley currently has 95 cats, 192 dogs, and 46 rabbits. With the weekend approaching, I am sure the numbers will definitely rise. I do not have specific impound numbers, nor pictures, nor bios, because we have been so busy trying to get things together here for the move. However, I am reaching out for the help of you guys because I have nowhere else to turn. I NEED YOUR HELP. Please if you or anybody you know wants a new member for their family, please refer them to us. We have plenty to choose from. If any of you have room out there for any...... please come by and rescue from us. We would greatly appreciate your help in any way. I know some of you guys are networking, but I am letting you know that we are at extreme levels beyond our capacity. Please call 818/756-9324 for any info leading to a possible rescue or adoption of one of our furry friends here at East Valley.
.
UC Davis has a webcast series on shelter medicine. The lectures are live at 8:00 Friday evening. They are available afterwards indefinitely. I heard # 2. Very interesting, but the sound breaks up. The first two are on vaccines used in shelters, when to use them, etc. There is a simultaneous visual presentation as well as a video of the instructor. You'll find it all very interesting.
http://www.sheltermedicine.com/education/class.php#top4
Interesting to note, that there is a high correlation between budget and live save levels. LAAS' budget is about $500 per dog and cat impounded. San Francisco is about $400. The difference is the number of volunteers that make up for lack of budget in San Francisco. Typically, $500 per cat/dog is considered a low figure, and more like $1,000 per would be required to reach No-Kill. But the definition of No-Kill varies. The UC Davis series mentions one shelter that spends about $1,800 per animal and has about 96.5% save. To be comparable, LAAS would need $75,000,000.
Since it does not have the money, it needs to build a volunteer staff. This should be a crash priority.
ATTENTION East Valley Emergency
Well, it is Friday afternoon and East Valley currently has 95 cats, 192 dogs, and 46 rabbits. With the weekend approaching, I am sure the numbers will definitely rise. I do not have specific impound numbers, nor pictures, nor bios, because we have been so busy trying to get things together here for the move. However, I am reaching out for the help of you guys because I have nowhere else to turn. I NEED YOUR HELP. Please if you or anybody you know wants a new member for their family, please refer them to us. We have plenty to choose from. If any of you have room out there for any...... please come by and rescue from us. We would greatly appreciate your help in any way. I know some of you guys are networking, but I am letting you know that we are at extreme levels beyond our capacity. Please call 818/756-9324 for any info leading to a possible rescue or adoption of one of our furry friends here at East Valley.
.
Boks No-Kill March Screws Cats Yet Again
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
During Boks "March No-Kill" month, he saved fewer cats than any of the previous years under Stuckey or Greenwalt.
Cats saved under Stuckey, March 2005.......................................552
Cats saved under Greenwalt, March 2003..................................561
Cats saved under Boks, March 2007..............................426
Boks euthanized "Fewer cats than ever," but he also "saved fewer cats than ever," because he is "warehousing more cats than ever." They are coming in alive, but fewer are leaving, either euthanized or alive.
Because of overcrowding and less vet time per animal, the numbers of cats dying this year and last is double that under Greenwalt.
We also need to understand he only holds 1/3 the number of cats than he does dogs, which means he holds them a shorter period of time than dogs and kills them quicker. This becomes dramatically more evident during kitten season where he killed about 6,000 last year. Very few cages for a lot of cats. Unfair discrimination!!
I guess in March too many kittens were fractious, dangerous, untreatable or sick/injured--they deserved to die, legally, Hayden-wise.
.
Pet Food Recall Widens
.
According to an American Veterinary Medical Association bulleting today, 26 foods have been added to the recall list, including more Science Diet, Iams and Eukanuba. Some of the new recalls do not list wheat gluten as a component.
The complete list:
http://www.avma.org/aa/menufoodsrecall/products.asp
According to an American Veterinary Medical Association bulleting today, 26 foods have been added to the recall list, including more Science Diet, Iams and Eukanuba. Some of the new recalls do not list wheat gluten as a component.
The complete list:
http://www.avma.org/aa/menufoodsrecall/products.asp
Please read the comments people have sent during the past month
.
A lot of well-informed, educated and apparently intelligent rescuers are submitting really insightful observations and comments. There are so many good ones I'd like to make a compilation and post them in the near future.
There is one commenter who consistently thinks I am a jerk. Probably Phyllis.
.
A lot of well-informed, educated and apparently intelligent rescuers are submitting really insightful observations and comments. There are so many good ones I'd like to make a compilation and post them in the near future.
There is one commenter who consistently thinks I am a jerk. Probably Phyllis.
.
Cats Screwed Again in March
.
Analyzing the March No-Kill month by Anonymous, we find:
In review of the March 2007 statistics I see a few main problems. One, animals actually leaving the shelter alive have decreased. Two, animals dying in the shelter have increased dramatically. Three, animals being held in the shelter have increased dramatically.
Boks is holding onto the animals so he doesn't have to euthanize them. He is juggling the animals in order to improve his numbers. Had he not held those animals much longer, his euth rate and numbers would have been up.
To see what's really happening in the shelter we need to look at the out-alive rate. How many were adopted, returned to owner, fostered or taken by New Hope.
The number of animals that left the shelter alive in March 2007 was down in number and percentage. Fewer animals made it out alive. This is for cats, dogs, bunnies and others. The point of a No-kill director is to get the animals out alive, not to warehouse them in cramped, stressful and unhealthy conditions.
More animals are now dying in the shelter than ever before. One, because there are more animals in the shelter. Two, because he's holding them longer and they are getting sick and dying. Three, because the vets are overtaxed and can't treat them all as well. Here is the total dying in the shelter. Over three times as many animals are dying in the shelter than before he got here.
2007 247 11%
2006 167 7%
2005 70 3%
CATS: Cat adoptions way down from last March, down 30%. Cat euth is down because he's holding onto them. Cat intake is the same. Died in shelter the same as 2006, which was way up from 2005. New Hope is up over 2006 but still down over 2005. If Boks hadn't held all those cats, the euth rate would be up.
Cats out alive is way down. He failed cats.
RABBITS: Rabbit adoptions down 50%, euth up over 2006, dying in shelter up, intake is down. He failed rabbits.
