.
Ed Boks lied big time in his presentation to Council in June 20. They bought his lies, hook line and sinker. I am ashamed of Rosendahl.
Boks told them that euthanasia is down. It's down 1%, but the number of animals dying in the shelter has doubled during the past 12 months. The number of animals leaving the shelter dead has not changed. AND. the number and percent leaving alive is down. He completely snowed council.
June 20, 2007 City Council meeting
http://lacity.org/cdvideo_wm.htm and click June 20 video.
Boks: Thanks Zine (Z) and Cardenas (C) for making the motion so I can share things with you and address your concerns. I will talk about lowering the kill rate and success with volunteers. We are trying to broaden our program to reach into the community to create a Humane LA.
I was recruited to help transform LA into the first major metropolitan city to be nokill in the US. What is nokill? In LA, or the 46,000 brought in each year, 18K killed, a 40% kill rate, lower than the state average.
Boks stated that the most scientific way to define nokill is the number killed per thousand people.
He stated that when you get to 5.0, most in the animal community feel that this is nokill.
Rebuttal:
This is nonsense. A few consider it no kill, especially Boks himself. But big cities have fewer animals per household and thus a lower number per 1,000 people end in a shelter. For example, New York is over twice as big as LA but impounds and kills about the same number of animals. Therefore, their rate per 1,000 is about 2.5 versus LA at 5.0. No one in their right mind considers New York No-Kill.
While GM of Maricopa County, in 2002 Boks stated he wanted the County to be No-Kill by 2007. He defined No-Kill then as 3.0 euthanized per 1,000 population.
For him, no kill was 3.0 back then, now he lowers the bar to 5.0/1,000. I’ll also mention that Maricopa Co. never even came close to 3/1,000 kill rate. Currently, just for their County shelters, it is 9/1,000, three times greater that his then definition of no-kill.
Besides, we are only talking about the municipal shelters there. There are private shelters, as in LA. Each of these shelters kill animals, meaning an extra 1/1,000, 2/1,000, etc.
In Maricopa Co. the kill rate is about 11.5/1,000 using the combined euthanasia numbers of all shelters in the area. In order to get down to 3/1,000 in Phoenix, the municipal shelters alone would have to cut their killing by 80%.
A much better measure of No-kill is that used by the father of No-Kill, Nathan Winograd, whose own shelter had a euthanasia rate of 8% of all live animals brought in. Applied to LA, this would mean less than 3,700 animals killed each year, instead of 18,000.
I would note that Winograd has consulted several other smaller shelter systems and each have been brought to an 8% kill rate within about a year. It seems the area around 8-9% euthanized is the best any municipal shalter has done.
In Philadelphia, Winograd brought the killing down from an estimated 90% to 46% in 2 years with a budget of $3,900,000 and 46 employees.
Boks:
There will always be sick or aggressive animals that must be killed.
Rebuttal:
Yes there always will be, but who can believe 40% of all animals impounded, over 18,000, are sick enough or vicious enough to require killing? No one.
However, Ed is only talking about cats and dogs, he does not mention the kill rate for rabbits is almost triple what it was under Stuckey, and the in-shelter deaths due to sickness and injury has doubled for dogs and cats, while the in-shelter deaths for other animals, such as birds, turtles, hamsters, etc., has gone up by 600%.
Boks:
The US average is 14.8. LA is 4.5. We are lower than that thresh hold. There has been a 50% decline in the last five years in euthanasia. This is the most rapid decline in killing in any major city in the US. Jan to May an extra 22% decline.
Rebuttal:
Misleading. He is reporting only kill figures for cats and dogs. The death rate for all animals other than cats and dogs has increased by the same rate as cat and dog deaths have decreased. No net gain.
In addition, 18,000 euthanasias a year means 1,500 per month. If you overcrowd 1,500 additional animals into the shelters, you can reduce the kill rate by 33% for any given quarter. But the killing resumes in the summer after all extra space has been squeezed.
As of July 1, 10 p.m., the LAAS website lists 2,446 animals in the shelter under the category "lost," and a smaller number up for adoption. It does not list the number of animals in the Annex. So, we are talking 3,000 animals. That is two months of intake.
Boks:
We placed 22K dogs and cats in 12 months. We are the #1 pet adoption agency in the world!
Rebuttal:
He said that about Maricopa County too. In 2003 (the latest figure I have) they, along with private rescue partners, adopted out 21,425. During the past 12 months, LAAS with outside rescue groups have adopted out 20,728. I also understand he said NYC was the largest adoption agency also when he was there.
Boks:
We will have 3 vets in a few days, 6 within a month.
Rebuttal:
We’ll see. It is not promising that this is a week and a half since that meeting and we still have just 2 vets.
He said we would have a partnership with a vet school in San Bernadino. That never happened.
Rosendahl: Great report; great leadership.
I wish Rosendahl would get his staffers to actually look at the Boks operation and the Boks numbers.
Boks' Letter to the Editor Rebutted
.
Ed Boks responds to the Daily News article on his progressive clarified statements regarding his new policy on restricted hours for owner turn-ins:
“Readers must wonder how the Daily News can find fault with L.A. Animal Services' attempt to educate pet owners on what might be the most fatal decision they will ever make for their once-loved pet.”
My response:
“Education” is a lie. He thought he could slip by his new policy that would help his numbers and was caught in an avalanche of public protest. He back pedaled so many times I thought he was going to go out and snatch pets from their homes to show how willing he is to impound animals—and then kill them.
His final clarification came after Council and the mayor were inundated with protests? “I didn’t really mean it. This was my puerile attempt at educating the public about the shelter overcrowding problem and also to save my artificially created numbers so I am not fired by the mayor.”
Boks goes on to say:
Readers should ask why more time is not spent on real news, like the challenges we face, the progress we're making in modernizing the department and saving animals, and making Los Angeles the first major metropolitan "no-kill" city in the United States.
My response:
This means, “Why am I not getting away with this increased dumping policy? It worked in Arizona. Muzika, Bell, Guss and Sorentino are really bastards.”
The real news is that LAAS has made almost no improvement towards no-kill. The euthanasia rate for all animals combined with the died-in-shelter due to disease and injury has actually caused a downturn in the live save rate.
Things are getting worse not better. Boks is the first More-Kill general manager hired by any mayor. Why isn’t Villaraigosa, who promised to make the new GM accountable to the community, not accounting?
Boks:
“Instead of editorials like "Just kidding," why not focus on how the department places nearly 21,000 pets into loving homes and returns 4,500 lost pets to their grateful guardians each year ù and has reduced pet euthanasia to a historic low.”
My response:
Yes, “pet” euthanasia has decreased to a historic low, but stored animals has increased to a historic high, as have the number of animals—especially “other animals and rabbits” who have been euthanized or have died in shelter.
The number of animals actually saved is dead even with before, even while the rate of saving has decreased.
“Progress to no-kill?” Another you must be kidding. He used the same statement in Phoenix and NYC. In Phoenix, his strategy was to charge owners for turn-ins. Less animals were turned in and more dumped in a ravine, hit by cars or eaten by coyotes.
I do agree with his policy of charging for turn ins, especially for feral cats. But this needs to work in conjunction with stiff anti-dumping laws, which we have in California, but are never enforced by LAAS or anyone else.
.
Ed Boks responds to the Daily News article on his progressive clarified statements regarding his new policy on restricted hours for owner turn-ins:
“Readers must wonder how the Daily News can find fault with L.A. Animal Services' attempt to educate pet owners on what might be the most fatal decision they will ever make for their once-loved pet.”
My response:
“Education” is a lie. He thought he could slip by his new policy that would help his numbers and was caught in an avalanche of public protest. He back pedaled so many times I thought he was going to go out and snatch pets from their homes to show how willing he is to impound animals—and then kill them.
His final clarification came after Council and the mayor were inundated with protests? “I didn’t really mean it. This was my puerile attempt at educating the public about the shelter overcrowding problem and also to save my artificially created numbers so I am not fired by the mayor.”
Boks goes on to say:
Readers should ask why more time is not spent on real news, like the challenges we face, the progress we're making in modernizing the department and saving animals, and making Los Angeles the first major metropolitan "no-kill" city in the United States.
My response:
This means, “Why am I not getting away with this increased dumping policy? It worked in Arizona. Muzika, Bell, Guss and Sorentino are really bastards.”
The real news is that LAAS has made almost no improvement towards no-kill. The euthanasia rate for all animals combined with the died-in-shelter due to disease and injury has actually caused a downturn in the live save rate.
Things are getting worse not better. Boks is the first More-Kill general manager hired by any mayor. Why isn’t Villaraigosa, who promised to make the new GM accountable to the community, not accounting?
Boks:
“Instead of editorials like "Just kidding," why not focus on how the department places nearly 21,000 pets into loving homes and returns 4,500 lost pets to their grateful guardians each year ù and has reduced pet euthanasia to a historic low.”
My response:
Yes, “pet” euthanasia has decreased to a historic low, but stored animals has increased to a historic high, as have the number of animals—especially “other animals and rabbits” who have been euthanized or have died in shelter.
The number of animals actually saved is dead even with before, even while the rate of saving has decreased.
“Progress to no-kill?” Another you must be kidding. He used the same statement in Phoenix and NYC. In Phoenix, his strategy was to charge owners for turn-ins. Less animals were turned in and more dumped in a ravine, hit by cars or eaten by coyotes.
I do agree with his policy of charging for turn ins, especially for feral cats. But this needs to work in conjunction with stiff anti-dumping laws, which we have in California, but are never enforced by LAAS or anyone else.
.
Live Save Rate Down Since Boks Started
.
Live save is the terrm describing what percentage of animals that go into the shelter alive, leave alive.
They can go out dead to, from euthanasia, disease and fighting/injury.
If you cut euthanasia but the died in shelter rate increases, you could have a lower live save rate than the year before.
Now what is the current live release rate vs. that before Boks arrived?
The following is from Ann Angelino.
The results are really horrible. Things have gotten worse since he got here!
2006
cats/dogs 54%
rabbits 51%
others 56%
total 54.40%
2005
cats/dogs 53%
rabbits 80%
others 63%
total 55.12%
Currently, in the last 12 months it is 53.92% but it was 55.12% before he got here. He's made things worse. Big deal fewer are euth'd when more are dying.
Broken down last 12 months vs previous 12 months by category.
last 12 months
cats/dogs 55.11%
rabbits 51%
others 47%
previous 12 months
cats/dogs 54.4%
rabbits 69%
others 64%
Rabbits and others are paying the heavier price. They are also the ones dying in the shelter.
Live save is the terrm describing what percentage of animals that go into the shelter alive, leave alive.
They can go out dead to, from euthanasia, disease and fighting/injury.
If you cut euthanasia but the died in shelter rate increases, you could have a lower live save rate than the year before.
Now what is the current live release rate vs. that before Boks arrived?
The following is from Ann Angelino.
The results are really horrible. Things have gotten worse since he got here!
2006
cats/dogs 54%
rabbits 51%
others 56%
total 54.40%
2005
cats/dogs 53%
rabbits 80%
others 63%
total 55.12%
Currently, in the last 12 months it is 53.92% but it was 55.12% before he got here. He's made things worse. Big deal fewer are euth'd when more are dying.
Broken down last 12 months vs previous 12 months by category.
last 12 months
cats/dogs 55.11%
rabbits 51%
others 47%
previous 12 months
cats/dogs 54.4%
rabbits 69%
others 64%
Rabbits and others are paying the heavier price. They are also the ones dying in the shelter.
Astounding Info From Arizona
.
If this is true, Boks is one of the worst scoundrels around. However, given the reliability of some of the information provided to me in the past by employees or ex-employees, I will not venture to assign a truth value to this information.
I can assure you, I will attempt to find secondary validation.
I have been speaking to someone from Arizona. They said Boks refused animals in when he got full. People dumped them in the parking lot. Fortunately there is a ravine there between the shelter and the road and most of the animals stayed in the ravine. Some didn't and were hit by cars. Rescuers would try to catch the animals in the parking lot. For those they couldn't catch they left food and water.
Boks did the same overcrowding and refusing tactics in Arizona that he is doing here. It had the same horrible effect on animals being dumped, or dying in the shelter from illness and injury. He knows this doesn't help animals but he is doing it for his numbers. This person said that the same thing happened in New York. (This would be hearsay about hearsay, and the truth value may drop to close to zero.
Concerning the consequences of his overcrowding in our own shelters, I hear more animals are being returned because they are sick. Same thing happened in New York. This is a more substantiated rumor.
I lived in Arizona for some time in the Phoenix area. It is an aweful place to be during the summer where temperatures routinely reach 114 degrees or more. Sometimes a month may pass where the daytime high is over a hundred.
On top of that, rural Phoenix is coyote central. As in some parts of LA, they wander through the streets and fields all during the night and early morning.
There is such consistent bad news about Boks it is hard to know what to say.
If this is true, Boks is one of the worst scoundrels around. However, given the reliability of some of the information provided to me in the past by employees or ex-employees, I will not venture to assign a truth value to this information.
I can assure you, I will attempt to find secondary validation.
I have been speaking to someone from Arizona. They said Boks refused animals in when he got full. People dumped them in the parking lot. Fortunately there is a ravine there between the shelter and the road and most of the animals stayed in the ravine. Some didn't and were hit by cars. Rescuers would try to catch the animals in the parking lot. For those they couldn't catch they left food and water.