OTHER: Other adoptions only up by two animals. New Hope is way down, 50% down.
Dying in shelter up 100% over 2006. 2006 was 8x 2005 so this is pretty bad. Euth is up over 2006. Intake is up. He failed "others."
In order to try to improve the cat numbers, he kept more cats in March 2007 than before, same with dogs. If Boks had euth'd those animals, his euth rate and numbers would be up overall.
As it is his left-alive rate is down from last year. Notice, he is keeping more animals longer but adopting way fewer. Cats 2006 adopted 367, 2007 adopted 259, down 30%.
Holding the animals longer is not improving their chance of adoption. In fact, it seems to be making the adoptions go down. Maybe because they look sick, are frightened, stressed out from being kept longer? Maybe because the shelters are full which overwhelms potential adopters? Maybe he's just not doing a good job getting cats adopted. Adopting out cats is very different than adopting out dogs. Dogs are good at mobiles, cats aren't as good.
The below numbers show that Boks is holding onto the cats so he won't have to euth them. He did not increase adoptions so the shelters just filled up.
--CATSMarch 2007, 1,022 came in, 576 left alive 56%+102 net cats, kept in the shelter.
--March 2006, 1,021 came in, 644 left alive 63%-54 cats.
--March 2005, 1,199 came in, 552 left alive 46%+74 cats.
Analyzing the March No-Kill month by Anonymous, we find:
In review of the March 2007 statistics I see a few main problems. One, animals actually leaving the shelter alive have decreased. Two, animals dying in the shelter have increased dramatically. Three, animals being held in the shelter have increased dramatically.
Boks is holding onto the animals so he doesn't have to euthanize them. He is juggling the animals in order to improve his numbers. Had he not held those animals much longer, his euth rate and numbers would have been up.
To see what's really happening in the shelter we need to look at the out-alive rate. How many were adopted, returned to owner, fostered or taken by New Hope.
The number of animals that left the shelter alive in March 2007 was down in number and percentage. Fewer animals made it out alive. This is for cats, dogs, bunnies and others. The point of a No-kill director is to get the animals out alive, not to warehouse them in cramped, stressful and unhealthy conditions.
More animals are now dying in the shelter than ever before. One, because there are more animals in the shelter. Two, because he's holding them longer and they are getting sick and dying. Three, because the vets are overtaxed and can't treat them all as well. Here is the total dying in the shelter. Over three times as many animals are dying in the shelter than before he got here.
2007 247 11%
2006 167 7%
2005 70 3%
CATS: Cat adoptions way down from last March, down 30%. Cat euth is down because he's holding onto them. Cat intake is the same. Died in shelter the same as 2006, which was way up from 2005. New Hope is up over 2006 but still down over 2005. If Boks hadn't held all those cats, the euth rate would be up.
Cats out alive is way down. He failed cats.
RABBITS: Rabbit adoptions down 50%, euth up over 2006, dying in shelter up, intake is down. He failed rabbits.
OTHER: Other adoptions only up by two animals. New Hope is way down, 50% down.
Dying in shelter up 100% over 2006. 2006 was 8x 2005 so this is pretty bad. Euth is up over 2006. Intake is up. He failed "others."
In order to try to improve the cat numbers, he kept more cats in March 2007 than before, same with dogs. If Boks had euth'd those animals, his euth rate and numbers would be up overall.
As it is his left-alive rate is down from last year. Notice, he is keeping more animals longer but adopting way fewer. Cats 2006 adopted 367, 2007 adopted 259, down 30%.
Holding the animals longer is not improving their chance of adoption. In fact, it seems to be making the adoptions go down. Maybe because they look sick, are frightened, stressed out from being kept longer? Maybe because the shelters are full which overwhelms potential adopters? Maybe he's just not doing a good job getting cats adopted. Adopting out cats is very different than adopting out dogs. Dogs are good at mobiles, cats aren't as good.
The below numbers show that Boks is holding onto the cats so he won't have to euth them. He did not increase adoptions so the shelters just filled up.
--CATSMarch 2007, 1,022 came in, 576 left alive 56%+102 net cats, kept in the shelter.
--March 2006, 1,021 came in, 644 left alive 63%-54 cats.
--March 2005, 1,199 came in, 552 left alive 46%+74 cats.
Observations and Questions
.
Since it is a big deal, I’d like to ask a few more questions about the Western University partnership. When I envisioned a partnership with a vet school, I had in mind a partnership of LA’s vet staff with an externaship/research institution, not a total abandonment of an in-house staff.
Before we even consider this partnership, we need to do a cost-benefit analysis.
How much would it cost to hire ten new vets , outfit their offices, and provide medical supplies and surgeries? If we don’t know that, how can we even talk about a partnership where the school is going to run everything?
Will the school provide 10 FTE services? How much will that cost vs. LAAS doing it themselves? Who is going to pay for the infrastructure, how much is budgeted now for LAAS vet services, and how much will Western charge?
Unless we know this, it is like building a huge condo complex without an EIR and an admission that LAAS can’t do it themselves-which they probably can’t. This relieves Boks of both responsibilities and accountability.
Regarding Boks No-Kill March, he killed 540 cats and dogs, but also another 135 other animals, for an 18% kill rate with respect to that month's impounded numbers, which is lower than SF’s yearly average.
But Boks is bumping the figures up be juggling the animals for a good March month, which he can announce before his three-month-late 2006 report. Adoptions are down as well as euthanasias, meaning the shelters are crowded. There are over 800 dogs in the shelters and the in-shelter deaths are three times what they were last year. The 18% figure is not sustainable. March is a slow month, wait until May, when his numbers turned South big-time last year.
On January 6 next year, he'll issue another No-Kill December report announcing a decreased euthanasia rate of -12%--saving animals that were not even impounded. There will be no annual report.
Why couldn't Boks admit from the beginning that LAAS and he had major problems and humbly ask for help? Now is too late; everyone has branded him as truth challenged in every way, taking personal credit for anything positive coming out of LAAS, and denying facts like not having taken even a small step to No-Kill in 2006.