Boks did the same overcrowding and refusing tactics in Arizona that he is doing here. It had the same horrible effect on animals being dumped, or dying in the shelter from illness and injury. He knows this doesn't help animals but he is doing it for his numbers. This person said that the same thing happened in New York. (This would be hearsay about hearsay, and the truth value may drop to close to zero.
Concerning the consequences of his overcrowding in our own shelters, I hear more animals are being returned because they are sick. Same thing happened in New York. This is a more substantiated rumor.
I lived in Arizona for some time in the Phoenix area. It is an aweful place to be during the summer where temperatures routinely reach 114 degrees or more. Sometimes a month may pass where the daytime high is over a hundred.
On top of that, rural Phoenix is coyote central. As in some parts of LA, they wander through the streets and fields all during the night and early morning.
There is such consistent bad news about Boks it is hard to know what to say.
Live Save Rate Down Since Boks Started
.
Live save is the terrm describing what percentage of animals that go into the shelter alive, leave alive.
They can go out dead to, from euthanasia, disease and fighting/injury.
If you cut euthanasia but the died in shelter rate increases, you could have a lower live save rate than the year before.
Now what is the current live release rates for 2005, 2006 and currently?
The following is from Ann Angelino.
The results are really horrible. Things have gotten worse since Boks got here!
2006
cats/dogs 54%
rabbits 51%
others 56%
total 54.40%
2005
cats/dogs 53%
rabbits 80%
others 63%
total 55.12%
Currently, in the last 12 months it is 53.92% but it was 55.12% before he got here. He's made things worse. Big deal fewer are euth'd and more are dying.
Broken down last 12 months vs previous 12 months by category.
last 12 months
cats/dogs 55.11%
rabbits 51%
others 47%
previous 12 months
cats/dogs 54.4%
rabbits 69%
others 64%
It's rabbits and others that are paying the heavier price. those are also the ones dying in the shelter.
.
Live save is the terrm describing what percentage of animals that go into the shelter alive, leave alive.
They can go out dead to, from euthanasia, disease and fighting/injury.
If you cut euthanasia but the died in shelter rate increases, you could have a lower live save rate than the year before.
Now what is the current live release rates for 2005, 2006 and currently?
The following is from Ann Angelino.
The results are really horrible. Things have gotten worse since Boks got here!
2006
cats/dogs 54%
rabbits 51%
others 56%
total 54.40%
2005
cats/dogs 53%
rabbits 80%
others 63%
total 55.12%
Currently, in the last 12 months it is 53.92% but it was 55.12% before he got here. He's made things worse. Big deal fewer are euth'd and more are dying.
Broken down last 12 months vs previous 12 months by category.
last 12 months
cats/dogs 55.11%
rabbits 51%
others 47%
previous 12 months
cats/dogs 54.4%
rabbits 69%
others 64%
It's rabbits and others that are paying the heavier price. those are also the ones dying in the shelter.
.
Boks More Kill Totals for the Past 12 Months
.
Ed's performance for the past 12 months vs thew previous 12 months:
LIVE RELEASES - Adoption, New Hope, Foster, Released to foster,
Returned to owner
Last 12 months for all animals 30007/55649 = 53.92%
Previous 12 months all animals 31173/55535=56.13%
THE LIVE RELEASE RATE IS DOWN!!
It is down by 2%, just as his past annual report predicted.
Boks has made things worse since he got here.
1,166 fewer animals made it out alive during the last 12 months.
For cats/dogs only:
Last 12 months 25628/46495=55.1%
Previous 12 months 24937/45839=54.4%
This is the only category that shows EVEN SMALL PROGRESS--up .5%
Rabbits only:
Last 12 months 626/1217=51%
Previous 12 months 784/1142=69%
LIVE RELEASE IS DOWN 18%
Others only:
Last 12 months 3753/7937=47%
Previous 12 months 5452/8554=64%
LIVE RELEASE IS DOWN 17%
DEAD RELEASES - Animals euthanized and animals that died in the shelter. This does not include DOA.
Last 12 months total animals that died in shelter (sick, injured) 2075
Previous 12 months total animals that died 1109
ALMOST DOUBLE!
last 12 months total animals euthanized 21070
Previous 12 months total animals euthanized 22008
Total that were euthanized and died last 12 months 23145
Total that were euthanized and died previous 12 months 23117
This is a dead wash. There has been no improvement.
All he did was let 1,000 more animals die a cruel and painful death from illness and injury.
Ed's performance for the past 12 months vs thew previous 12 months:
LIVE RELEASES - Adoption, New Hope, Foster, Released to foster,
Returned to owner
Last 12 months for all animals 30007/55649 = 53.92%
Previous 12 months all animals 31173/55535=56.13%
THE LIVE RELEASE RATE IS DOWN!!
It is down by 2%, just as his past annual report predicted.
Boks has made things worse since he got here.
1,166 fewer animals made it out alive during the last 12 months.
For cats/dogs only:
Last 12 months 25628/46495=55.1%
Previous 12 months 24937/45839=54.4%
This is the only category that shows EVEN SMALL PROGRESS--up .5%
Rabbits only:
Last 12 months 626/1217=51%
Previous 12 months 784/1142=69%
LIVE RELEASE IS DOWN 18%
Others only:
Last 12 months 3753/7937=47%
Previous 12 months 5452/8554=64%
LIVE RELEASE IS DOWN 17%
DEAD RELEASES - Animals euthanized and animals that died in the shelter. This does not include DOA.
Last 12 months total animals that died in shelter (sick, injured) 2075
Previous 12 months total animals that died 1109
ALMOST DOUBLE!
last 12 months total animals euthanized 21070
Previous 12 months total animals euthanized 22008
Total that were euthanized and died last 12 months 23145
Total that were euthanized and died previous 12 months 23117
This is a dead wash. There has been no improvement.
All he did was let 1,000 more animals die a cruel and painful death from illness and injury.
What is Ed's True Resume?
.
Ed is going back and rewriting or deleting a lot of previous blog posts. He also no longer says he was the first shelter director to bring a municipal shelter to No-Kill while he was in Arizona. This after Brad Jensen's challenge to Boks to show the Maricopa Co. stats while Boks was there.
Now Ed is saying his new restricted hours policy was just a little joke, a public education gambit. Why doesn't he just admit that he withdrew the policy because of public and Council pressure? Does he have to lie all the time to make himself look perfect?
Now comes a new item. Has Boks been lying consistently about the years in his life between 1976 and 1993? Was he involved in animal control in Tennesee? What happened during those missing 17 years?
From Craigslist:
Ed Boks Strikes Again <> 06/25 01:58:28
Hello LA (Well, I would really say, "Hey Ya'll)I'm sorry to hear of your woes in the animal community surrounding Ed Boks.
I was the Humane Educator for a major southern city near Chattannooga, TN for 5 years.
I've never been a fan of Ed's. He came to Chattanooga and failed miserably there, too. I read an article in their newspaper about how "wonderful" he was & the numbers at the shelter. I called him on it. I wrote a letter to the editor about the manipulation of the numbers and anyone can sound good if they only euthanize "depressed" animals...heck, they're all depressed at the shelter!