Boks told me to admit to any problem was to play into ADL’s hands, but being obsessed by what they, and other said about him, robbed him of credibility and many animals of their lives. During March through June, Boks must have spent 40% of his time defending himself against ADL, 40% chasing women, and 20% running the shelters. If he had spent 50% of his time in, analyzing and managing the shelters, his numbers MIGHT have been much better, and much of the animal community might still be behind him.
But he blew it. I can’t imagine he has any support outside of Phyllis and the media until they catch him in his ever more grandiose lies.
.
Since it is a big deal, I’d like to ask a few more questions about the Western University partnership. When I envisioned a partnership with a vet school, I had in mind a partnership of LA’s vet staff with an externaship/research institution, not a total abandonment of an in-house staff.
Before we even consider this partnership, we need to do a cost-benefit analysis.
How much would it cost to hire ten new vets , outfit their offices, and provide medical supplies and surgeries? If we don’t know that, how can we even talk about a partnership where the school is going to run everything?
Will the school provide 10 FTE services? How much will that cost vs. LAAS doing it themselves? Who is going to pay for the infrastructure, how much is budgeted now for LAAS vet services, and how much will Western charge?
Unless we know this, it is like building a huge condo complex without an EIR and an admission that LAAS can’t do it themselves-which they probably can’t. This relieves Boks of both responsibilities and accountability.
Regarding Boks No-Kill March, he killed 540 cats and dogs, but also another 135 other animals, for an 18% kill rate with respect to that month's impounded numbers, which is lower than SF’s yearly average.
But Boks is bumping the figures up be juggling the animals for a good March month, which he can announce before his three-month-late 2006 report. Adoptions are down as well as euthanasias, meaning the shelters are crowded. There are over 800 dogs in the shelters and the in-shelter deaths are three times what they were last year. The 18% figure is not sustainable. March is a slow month, wait until May, when his numbers turned South big-time last year.
On January 6 next year, he'll issue another No-Kill December report announcing a decreased euthanasia rate of -12%--saving animals that were not even impounded. There will be no annual report.
Why couldn't Boks admit from the beginning that LAAS and he had major problems and humbly ask for help? Now is too late; everyone has branded him as truth challenged in every way, taking personal credit for anything positive coming out of LAAS, and denying facts like not having taken even a small step to No-Kill in 2006.
Boks told me to admit to any problem was to play into ADL’s hands, but being obsessed by what they, and other said about him, robbed him of credibility and many animals of their lives. During March through June, Boks must have spent 40% of his time defending himself against ADL, 40% chasing women, and 20% running the shelters. If he had spent 50% of his time in, analyzing and managing the shelters, his numbers MIGHT have been much better, and much of the animal community might still be behind him.
But he blew it. I can’t imagine he has any support outside of Phyllis and the media until they catch him in his ever more grandiose lies.
.
BOKS TAKES LOS ANGELES TO NO-KILL!!!
.
Ed Boks claimed today that he took LAAS to No-Kill in March. He killed 540 animals but he said they all deserved it. We all know the shelters are stuffed to the brim to carry off a 540 animal kill, No-Kill month, and a thousand will die this month to prepare the way for the 5,000 kittens he will kill before the end of the year.
As a friend of mine said:
Check out his new blog; totally insane. Why not say he also created world peace and found the cure for cancer and Aids? How can the department let him spew these whopper lies? It's like Chief Bratton saying there was no crime in March or the LAFD to say there were no fires.
.
Ed Boks claimed today that he took LAAS to No-Kill in March. He killed 540 animals but he said they all deserved it. We all know the shelters are stuffed to the brim to carry off a 540 animal kill, No-Kill month, and a thousand will die this month to prepare the way for the 5,000 kittens he will kill before the end of the year.
As a friend of mine said:
Check out his new blog; totally insane. Why not say he also created world peace and found the cure for cancer and Aids? How can the department let him spew these whopper lies? It's like Chief Bratton saying there was no crime in March or the LAFD to say there were no fires.
.
Boks Spins an Impossibly Rosy Future
.
Ed Boks is the Truth-Challenged General Manager of Los Angeles Animal Services. Ed is a master spin-master. He can make Armageddon feel like a cooling summer breeze. He squeezes Animal Shelter statistics until they confess to his distortions. He is a side-show ringmaster, orchestrating fiascos such as the Hooters for Neuters event that netted LAAS nothing, but him, notoriety.
Recently the Daily News published an article about Boks and the veterinarian shortage. Boks made it seem that the problem will be fixed this fall using students and faculty of the vet program at Western University.
The Western University veterinarian program does not have any buildings. The University itself does have several buildings, but the vet program does not. Their website has a "rendition" of the vet school building, which means it does not exist. It has not graduated any students. It is not accredited. They have no shelter medicine program.
I am not knocking the school, and agree it is a great idea for the future, but I am knocking Boks' claim they will rescue LAAS this fall. We need ten more vets now--desperately.
The whole article is PR fiction, a pipe dream, typical Boks’ wishful thinking. He cannot distinguish between his fantasizing and reality. I really think he believes what he says could happen, will happen.
Boks says LAAS starting vet salary is $92,000. This is a lie. Current vet salaries are listed on the LAAS website. A Veterinarian I’s starting salary is $80,868 and a Vet II is $83,352. Even the Chief Vet starts at $87,499. Boks must not look at his own website.
A week ago Zine and Alarcon moved that Personnel should do a study on what it would take to bring 10 new vets here. This, of course, involves fixing salaries at a competitive level. I think Boks knows it will be $92,000, so that is what he told Bartholemew. This is Boks’ wishful thinking, confusing future possibilities with present reality.
The first quarter shelter numbers, like last year, APPEAR to look good until the second quarter, when the mass murders begin. Boks holds animals as long as he can, massively overcrowding the shelters, so that the first quarter stats look good and can fool simple minded people like me into believing that all is rosy and No-Kill happened last Thursday.
The 2007 first quarter stats look only microscopically better than last year’s. After 15 months, 1.25 years, the self-proclaimed No-Kill guru has brought the euthanasia rate down from 41% to 40%. If we set No-Kill at a 10% euthanasia rate, we'll be there in 2045.
The shelters are overcrowded with animals that have little chance of being adopted, creating a catastrophe in the making. Crowding can magnify any disease outbreak and could result in hundreds of animals being killed, as in Reno a few months ago, where 1,000 animals were killed over a weekend.
The in-shelter death rates under Boks have been climbing ever since he came aboard and we can expect them to climb much higher. The major killing will begin in May. Like last year, he will blame it on a horrendous kitten season, even though the kitten season, the year before under the previous General Manager, Guerdon Stuckey, was much worse.
Every month since Boks became GM, cats are getting screwed. In No-Kill or even low-kill shelters, many fewer cats, including ferals, are killed and most unweaned kittens are saved. Not in LA. Last year 5,889 of all cats impounded were killed their first day in the shelter, and 5,622 out of 7,341 unweaned kittens were killed during the past 12 months.
Philadelphia, San Francisco and Charlottesville save most of their unweaned kittens because they have extraordinary bottle-feeding foster volunteers who later adopt, or find homes for the kittens. LAAS’ bottle-baby program is almost non-existent. LAAS has shown no ability to enroll or keep its volunteers in any area.
After 15 months, even under strong pressure from the Animal Services Commission and the humane community, Boks still not prepared a plan for a No-Kill LA. We have no idea where he is taking LAAS, and apparently he does not either.
All of LAAS’ improvements are in Boks’ mind or the distant future.
Los Angeles deserves a real No-Kill General Manager, someone, unlike Boks, who actually spends time at the shelters, analyzes the operations, then makes things work.
Ed Boks is the Truth-Challenged General Manager of Los Angeles Animal Services. Ed is a master spin-master. He can make Armageddon feel like a cooling summer breeze. He squeezes Animal Shelter statistics until they confess to his distortions. He is a side-show ringmaster, orchestrating fiascos such as the Hooters for Neuters event that netted LAAS nothing, but him, notoriety.
Recently the Daily News published an article about Boks and the veterinarian shortage. Boks made it seem that the problem will be fixed this fall using students and faculty of the vet program at Western University.
The Western University veterinarian program does not have any buildings. The University itself does have several buildings, but the vet program does not. Their website has a "rendition" of the vet school building, which means it does not exist. It has not graduated any students. It is not accredited. They have no shelter medicine program.
I am not knocking the school, and agree it is a great idea for the future, but I am knocking Boks' claim they will rescue LAAS this fall. We need ten more vets now--desperately.
The whole article is PR fiction, a pipe dream, typical Boks’ wishful thinking. He cannot distinguish between his fantasizing and reality. I really think he believes what he says could happen, will happen.
Boks says LAAS starting vet salary is $92,000. This is a lie. Current vet salaries are listed on the LAAS website. A Veterinarian I’s starting salary is $80,868 and a Vet II is $83,352. Even the Chief Vet starts at $87,499. Boks must not look at his own website.
A week ago Zine and Alarcon moved that Personnel should do a study on what it would take to bring 10 new vets here. This, of course, involves fixing salaries at a competitive level. I think Boks knows it will be $92,000, so that is what he told Bartholemew. This is Boks’ wishful thinking, confusing future possibilities with present reality.
The first quarter shelter numbers, like last year, APPEAR to look good until the second quarter, when the mass murders begin. Boks holds animals as long as he can, massively overcrowding the shelters, so that the first quarter stats look good and can fool simple minded people like me into believing that all is rosy and No-Kill happened last Thursday.
The 2007 first quarter stats look only microscopically better than last year’s. After 15 months, 1.25 years, the self-proclaimed No-Kill guru has brought the euthanasia rate down from 41% to 40%. If we set No-Kill at a 10% euthanasia rate, we'll be there in 2045.
The shelters are overcrowded with animals that have little chance of being adopted, creating a catastrophe in the making. Crowding can magnify any disease outbreak and could result in hundreds of animals being killed, as in Reno a few months ago, where 1,000 animals were killed over a weekend.
The in-shelter death rates under Boks have been climbing ever since he came aboard and we can expect them to climb much higher. The major killing will begin in May. Like last year, he will blame it on a horrendous kitten season, even though the kitten season, the year before under the previous General Manager, Guerdon Stuckey, was much worse.
Every month since Boks became GM, cats are getting screwed. In No-Kill or even low-kill shelters, many fewer cats, including ferals, are killed and most unweaned kittens are saved. Not in LA. Last year 5,889 of all cats impounded were killed their first day in the shelter, and 5,622 out of 7,341 unweaned kittens were killed during the past 12 months.
Philadelphia, San Francisco and Charlottesville save most of their unweaned kittens because they have extraordinary bottle-feeding foster volunteers who later adopt, or find homes for the kittens. LAAS’ bottle-baby program is almost non-existent. LAAS has shown no ability to enroll or keep its volunteers in any area.
After 15 months, even under strong pressure from the Animal Services Commission and the humane community, Boks still not prepared a plan for a No-Kill LA. We have no idea where he is taking LAAS, and apparently he does not either.
All of LAAS’ improvements are in Boks’ mind or the distant future.
Los Angeles deserves a real No-Kill General Manager, someone, unlike Boks, who actually spends time at the shelters, analyzes the operations, then makes things work.
Ed, Were You Lying Then Or Are You Lying Now?
.
Ed Boks tends to lie a lot, or present an impossibly rosy present that is contradicted by fact.
From LAAS site, Fact vs. Rumor #6 posted by Boks a few days ago:
Boks then: The Daily News has printed a couple of ill-informed letters to the editor in recent months exaggerating the veterinarian shortage in LA Animal Services. A recent piece claimed LA Animal Services’ veterinary vacancy rate is at a “cruel 84 percent”.
A significant fact omitted from this dire description is that the twelve veterinarians budgeted are to staff our six new spay/neuter clinics, five of which are still under construction.
Council motion April 3, 2006 by Zine and Alarcon:
The Department of animal Services (DAS) is currently experiencing a severe shortage of veterinarians. Currently, 10 out of 12 veterinarian positions, including that of Chief Veterinarian, are vacant. These vacancies have resulted in only two veterinarians absorbing the responsibilities to oversee the City's six shelters which handle approximately 46,000 animals per year. Consequently, the two veterinarians have been forced to work overtime to ensure that the City's animal shelter needs are met. As a result, the veterinarians have become exhausted and less efficient.