I hate that LA is going through the same thing that NY & TN went through with Ed. I think that he is the con man of the animal welfare industry. He seems to say all the right things to talk his way into top paying top jobs, but then he can't deliver....so he talks his way into another top job somewhere else where, again, he can't cut it.
I got in lots of trouble for what I wrote. Apparently Ed doesn't like anyone to see through his words or call him on it. He emailed the Mayor, city councilmen, my boss. I got in lots of trouble. I told my boss, though, that I stood behind what I wrote. Perhaps I should not have written it from an official capacity, but it was still my opinion.
Unfortunately, he continues to run riot in other major urban areas.I'm sorry for your troubles, but when Ed is in the neighborhood, it doesn't surprise me at all.
I was in the animal welfare industry for the past 15 years. I've held almost every job possible within the industry. The last 3 years, I was the poster-child for compassion fatigue. I traded my "fun" M-F 8-4 job for a third shift desk job just to get out.
People like Ed are the reason people like me don't stay. It's futile.Thank you for your time.
It just gets curiouser and curiouser, doesn't it?
.
Ed is going back and rewriting or deleting a lot of previous blog posts. He also no longer says he was the first shelter director to bring a municipal shelter to No-Kill while he was in Arizona. This after Brad Jensen's challenge to Boks to show the Maricopa Co. stats while Boks was there.
Now Ed is saying his new restricted hours policy was just a little joke, a public education gambit. Why doesn't he just admit that he withdrew the policy because of public and Council pressure? Does he have to lie all the time to make himself look perfect?
Now comes a new item. Has Boks been lying consistently about the years in his life between 1976 and 1993? Was he involved in animal control in Tennesee? What happened during those missing 17 years?
From Craigslist:
Ed Boks Strikes Again <> 06/25 01:58:28
Hello LA (Well, I would really say, "Hey Ya'll)I'm sorry to hear of your woes in the animal community surrounding Ed Boks.
I was the Humane Educator for a major southern city near Chattannooga, TN for 5 years.
I've never been a fan of Ed's. He came to Chattanooga and failed miserably there, too. I read an article in their newspaper about how "wonderful" he was & the numbers at the shelter. I called him on it. I wrote a letter to the editor about the manipulation of the numbers and anyone can sound good if they only euthanize "depressed" animals...heck, they're all depressed at the shelter!
I hate that LA is going through the same thing that NY & TN went through with Ed. I think that he is the con man of the animal welfare industry. He seems to say all the right things to talk his way into top paying top jobs, but then he can't deliver....so he talks his way into another top job somewhere else where, again, he can't cut it.
I got in lots of trouble for what I wrote. Apparently Ed doesn't like anyone to see through his words or call him on it. He emailed the Mayor, city councilmen, my boss. I got in lots of trouble. I told my boss, though, that I stood behind what I wrote. Perhaps I should not have written it from an official capacity, but it was still my opinion.
Unfortunately, he continues to run riot in other major urban areas.I'm sorry for your troubles, but when Ed is in the neighborhood, it doesn't surprise me at all.
I was in the animal welfare industry for the past 15 years. I've held almost every job possible within the industry. The last 3 years, I was the poster-child for compassion fatigue. I traded my "fun" M-F 8-4 job for a third shift desk job just to get out.
People like Ed are the reason people like me don't stay. It's futile.Thank you for your time.
It just gets curiouser and curiouser, doesn't it?
.
Bos as a More-Kill GM
.
How dare Ed Boks give a talk on No-Kill next week. He has no idea of how to do no-kill.
Boks says LAAS has made great strides since he came in terms of modernization and lowered euthanasia and he is being unfairly criticized by arm chair fanatics.
But the posted statistics on the LAAS site reveal:Animals dying in the shelter from disease and injury have increased more dramatically than the drop in euthanasia.
Cats and Dogs died in shelter for the past 12 months is 812.Died in shelter the year before Ed came was 620.158 more cats and dogs have died of disease and abuse this past year than under Stuckey.
Rabbits euthanized during the past 12 months is 500; two years ago under Stuckey, it was 159.341 more rabbits were euthanized.
He killed 137 more ôOther Animals¤ during the past 12 months, than under Stuckey.
754 more ôOther Animals¤ died of disease or overcrowding this past year than the comparable year under Stuckey (1,206 vs. 452).
Therefore, the died in shelter from disease, abuse and euthanasia of rabbits and others during the past 12 months is 1,391.
1,391 MORE ANIMALS DIED DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS THAN UNDER STUCKEY, completely offsetting the gains made in cutting dog and cat euthanasia!
And what about those cats?
Rescuers tell me there are so many cats in EV that the cages are stacked so high you canْt see the cats in the top cages.
There are even more cats stuffed into two rooms not open to the public.Why on earth is Boks doing this? Those animals will never be adopted.
He is only storing them to make his numbers look better.
The cats get URI repeatedly, and he euthanizes them after the third treatment.
His strategy of storing animals is causing an extreme rise in the number dying in the shelter and will result in a huge euthanasia kill off because the cages canْt hold any more animals.Boks is actually substantially worse than Stuckey.
How dare Ed Boks give a talk on No-Kill next week. He has no idea of how to do no-kill.
Boks says LAAS has made great strides since he came in terms of modernization and lowered euthanasia and he is being unfairly criticized by arm chair fanatics.
But the posted statistics on the LAAS site reveal:Animals dying in the shelter from disease and injury have increased more dramatically than the drop in euthanasia.
Cats and Dogs died in shelter for the past 12 months is 812.Died in shelter the year before Ed came was 620.158 more cats and dogs have died of disease and abuse this past year than under Stuckey.
Rabbits euthanized during the past 12 months is 500; two years ago under Stuckey, it was 159.341 more rabbits were euthanized.
He killed 137 more ôOther Animals¤ during the past 12 months, than under Stuckey.
754 more ôOther Animals¤ died of disease or overcrowding this past year than the comparable year under Stuckey (1,206 vs. 452).
Therefore, the died in shelter from disease, abuse and euthanasia of rabbits and others during the past 12 months is 1,391.
1,391 MORE ANIMALS DIED DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS THAN UNDER STUCKEY, completely offsetting the gains made in cutting dog and cat euthanasia!
And what about those cats?
Rescuers tell me there are so many cats in EV that the cages are stacked so high you canْt see the cats in the top cages.
There are even more cats stuffed into two rooms not open to the public.Why on earth is Boks doing this? Those animals will never be adopted.
He is only storing them to make his numbers look better.
The cats get URI repeatedly, and he euthanizes them after the third treatment.
His strategy of storing animals is causing an extreme rise in the number dying in the shelter and will result in a huge euthanasia kill off because the cages canْt hold any more animals.Boks is actually substantially worse than Stuckey.
Boks as a More-Kill Manager
.
How dare Ed Boks give a talk on No-Kill next week. He has no idea of how to do no-kill.
Boks says LAAS has made great strides since he came in terms of modernization and lowered euthanasia and he is being unfairly criticized by arm chair fanatics.
But the posted statistics on the LAAS site reveal:Animals dying in the shelter from disease and injury have increased more dramatically than the drop in euthanasia.
Cats and Dogs died in shelter for the past 12 months is 812.Died in shelter the year before Ed came was 620.158 more cats and dogs have died of disease and abuse this past year than under Stuckey.
Rabbits euthanized during the past 12 months is 500; two years ago under Stuckey, it was 159.341 more rabbits were euthanized.
He killed 137 more “Other Animals” during the past 12 months, than under Stuckey.
754 more “Other Animals” died of disease or overcrowding this past year than the comparable year under Stuckey (1,206 vs. 452).
Therefore, the died in shelter from disease, abuse and euthanasia of rabbits and others during the past 12 months is 1,391.
1,391 MORE ANIMALS DIED DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS THAN UNDER STUCKEY, completely offsetting the gains made in cutting dog and cat euthanasia!
And what about those cats?
Rescuers tell me there are so many cats in EV that the cages are stacked so high you can’t see the cats in the top cages.
There are even more cats stuffed into two rooms not open to the public.Why on earth is Boks doing this? Those animals will never be adopted.
He is only storing them to make his numbers look better.
The cats get URI repeatedly, and he euthanizes them after the third treatment.
His strategy of storing animals is causing an extreme rise in the number dying in the shelter and will result in a huge euthanasia kill off because the cages can’t hold any more animals.Boks is actually substantially worse than Stuckey.
.
How dare Ed Boks give a talk on No-Kill next week. He has no idea of how to do no-kill.
Boks says LAAS has made great strides since he came in terms of modernization and lowered euthanasia and he is being unfairly criticized by arm chair fanatics.
But the posted statistics on the LAAS site reveal:Animals dying in the shelter from disease and injury have increased more dramatically than the drop in euthanasia.
Cats and Dogs died in shelter for the past 12 months is 812.Died in shelter the year before Ed came was 620.158 more cats and dogs have died of disease and abuse this past year than under Stuckey.
Rabbits euthanized during the past 12 months is 500; two years ago under Stuckey, it was 159.341 more rabbits were euthanized.
He killed 137 more “Other Animals” during the past 12 months, than under Stuckey.
754 more “Other Animals” died of disease or overcrowding this past year than the comparable year under Stuckey (1,206 vs. 452).
Therefore, the died in shelter from disease, abuse and euthanasia of rabbits and others during the past 12 months is 1,391.
1,391 MORE ANIMALS DIED DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS THAN UNDER STUCKEY, completely offsetting the gains made in cutting dog and cat euthanasia!
And what about those cats?
Rescuers tell me there are so many cats in EV that the cages are stacked so high you can’t see the cats in the top cages.
There are even more cats stuffed into two rooms not open to the public.Why on earth is Boks doing this? Those animals will never be adopted.
He is only storing them to make his numbers look better.
The cats get URI repeatedly, and he euthanizes them after the third treatment.
His strategy of storing animals is causing an extreme rise in the number dying in the shelter and will result in a huge euthanasia kill off because the cages can’t hold any more animals.Boks is actually substantially worse than Stuckey.
.
Yet Another Clarification on the New Policy
.
If Ed backpedals any further on his new policy by yet another "clarification," soon the department will be accepting owner and non-owner turn ins, 24/7, of any kind of neonatal cat, cat, dog, cow, mule, mink, fox, squirrel, insect, reptile and mollusk, no questions asked. Staff will even give them a thank you note. Of course, this is what Ed says, but the shelters will still be turning away animals as they were two months ago.
Imagine, even Scott is outraged.
There is no way now for Ed to avoid a July kill-off of epic proportions. At least now he is actually doing things he should have been doing 15 months ago.
He is transferring animals to West LA; a policy change. I hope it works; we all hope it works.
Boks is bashed enough; time to rescue the animals or set them free in Griffith Park with five staffers as shepherds.
.
If Ed backpedals any further on his new policy by yet another "clarification," soon the department will be accepting owner and non-owner turn ins, 24/7, of any kind of neonatal cat, cat, dog, cow, mule, mink, fox, squirrel, insect, reptile and mollusk, no questions asked. Staff will even give them a thank you note. Of course, this is what Ed says, but the shelters will still be turning away animals as they were two months ago.
Imagine, even Scott is outraged.
There is no way now for Ed to avoid a July kill-off of epic proportions. At least now he is actually doing things he should have been doing 15 months ago.
He is transferring animals to West LA; a policy change. I hope it works; we all hope it works.
Boks is bashed enough; time to rescue the animals or set them free in Griffith Park with five staffers as shepherds.
.
Re the Restricted Surrender Hours
.
Actually, the below is quite well argued. It makes a lot of sense. I may change my position.
Rescue & Humane Alliance-Los Angeles
As you may know, LA Animal Services recently announced a new policy substantially restricting the hours that shelters will accept owner-surrendered animals from the public (see attached press release).
According to this policy, members of the public will only be permitted to surrender animals during specific "receiving hours" (2-5pm Wednesday/Friday and 2-7pm Tuesday/Thursday). There will be no weekend relinquishment hours.
Within days after the initial press release, General Manager Ed Boks wrote a follow-up blog (reprinted below for your convenience) stating that in practice the staff will not refuse animals at other times if the member of the public persists.
In order to fully evaluate this policy (even as amended), one needs to look not at an "ideal world," where this policy might have arguable merit, but in the "world in which we live," where the consequences will almost certainly be disastrous. Among the many reasons this policy is unworkable, here are five:
1. People rebuffed at the shelter (and only some will be insistent) are not going to suddenly have a "change of heart." Neither will those who by chance become aware of the policy and feel the times are too inconvenient. They will likely tie their animals to a tree, simply let them go, or dump them somewhere else. This shows blatant disregard for public safety, a charter-mandated function of animal services, and the welfare of the animals.
2. When animal services picks up these newly-dumped animals as strays, they will no longer be immediately available for adoption (as they otherwise would have been as owner-surrendered), but instead will be unavailable for 4 days. This will have the unintended effect of additionally taxing shelter staff and resources.
3. This policy does not affect strays, so people will simply say the animals they are dumping are stray. Has no one in management discussed this with experienced staff who see this every day?
4. Some people will be confused and think the policy does apply to strays, and thus be less likely to help a stray they might encounter in a dangerous situation (on the freeway, on a busy street, etc.). Staff are frequently confused about shelter policies, so imagine how confused the public will be.
5. The restricted hours seem to be deliberately inconvenient so that very few people would be available at these times. In fact, these hours are openly antagonistic to the public, which will likely lead to a high volume of complaints.