The shortage of veterinarians has raised concerns about the Department's ability to provide adequate services in City shelters. It is urgent that the City implement the necessary steps to increase veterinarian hiring and retention. Immediate action is needed to ensure that the quality of animal care does not continue to suffer.
NOTICE THE COUNCIL MOTION IS TALKING ABOUT CURRENT NEEDS, NOT FUTURE NEEDS AS S/N CLINICS ARE BUILT.
From Fact vs. Rumor #6:
Boks then: A significant fact omitted from this dire description is that the twelve veterinarians budgeted are to staff our six new spay/neuter clinics, five of which are still under construction.
A seventh Spay/Neuter Clinic in South LA will soon be staffed. While we await the opening of our six additional clinics we now contract with over 25 local private veterinarians to provide this important service.
In addition to our staff veterinarians, LA Animal Services has over 20 medical staff members who are licensed veterinarians in other countries. This allows them to perform in LA as very highly skilled Registered Veterinary Technicians.
LA Animal Services has 149 private veterinarians available to provide care to animals in need. We routinely use 30 of these veterinarians as needed.
Which is it Ed, do we need 12 vets now because our current two vets are overwhelmed providing health care for animals currently in the shelters, or are the 12 vets needed in the future when the spay neuter clinics are opened?
According to Boks, LAAS has: 2 staff vets; 20 foreign trained vets; 25 private vets performing spay neuter, and 149 private vets on tap to provide health care, which total 194 veterinarians. Hell, I did not know there were that many veterinarians in LA (of course I did).
Boks states that the 12 vets are to be utilized to man six spay/neuter clinics, five under construction. Does this mean the actual vet diagnosis and treatment are left to 20 vet techs and 149 on-call private vets?
Is Boks saying that currently LAAS has no budgeted staff to handle the health needs of the animals in the shelters? The budget for 12 vets is for facilities that have not yet been built? Why are the two vets overloaded when they should be doing spay/neuters in clinics that have not been built?
.
Ed Boks tends to lie a lot, or present an impossibly rosy present that is contradicted by fact.
From LAAS site, Fact vs. Rumor #6 posted by Boks a few days ago:
Boks then: The Daily News has printed a couple of ill-informed letters to the editor in recent months exaggerating the veterinarian shortage in LA Animal Services. A recent piece claimed LA Animal Services’ veterinary vacancy rate is at a “cruel 84 percent”.
A significant fact omitted from this dire description is that the twelve veterinarians budgeted are to staff our six new spay/neuter clinics, five of which are still under construction.
Council motion April 3, 2006 by Zine and Alarcon:
The Department of animal Services (DAS) is currently experiencing a severe shortage of veterinarians. Currently, 10 out of 12 veterinarian positions, including that of Chief Veterinarian, are vacant. These vacancies have resulted in only two veterinarians absorbing the responsibilities to oversee the City's six shelters which handle approximately 46,000 animals per year. Consequently, the two veterinarians have been forced to work overtime to ensure that the City's animal shelter needs are met. As a result, the veterinarians have become exhausted and less efficient.
The shortage of veterinarians has raised concerns about the Department's ability to provide adequate services in City shelters. It is urgent that the City implement the necessary steps to increase veterinarian hiring and retention. Immediate action is needed to ensure that the quality of animal care does not continue to suffer.
NOTICE THE COUNCIL MOTION IS TALKING ABOUT CURRENT NEEDS, NOT FUTURE NEEDS AS S/N CLINICS ARE BUILT.
From Fact vs. Rumor #6:
Boks then: A significant fact omitted from this dire description is that the twelve veterinarians budgeted are to staff our six new spay/neuter clinics, five of which are still under construction.
A seventh Spay/Neuter Clinic in South LA will soon be staffed. While we await the opening of our six additional clinics we now contract with over 25 local private veterinarians to provide this important service.
In addition to our staff veterinarians, LA Animal Services has over 20 medical staff members who are licensed veterinarians in other countries. This allows them to perform in LA as very highly skilled Registered Veterinary Technicians.
LA Animal Services has 149 private veterinarians available to provide care to animals in need. We routinely use 30 of these veterinarians as needed.
Which is it Ed, do we need 12 vets now because our current two vets are overwhelmed providing health care for animals currently in the shelters, or are the 12 vets needed in the future when the spay neuter clinics are opened?
According to Boks, LAAS has: 2 staff vets; 20 foreign trained vets; 25 private vets performing spay neuter, and 149 private vets on tap to provide health care, which total 194 veterinarians. Hell, I did not know there were that many veterinarians in LA (of course I did).
Boks states that the 12 vets are to be utilized to man six spay/neuter clinics, five under construction. Does this mean the actual vet diagnosis and treatment are left to 20 vet techs and 149 on-call private vets?
Is Boks saying that currently LAAS has no budgeted staff to handle the health needs of the animals in the shelters? The budget for 12 vets is for facilities that have not yet been built? Why are the two vets overloaded when they should be doing spay/neuters in clinics that have not been built?
.
Opening a Door to No-Kill-Rethought
.
You see things and you say Why? But I dream things that never were and I say Why not?
George Bernard Shaw, 1921
Readers should look at some comments recently left by "Yea-Sayers." Someone is suggesting programs that may save lives. Much more importantly, this person articulates the need not just to give up when a problem is perceived; you think of solutions, or even better, you reframe the situation so that the problem is an opportunity.
Nay-Sayer will say, "You can't do that, the numbers are against you." The Yea-Sayer will see the numbers as a challenge, and will say something like, "How do I bring in more foster parents at the West Valley shelter? How do I enlist Margaret or Tim to foster?" Or, will say, "How do we keep the moms with their babies longer?"
On the other hand, there are those who might reframe the problem and regard it as an opportunity, saying, "Let's set up an LAAS pediatrics program to train vet students on summer vacation, or a neonatal care unit as part of a shelter management program." Or, "Let's make LAAS a teaching shelter system, like a teaching hospital. Use the overabundance as an opportunity to practice and build a world-class center for vet training and animal ethics. After all, isn't LAAS where the patients are?"
Another might saw, "Boy, I bet an ecology or biostatistics department at UCLA would love to do a project on pet and urban animal populations. We'll add that to a LAAS teaching program. I'll bet FAF would fund it."
Or, "Let's talk Donald Trump into making LAAS the focus of two, not one, projects. The first would be to live-save as many kittens as possible, and another would focus on adopting "ordinary" pets."
You see, having lots of animals can be an opportunity, not a problem. The solutions are as big as minds can think and a community can rally round.
This kind of thinking is entirely beyond Boks. He has shown an unparalleled ability not to listen to anyone. He perceives listening to advice or even accepting free help offered the same as admitting he doesn't know everything, which destabilizes his guru-hood.
An animal shelter director from Northern California has offered to consult for free--several times. Boks never returned his calls. I offered to do statistical analyses of animal numbers, sources, dispositions, etc., for free, and despite being one of his bloggers, never heard a word from him. I think Ed is a loser because he wants to do it all by himself. He does not want to share the spotlight of success with anyone, but he doesn't have the ability to do it alone. Therefore, he shares the spotlight of failure with no one.
.
.
You see things and you say Why? But I dream things that never were and I say Why not?
George Bernard Shaw, 1921
Readers should look at some comments recently left by "Yea-Sayers." Someone is suggesting programs that may save lives. Much more importantly, this person articulates the need not just to give up when a problem is perceived; you think of solutions, or even better, you reframe the situation so that the problem is an opportunity.
Nay-Sayer will say, "You can't do that, the numbers are against you." The Yea-Sayer will see the numbers as a challenge, and will say something like, "How do I bring in more foster parents at the West Valley shelter? How do I enlist Margaret or Tim to foster?" Or, will say, "How do we keep the moms with their babies longer?"
On the other hand, there are those who might reframe the problem and regard it as an opportunity, saying, "Let's set up an LAAS pediatrics program to train vet students on summer vacation, or a neonatal care unit as part of a shelter management program." Or, "Let's make LAAS a teaching shelter system, like a teaching hospital. Use the overabundance as an opportunity to practice and build a world-class center for vet training and animal ethics. After all, isn't LAAS where the patients are?"
Another might saw, "Boy, I bet an ecology or biostatistics department at UCLA would love to do a project on pet and urban animal populations. We'll add that to a LAAS teaching program. I'll bet FAF would fund it."
Or, "Let's talk Donald Trump into making LAAS the focus of two, not one, projects. The first would be to live-save as many kittens as possible, and another would focus on adopting "ordinary" pets."
You see, having lots of animals can be an opportunity, not a problem. The solutions are as big as minds can think and a community can rally round.
This kind of thinking is entirely beyond Boks. He has shown an unparalleled ability not to listen to anyone. He perceives listening to advice or even accepting free help offered the same as admitting he doesn't know everything, which destabilizes his guru-hood.
An animal shelter director from Northern California has offered to consult for free--several times. Boks never returned his calls. I offered to do statistical analyses of animal numbers, sources, dispositions, etc., for free, and despite being one of his bloggers, never heard a word from him. I think Ed is a loser because he wants to do it all by himself. He does not want to share the spotlight of success with anyone, but he doesn't have the ability to do it alone. Therefore, he shares the spotlight of failure with no one.
.
.
A Wonderful Post
.
The comment below was written in response to "Naysayer" who always finds fault with the notion that No-Kill is possible in LA. Naysayer's comments can be seen in my post about No-Kill success in San Francisco. This response is so beautiful I had to put it here as a post.
"That's correct, "very few people come into the animal shelters looking to adopt an old, ordinary dog or cat." The general public doesn't want to enter the doors of a death chamber. They don't feel good about bringing their children inside to choose a family pet when it's evident that the animals are suffering in these dungeons of death. The "shelters" don't even bother to give the animals a bath to make them feel better and look presentable. The most basic and obvious problems are not addressed.
Not everyone is looking for a male or female "model-type" pet. Lots of people are attracted to pets with personality rather than stunning good looks. Some intentionally are drawn to the old, sick or injured animals in need and animals that they know others (like "nay-sayer") just simply will not be interested in providing a home for.
There are lots of good, "ordinary" PEOPLE that do not place high expectations on a pet or don't mind getting a "fixer upper." It's precisely these lower-income areas where some of these "ordinary" people live that will provide homes for these "ordinary" animals and be happy and satisfied to do so.
I'm sure San Francisco has it's share of "ordinary" dogs and cats. It's unrealistic to try to make a negative point of something that clearly does not pertain only to Los Angeles. Having a supply of ordinary animals is not exclusive to Los Angeles.
I believe the "nay-sayer" viewpoint stems from a projection of one's own expectations. I have rescued and placed these "ordinary" mixed-breed adult brown dogs in happy homes with "ordinary" people in low-income areas that were thrilled to have these dogs.
The dogs have been allowed to live indoors in these "ordinary" houses with these "ordinary" people and are well loved. I have seen dogs such as these live out their lives in these "ordinary" homes. I have observed families gravitate with great enthusiasm towards what may appear to be the "ordinary" mixed-breed adult brown dog often enough. These "ordinary" people take PRIDE in their "ordinary" dogs and are very attached to them. I have direct experience with this and no one can tell me this is not so. Know your audience."
My experience is similar. I have had so many ordinary cats who have lived with me over the years. I found each extraordinary. They were the usual, the tabbies, tuxedos, gray and whites, calicos, orange and torties.
.
The comment below was written in response to "Naysayer" who always finds fault with the notion that No-Kill is possible in LA. Naysayer's comments can be seen in my post about No-Kill success in San Francisco. This response is so beautiful I had to put it here as a post.
"That's correct, "very few people come into the animal shelters looking to adopt an old, ordinary dog or cat." The general public doesn't want to enter the doors of a death chamber. They don't feel good about bringing their children inside to choose a family pet when it's evident that the animals are suffering in these dungeons of death. The "shelters" don't even bother to give the animals a bath to make them feel better and look presentable. The most basic and obvious problems are not addressed.
Not everyone is looking for a male or female "model-type" pet. Lots of people are attracted to pets with personality rather than stunning good looks. Some intentionally are drawn to the old, sick or injured animals in need and animals that they know others (like "nay-sayer") just simply will not be interested in providing a home for.
There are lots of good, "ordinary" PEOPLE that do not place high expectations on a pet or don't mind getting a "fixer upper." It's precisely these lower-income areas where some of these "ordinary" people live that will provide homes for these "ordinary" animals and be happy and satisfied to do so.