This is a careless, thoughtless, and reckless policy - almost an act of desperation. It says that despite all of the "new" programs, the shelters are more overwhelmed than ever and have no real plan and no real solutions. It seeks to address the problem by not addressing the problem. It amounts to a refusal by LA Animal Services to perform its charter-mandated public safety function. It seeks to improve statistics at the expense of animal welfare. Its governing principle is: if the animals are not in the shelter (because we refuse to intake them), they are not our problem, they won't affect our statistics, and we don't give a damn what happens to them.
RHA-LA is outraged, and you should be, too! Please join us by imploring the City Council, the LAAS Commisioners and General Manager Ed Boks to immediately repeal this policy and implement proven programs and services that will actually address the underlying causes of pet relinquishment.
When the shelter has experienced, compassionate volunteer or staff relinquishment counselors at every shelter, and when comprehensive pet retention programs are in place, THEN maybe limitations on hours for relinquishment would make sense. But even then, the hours will have to be convenient for the public. In fact, because this education is so important, the hours should be the most convenient for the public.
REPLY to this message in the next 24 hours and we will compile the responses and share them with your City Councilmembers, LAAS Commissioners, LAAS Senior Staff and the Mayor's office. Thank you.
Board of Directors
Rescue & Humane Alliance-Los Angeles
.
Actually, the below is quite well argued. It makes a lot of sense. I may change my position.
Rescue & Humane Alliance-Los Angeles
As you may know, LA Animal Services recently announced a new policy substantially restricting the hours that shelters will accept owner-surrendered animals from the public (see attached press release).
According to this policy, members of the public will only be permitted to surrender animals during specific "receiving hours" (2-5pm Wednesday/Friday and 2-7pm Tuesday/Thursday). There will be no weekend relinquishment hours.
Within days after the initial press release, General Manager Ed Boks wrote a follow-up blog (reprinted below for your convenience) stating that in practice the staff will not refuse animals at other times if the member of the public persists.
In order to fully evaluate this policy (even as amended), one needs to look not at an "ideal world," where this policy might have arguable merit, but in the "world in which we live," where the consequences will almost certainly be disastrous. Among the many reasons this policy is unworkable, here are five:
1. People rebuffed at the shelter (and only some will be insistent) are not going to suddenly have a "change of heart." Neither will those who by chance become aware of the policy and feel the times are too inconvenient. They will likely tie their animals to a tree, simply let them go, or dump them somewhere else. This shows blatant disregard for public safety, a charter-mandated function of animal services, and the welfare of the animals.
2. When animal services picks up these newly-dumped animals as strays, they will no longer be immediately available for adoption (as they otherwise would have been as owner-surrendered), but instead will be unavailable for 4 days. This will have the unintended effect of additionally taxing shelter staff and resources.
3. This policy does not affect strays, so people will simply say the animals they are dumping are stray. Has no one in management discussed this with experienced staff who see this every day?
4. Some people will be confused and think the policy does apply to strays, and thus be less likely to help a stray they might encounter in a dangerous situation (on the freeway, on a busy street, etc.). Staff are frequently confused about shelter policies, so imagine how confused the public will be.
5. The restricted hours seem to be deliberately inconvenient so that very few people would be available at these times. In fact, these hours are openly antagonistic to the public, which will likely lead to a high volume of complaints.
This is a careless, thoughtless, and reckless policy - almost an act of desperation. It says that despite all of the "new" programs, the shelters are more overwhelmed than ever and have no real plan and no real solutions. It seeks to address the problem by not addressing the problem. It amounts to a refusal by LA Animal Services to perform its charter-mandated public safety function. It seeks to improve statistics at the expense of animal welfare. Its governing principle is: if the animals are not in the shelter (because we refuse to intake them), they are not our problem, they won't affect our statistics, and we don't give a damn what happens to them.
RHA-LA is outraged, and you should be, too! Please join us by imploring the City Council, the LAAS Commisioners and General Manager Ed Boks to immediately repeal this policy and implement proven programs and services that will actually address the underlying causes of pet relinquishment.
When the shelter has experienced, compassionate volunteer or staff relinquishment counselors at every shelter, and when comprehensive pet retention programs are in place, THEN maybe limitations on hours for relinquishment would make sense. But even then, the hours will have to be convenient for the public. In fact, because this education is so important, the hours should be the most convenient for the public.
REPLY to this message in the next 24 hours and we will compile the responses and share them with your City Councilmembers, LAAS Commissioners, LAAS Senior Staff and the Mayor's office. Thank you.
Board of Directors
Rescue & Humane Alliance-Los Angeles
.
Brad's Challenge Renewed
.
Boks claimed that he brought the first municipal shelter to no-kill in Arizona when he was there. That would be either 2002 or 2003. Winograd definitely brought a municipal shelter to no-kill in 2002 in Ithaca.
Since Boks killed 51% of the animals impounded in Maricopa Co. in 2003, how can he claim to have have brought any shelter to No-Kill?
I understand Maricopa Co. has two shelters and an adoption center. He claimed he brought one of the shelters to no-kill, not the entire county.
I want to reissue Brad Jensen's challenge to Boks to supply all of the Maricopa County's statistics for the time Ed was there--for all shelters and adoption centers. Brad will study and render a verdict. I'll publish the results.
Ed, this is the challenge. Will you accept, or will you avoid comment altogether?
.
Boks claimed that he brought the first municipal shelter to no-kill in Arizona when he was there. That would be either 2002 or 2003. Winograd definitely brought a municipal shelter to no-kill in 2002 in Ithaca.
Since Boks killed 51% of the animals impounded in Maricopa Co. in 2003, how can he claim to have have brought any shelter to No-Kill?
I understand Maricopa Co. has two shelters and an adoption center. He claimed he brought one of the shelters to no-kill, not the entire county.
I want to reissue Brad Jensen's challenge to Boks to supply all of the Maricopa County's statistics for the time Ed was there--for all shelters and adoption centers. Brad will study and render a verdict. I'll publish the results.
Ed, this is the challenge. Will you accept, or will you avoid comment altogether?
.
Press Release Ani...
.
In our continuing efforts at increasing our transparency, starting with the April 2007 report, we break down the former "Stolen" category into three more precise categories. Animals still shown in the "Stolen" category had a police report for the theft. Animals for which the outcome is not certain due to inputing errors or other techie problems are simply "Missing." We then added a few more unprecise categories which are also not "Euthanized" but some other condition.
These new categories include the following: "Abducted by aliens," "Spontaneous combustion," "Struck by lightning," "Kidnapped by the Russian mob," "Ran away to join the circus," "Transferred Lord only knows where," and the ever popular "Animal signed consent form to be used in animal research." Consequently, LA is now the first large municipal City to become "NoKill !
Honestly yours,
Ed Boks
.