I'm sure San Francisco has it's share of "ordinary" dogs and cats. It's unrealistic to try to make a negative point of something that clearly does not pertain only to Los Angeles. Having a supply of ordinary animals is not exclusive to Los Angeles.
I believe the "nay-sayer" viewpoint stems from a projection of one's own expectations. I have rescued and placed these "ordinary" mixed-breed adult brown dogs in happy homes with "ordinary" people in low-income areas that were thrilled to have these dogs.
The dogs have been allowed to live indoors in these "ordinary" houses with these "ordinary" people and are well loved. I have seen dogs such as these live out their lives in these "ordinary" homes. I have observed families gravitate with great enthusiasm towards what may appear to be the "ordinary" mixed-breed adult brown dog often enough. These "ordinary" people take PRIDE in their "ordinary" dogs and are very attached to them. I have direct experience with this and no one can tell me this is not so. Know your audience."
My experience is similar. I have had so many ordinary cats who have lived with me over the years. I found each extraordinary. They were the usual, the tabbies, tuxedos, gray and whites, calicos, orange and torties.
.
SF shelter director says SF at 80% live save rate
.
I talked to Carl Friedman, Director of San Francisco’s Animal Care and Control. I was asking for SF shelter data. He gave me numbers. As a matter of fact, he gave me ten years of numbers.
For fiscal 2005-2006:
The live release rate for cats was 83%!!
The live release rate for dogs was 73%
The live release rate for Cats and Dogs was 80%
Many people say that this save rate is not possible in LA, because LA is so much larger than SF.
Friedman’s response is that in any large city, there are many more people to adopt, rescue and foster than in San Francisco. He sees no reason why any major city should not have an 80% live save rate.
SF's live save rate for unweaned kittens is extremely high for those more than a few days old, compared to 23% in LA because of a well-developed foster program.
SF has an impound rate 17% less per thousand than LA, but they have a live save rate of 80% instead of 55%. LA kills 4.8 animals per thousand people, while San Francisco kills 2.1. I have been using SF numbers for four years as a goal for LA. Then I only had their number for 2003-2004. The current numbers are validation.
Yet, and get this, they have a budget of only $2.8 million and only 43 employees!! They also have 150 volunteers, or about 3-1/2 per employee.
Others have said LA demographics are not the same as SF. Yes, that's true, SF has a higher education and income level than LA, but their overall impound rate is only 17% lower than LA.
The key to success says Friedman is community involvement. This is exactly what Susanne Kogut from Charlottesville said as well as Tara Derby from Philadelphia.
Charlottesville, San Francisco and Philadelphia all have successful unweaned kitten and puppy programs. All three claim extremely low kill. Kogut says their kill for neonatals is almost non-existant. She did not quantify. Friedman says very few die in SF but did not quantify. Tara Derby from Philadelphia says the cats and kittens “fly out their door," and the neonatals have a very low death rate because of their foster program.
Here, in LA, my biggest gripe is that cats, especially kittens, get screwed big time, 77% are killed, most on their first day. LA has a long, long way to go before it is anywhere near San Francisco.
I talked to Carl Friedman, Director of San Francisco’s Animal Care and Control. I was asking for SF shelter data. He gave me numbers. As a matter of fact, he gave me ten years of numbers.
For fiscal 2005-2006:
The live release rate for cats was 83%!!
The live release rate for dogs was 73%
The live release rate for Cats and Dogs was 80%
Many people say that this save rate is not possible in LA, because LA is so much larger than SF.
Friedman’s response is that in any large city, there are many more people to adopt, rescue and foster than in San Francisco. He sees no reason why any major city should not have an 80% live save rate.
SF's live save rate for unweaned kittens is extremely high for those more than a few days old, compared to 23% in LA because of a well-developed foster program.
SF has an impound rate 17% less per thousand than LA, but they have a live save rate of 80% instead of 55%. LA kills 4.8 animals per thousand people, while San Francisco kills 2.1. I have been using SF numbers for four years as a goal for LA. Then I only had their number for 2003-2004. The current numbers are validation.
Yet, and get this, they have a budget of only $2.8 million and only 43 employees!! They also have 150 volunteers, or about 3-1/2 per employee.
Others have said LA demographics are not the same as SF. Yes, that's true, SF has a higher education and income level than LA, but their overall impound rate is only 17% lower than LA.
The key to success says Friedman is community involvement. This is exactly what Susanne Kogut from Charlottesville said as well as Tara Derby from Philadelphia.
Charlottesville, San Francisco and Philadelphia all have successful unweaned kitten and puppy programs. All three claim extremely low kill. Kogut says their kill for neonatals is almost non-existant. She did not quantify. Friedman says very few die in SF but did not quantify. Tara Derby from Philadelphia says the cats and kittens “fly out their door," and the neonatals have a very low death rate because of their foster program.
Here, in LA, my biggest gripe is that cats, especially kittens, get screwed big time, 77% are killed, most on their first day. LA has a long, long way to go before it is anywhere near San Francisco.
Response to a Nay-Sayer
.
Please read the comment to my previous post written by a person who says the Charlottesville foster solution will never work in LA.
I have heard dozens of commenters, including Boks, say approximately this: What works elsewhere will not work in LA because LA is so much bigger. It is a loser attitude that has to be overcome. The solutions suggested by successful programs elsewhere should not be tossed aside because LA is not Podunk.
Rather, we should think, "How can we do this in LA?"
My detailed response to the commenter:
Your attitude is that of losing. Instead of can't do, you need a can do attitude.
If you read the Kogut quotes carefully, she said they DEVELOPED a foster program. Fosters beget fosters. Increased fosters led to increased adoptions. Saving kittens became a community project.
As to your numbers, Charlottesville had approximately 1,700 unweaned cats and dogs and a population of 140,000, while LA had 8,000 unweaned animals and a population of 4,000,000.
That is, Los Angeles had fewer than 5 times as many neonatals, but had 27 times the population.
Charlottesville saved almost as many neonatals as LA, 1,700 vs. 2055, but had only 4% of LA's population. No matter how you slice, dice it, or try to analyze their success away, fostering is working there and not here. Why?