In our continuing efforts at increasing our transparency, starting with the April 2007 report, we break down the former "Stolen" category into three more precise categories. Animals still shown in the "Stolen" category had a police report for the theft. Animals for which the outcome is not certain due to inputing errors or other techie problems are simply "Missing." We then added a few more unprecise categories which are also not "Euthanized" but some other condition.
These new categories include the following: "Abducted by aliens," "Spontaneous combustion," "Struck by lightning," "Kidnapped by the Russian mob," "Ran away to join the circus," "Transferred Lord only knows where," and the ever popular "Animal signed consent form to be used in animal research." Consequently, LA is now the first large municipal City to become "NoKill !
Honestly yours,
Ed Boks
.
LA Animal Services Opens Cages - Shuts Doors
by No-Kill Joe
LOS ANGELES - General Manager Ed Boks of the Los Angeles Department of Animal Services, in a controversial move which has come under fire from City Hall, ordered all cages at the City's six Animal Care Centers opened and all animals set free. Citing desperation in its failure to manage, care for and adopt out the thousands of homeless pets impounded each year, Boks said the Department was forced to take this unprecedented action early Saturday morning.
At 8am, residents were awakened by barking, caterwauling, and braying as over 1,500 cats, dogs and rabbits, together with hundreds of reptiles, 2 donkeys, 7 horses, and assorted livestock ran out of the six facilities and into the streets of Los Angeles.
Council offices and City Hall were immediately flooded with calls. While many expressed outrage, some animal activists praised the move. "I guess we're no-kill now!" proclaimed a representative of ADL-LA, a group which has criticized Boks for killing shelter animals, and organized protests at the homes of various officials.
The move wreaked havoc on busy intersections throughout the City, as animals
darted in and out of traffic. In Van Nuys, the sudden appearance of hundreds of cats and dogs bounding joyfully down Vanowen Street caused 6 separate collisions, injuring 12 people.
Elsewhere, residents experienced memorable encounters with the newly-freed pets. In Lincoln Heights, three exotic dancers from a local strip club were initially frightened when a pack of pit bulls and rottweilers ran up to them as they were leaving work. Surprisingly, the young women were ultimately greeted with kisses and tail wags from the happy pooches finally released from bondage.
Boks, who has been the subject of controversy throughout his 18-month tenure, cited the Department's inability to manage the thousands of animals in their care. "We just didn't know what to do. We're completely overwhelmed. If someone has a better idea, I'd like to hear it so I can write a blog to refute it."
The doors of each facility were closed as soon as the last animal passed safely through. Department officials said that barring a court order, they would not reopen.
Many employees expressed relief that they would no longer have to see animals killed every day. "I think it's a good move," said one shelter worker. "Look, if the General Manager doesn't know what to do, and he makes a six-figure salary, how am I supposed to figure this out for $13.75 an hour."
The president of the union that represents most of the shelter staff reassured members via email that regardless of the shelter closings, employees would be paid indefinitely their full salaries.
The Mayor, who sources say spent the night at a hotel with "a good friend," was unavailable for comment.
.
LOS ANGELES - General Manager Ed Boks of the Los Angeles Department of Animal Services, in a controversial move which has come under fire from City Hall, ordered all cages at the City's six Animal Care Centers opened and all animals set free. Citing desperation in its failure to manage, care for and adopt out the thousands of homeless pets impounded each year, Boks said the Department was forced to take this unprecedented action early Saturday morning.
At 8am, residents were awakened by barking, caterwauling, and braying as over 1,500 cats, dogs and rabbits, together with hundreds of reptiles, 2 donkeys, 7 horses, and assorted livestock ran out of the six facilities and into the streets of Los Angeles.
Council offices and City Hall were immediately flooded with calls. While many expressed outrage, some animal activists praised the move. "I guess we're no-kill now!" proclaimed a representative of ADL-LA, a group which has criticized Boks for killing shelter animals, and organized protests at the homes of various officials.
The move wreaked havoc on busy intersections throughout the City, as animals
darted in and out of traffic. In Van Nuys, the sudden appearance of hundreds of cats and dogs bounding joyfully down Vanowen Street caused 6 separate collisions, injuring 12 people.
Elsewhere, residents experienced memorable encounters with the newly-freed pets. In Lincoln Heights, three exotic dancers from a local strip club were initially frightened when a pack of pit bulls and rottweilers ran up to them as they were leaving work. Surprisingly, the young women were ultimately greeted with kisses and tail wags from the happy pooches finally released from bondage.
Boks, who has been the subject of controversy throughout his 18-month tenure, cited the Department's inability to manage the thousands of animals in their care. "We just didn't know what to do. We're completely overwhelmed. If someone has a better idea, I'd like to hear it so I can write a blog to refute it."
The doors of each facility were closed as soon as the last animal passed safely through. Department officials said that barring a court order, they would not reopen.
Many employees expressed relief that they would no longer have to see animals killed every day. "I think it's a good move," said one shelter worker. "Look, if the General Manager doesn't know what to do, and he makes a six-figure salary, how am I supposed to figure this out for $13.75 an hour."
The president of the union that represents most of the shelter staff reassured members via email that regardless of the shelter closings, employees would be paid indefinitely their full salaries.
The Mayor, who sources say spent the night at a hotel with "a good friend," was unavailable for comment.
.
Curious
.
Boks is a politician, he tells everybody different stories. In an April 17, 2007 news release by LAAS, Boks told Council:
"I am here today representing the 400 employees of Animal Services and the hundreds of volunteers and partners we have throughout Los Angeles who carry the burden and brunt of pet overpopulation everyday – as we take in, care for and ultimately kill 50% of the animals in our charge. This act is both a fiscally responsible and humane solution to our City’s vexing pet overpopulation woes, and I ask for your support.”
Why on earth would he say 50% of animals turned in are killed? To Council no less? This is actually worse than the 41% kill it was then.
Why would he tell them he has 400 employees when 320 are budgeted? In the past he has told Council LAAS has a budget of $25,000,000, but the new annual report just published says $18,000,000.
Ed, sometimes people actually listen to what you say and make note.
.
Boks is a politician, he tells everybody different stories. In an April 17, 2007 news release by LAAS, Boks told Council:
"I am here today representing the 400 employees of Animal Services and the hundreds of volunteers and partners we have throughout Los Angeles who carry the burden and brunt of pet overpopulation everyday – as we take in, care for and ultimately kill 50% of the animals in our charge. This act is both a fiscally responsible and humane solution to our City’s vexing pet overpopulation woes, and I ask for your support.”
Why on earth would he say 50% of animals turned in are killed? To Council no less? This is actually worse than the 41% kill it was then.
Why would he tell them he has 400 employees when 320 are budgeted? In the past he has told Council LAAS has a budget of $25,000,000, but the new annual report just published says $18,000,000.
Ed, sometimes people actually listen to what you say and make note.
.
Boks Bounces Back!
.