Philly, I understand--and I am requesting complete stats now--went from 89% kill to 50% kill in 18 months!!! That is, a 37.5% decrease in kill rate in 18 months or about 25% per year. If this improvment continues, it will be a 50% decrease in two years. It took LA 5 years to accomplish the same thing and there has been no improvment at all under Boks.
Why? Apparently it was a massive mobilization of community rescue partners. Our New Hope program is failing, not improving.
Rather than just say we already have foster programs and New Hope programs, therefore we are doing the standard No-Kill things, we have to understand why our New Hope and foster programs are relative failures compared to Philly and Charlottesville.
You need to compare resources to handle the problem as well as the sheer raw numbers. LA has many, many times more resources that Charlottesville. The LA unweaned problem is small in proportion to the relative resources of the two cities.
Then you complain that the unweaned will survive until they become adoptable kittens and we are not adopting enough now. You assume this will always will be the case. If that is your assumption, of course you are stuck forever. FOREVER!
Kogut said adoptions went up in proportion to fosters, which makes sense. It became a community priority, an attitude that was developed and cultivated. It was not there before. Of course that attitude and committment would be hard to sustain, but it may last long enough for S/N and TNR programs to work.
Her point was you NEED TO DEVELOP SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS FOR THE PROBLEMS OF YOUR AREA.
Please read carefully what she and others, who say it can be done, propose; think about what they say, and then generate helpful objections.
Now here is Boks’ dilemma: The existing LAAS staff when he became GM would have never been able to do this. They didn't care enough, they were lazy in comparison, and the losers could not be fired.
Since we haven't had a GM report in 6-1/2 months, we do not know how many of the 178 budgeted new employees were added. We do not know whether Boks has hired even one of the needed go-getters. This is his job, to find and develop talent.
We know a massive foster program provably works elsewhere. Why not concentrate on developing a foster program? If we save an additional 4,000 unweaned animals, we cut the overall euth rate by 20%.
Rather than having continuous Boks' sideshows, why not put all of his hitherto PR efforts into developing a foster program using the old employees who do have a lot of energy and do care, along with a few, new go-getters?
As it is, his emphasis appears to be on TNR and S/N. These are long term solutions that do not save animals NOW.
Until we get another 8 vets and the S/N clinics open and TNR becomes a city supported policy, it is a long, long term solution.
A secondary consideration is that LAAS is not one big shelter. It is or will be seven smaller shelters. As Winograd says and Kogut proves by example, it is the shelter manager who makes all the difference. Ed needs finding seven dynamite shelter managers his first priority.
.
Please read the comment to my previous post written by a person who says the Charlottesville foster solution will never work in LA.
I have heard dozens of commenters, including Boks, say approximately this: What works elsewhere will not work in LA because LA is so much bigger. It is a loser attitude that has to be overcome. The solutions suggested by successful programs elsewhere should not be tossed aside because LA is not Podunk.
Rather, we should think, "How can we do this in LA?"
My detailed response to the commenter:
Your attitude is that of losing. Instead of can't do, you need a can do attitude.
If you read the Kogut quotes carefully, she said they DEVELOPED a foster program. Fosters beget fosters. Increased fosters led to increased adoptions. Saving kittens became a community project.
As to your numbers, Charlottesville had approximately 1,700 unweaned cats and dogs and a population of 140,000, while LA had 8,000 unweaned animals and a population of 4,000,000.
That is, Los Angeles had fewer than 5 times as many neonatals, but had 27 times the population.
Charlottesville saved almost as many neonatals as LA, 1,700 vs. 2055, but had only 4% of LA's population. No matter how you slice, dice it, or try to analyze their success away, fostering is working there and not here. Why?
Philly, I understand--and I am requesting complete stats now--went from 89% kill to 50% kill in 18 months!!! That is, a 37.5% decrease in kill rate in 18 months or about 25% per year. If this improvment continues, it will be a 50% decrease in two years. It took LA 5 years to accomplish the same thing and there has been no improvment at all under Boks.
Why? Apparently it was a massive mobilization of community rescue partners. Our New Hope program is failing, not improving.
Rather than just say we already have foster programs and New Hope programs, therefore we are doing the standard No-Kill things, we have to understand why our New Hope and foster programs are relative failures compared to Philly and Charlottesville.
You need to compare resources to handle the problem as well as the sheer raw numbers. LA has many, many times more resources that Charlottesville. The LA unweaned problem is small in proportion to the relative resources of the two cities.
Then you complain that the unweaned will survive until they become adoptable kittens and we are not adopting enough now. You assume this will always will be the case. If that is your assumption, of course you are stuck forever. FOREVER!
Kogut said adoptions went up in proportion to fosters, which makes sense. It became a community priority, an attitude that was developed and cultivated. It was not there before. Of course that attitude and committment would be hard to sustain, but it may last long enough for S/N and TNR programs to work.
Her point was you NEED TO DEVELOP SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS FOR THE PROBLEMS OF YOUR AREA.
Please read carefully what she and others, who say it can be done, propose; think about what they say, and then generate helpful objections.
Now here is Boks’ dilemma: The existing LAAS staff when he became GM would have never been able to do this. They didn't care enough, they were lazy in comparison, and the losers could not be fired.
Since we haven't had a GM report in 6-1/2 months, we do not know how many of the 178 budgeted new employees were added. We do not know whether Boks has hired even one of the needed go-getters. This is his job, to find and develop talent.
We know a massive foster program provably works elsewhere. Why not concentrate on developing a foster program? If we save an additional 4,000 unweaned animals, we cut the overall euth rate by 20%.
Rather than having continuous Boks' sideshows, why not put all of his hitherto PR efforts into developing a foster program using the old employees who do have a lot of energy and do care, along with a few, new go-getters?
As it is, his emphasis appears to be on TNR and S/N. These are long term solutions that do not save animals NOW.
Until we get another 8 vets and the S/N clinics open and TNR becomes a city supported policy, it is a long, long term solution.
A secondary consideration is that LAAS is not one big shelter. It is or will be seven smaller shelters. As Winograd says and Kogut proves by example, it is the shelter manager who makes all the difference. Ed needs finding seven dynamite shelter managers his first priority.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)