Ed has posted four new Rumor vs. Truth posts on ww.laanimalservices.org.
His responses sound plausible, but I don't know how truthful.
He states neonatals and nursing moms are not excluded by his new restricted hours for owner turn-ins. I guess they are not considered owner turn-ins, even if they were turned in by owners. He didn't state this in his policy announcement.
But he is turning away neonatals as there were considerably fewer impounds this past May ccompared to 2006, 233 to be exact. This can only be explained by a very slow kitten season or turning them away.
I agree with his new limited turn-in hours. Naysayers will say more will die on the streets, but dying is dying, whether by truck or by euthanol, and it is mere speculation on the naysayers' that accepts only the worst case scenario as an outcome.
.
Ed has posted four new Rumor vs. Truth posts on ww.laanimalservices.org.
His responses sound plausible, but I don't know how truthful.
He states neonatals and nursing moms are not excluded by his new restricted hours for owner turn-ins. I guess they are not considered owner turn-ins, even if they were turned in by owners. He didn't state this in his policy announcement.
But he is turning away neonatals as there were considerably fewer impounds this past May ccompared to 2006, 233 to be exact. This can only be explained by a very slow kitten season or turning them away.
I agree with his new limited turn-in hours. Naysayers will say more will die on the streets, but dying is dying, whether by truck or by euthanol, and it is mere speculation on the naysayers' that accepts only the worst case scenario as an outcome.
.
Brad Jensen Challenges Boks:
I remarked a few posts back that Boks has a way of using words very deceptively. (Lies) In his annual report as well as on his blog in the bio section, he claims to be the first shelter director to bring a municipal shelter to no-kill. This would be in Maricopa County, Arizona in 2002.
When I contronted him asking how this was possible when the kill rate was 51% that year, he replied Maricopa Co. had three shelters, and he brought one of them to no-kill.
However, one of those shelters is not a shelter, but an adoption center. I assume it was the adoption center he claims he brought to no-kill status. Well, an adoption center is not a shelter.
Brad Jensen, the statistical genius who has been tracking LAAS intake and disposition numbers has issued a challenge:
"Boks, provide me the animal records for those 3 Arizona shelters prior to and while you were there and we'll see what you achieved. You know how to get hold of me.
PS. Oh and Boks, you still owe me LAAS animal records. I paid you in good faith and you have yet to provide all the information I was told would be sent. Very suspicious."
Brad Jensen
So far--surprise, surprise--Boks has not accepted Jensen's challenge. How on earth an anyone claim to have brought a municipal shelter to no-kill when he killed 29,000 cats and dogs in 2003 out of 57,000 impounded?
As Edward R. Murrow said to McCarthy, "Have you no shame?"
I remarked a few posts back that Boks has a way of using words very deceptively. (Lies) In his annual report as well as on his blog in the bio section, he claims to be the first shelter director to bring a municipal shelter to no-kill. This would be in Maricopa County, Arizona in 2002.
When I contronted him asking how this was possible when the kill rate was 51% that year, he replied Maricopa Co. had three shelters, and he brought one of them to no-kill.
However, one of those shelters is not a shelter, but an adoption center. I assume it was the adoption center he claims he brought to no-kill status. Well, an adoption center is not a shelter.
Brad Jensen, the statistical genius who has been tracking LAAS intake and disposition numbers has issued a challenge:
"Boks, provide me the animal records for those 3 Arizona shelters prior to and while you were there and we'll see what you achieved. You know how to get hold of me.
PS. Oh and Boks, you still owe me LAAS animal records. I paid you in good faith and you have yet to provide all the information I was told would be sent. Very suspicious."
Brad Jensen
So far--surprise, surprise--Boks has not accepted Jensen's challenge. How on earth an anyone claim to have brought a municipal shelter to no-kill when he killed 29,000 cats and dogs in 2003 out of 57,000 impounded?
As Edward R. Murrow said to McCarthy, "Have you no shame?"
A New First:
.
LAAS is the first municipal shelter in the country to implement a closed door policy.
Like I said before. I agree in principle that not taking animals into the shelters saves lives, but it also makes others suffer more.
The problem is thrown back onto the community to solve for itself with few resources.
This is irresponsible and artificially brings LAAS to No-Kill. No animals; no kill.
There has to be some way for LAAS to help the rescue groups at this time, and not just provide the public with “resource” lists of full-up non-profits. Regarding neonatals, who he killed 5,600 last year, the situation is most desperate. he has to have some of his lazy-assed employees greet people at the shelter door telling people the truth about neonatals, returning the kittens to their moms, teaching how to bottle-feed, and working with groups to help them deal with the flood of kittens.
Why not assign some of his lazy-assed employees do nothing but bottle-feed and work with New Hope groups? Why not have some employees bottle feeding kittens in the shelter reception area when the public brings the kittens in? Anything.
What is happening with East Valley and the SALA's 150 day neonatal center?
One thing is unquestionable. Ed is not sharing the wealth or success with anyone else. He is not embracing offered help and expertise from the community or from across the country. He is not bringing the New Hope and welfare groups together for the common good. There is too much of Ed in everything. New Hope rescues have been down all during his tenure here.
Ed has to accept help from No-Kill experts and offered help from out the city.
I know of one shelter director who offered his shelter management expertise, free for the asking. Ed did not return his phone calls. For his own good and that of the animals he really needs to bring Nathan in, no matter how much humiliation this brings him. It will show the community he is working to help the animals not just his reputation.
Hell, he could ask for consulting help from Carl Friedman from the San Francisco municipal shelter instead of investing in programs that do not work.
Boks is going. There is no doubt about that at this point, maybe by March of next year.
There is a tiny chance if he were to embrace outside help and resources he could keep his job longer and a lot more lives would be saved.
This is a comment from an outside shelter director:
Like I said before. I agree in principle that not taking animals into the shelters saves lives, but it also makes others suffer more.
The problem is thrown back onto the community to solve for itself with few resources.
This is irresponsible and artificially brings LAAS to No-Kill. No animals; no kill.
There has to be some way for LAAS to help the rescue groups at this time, and not just provide the public with “resource” lists of full-up non-profits.
What is happening with East Valley and the SALAS 150 day neonatal center?
One thing is unquestionable. Ed is not sharing the wealth or success with anyone else. He is not embracing offered help and expertise from the community or from across the country. He is not bringing the New Hope and welfare groups together for the common good. There is too much of Ed in everything. New Hope rescues have been down all during his tenure here.
Ed has to accept help from No-Kill experts and offered help from out the city.
I know of one shelter director who offered his shelter management expertise, free for the asking. Ed did not return his phone calls. For his own good and that of the animals he really needs to bring Nathan in, no matter how much humiliation this brings him. It will show the community he is working to help the animals not just his reputation.
Hell, he could ask for consulting help from Carl Friedman from the San Francisco municipal shelter instead of investing in programs that do not work.
Boks is going. There is no doubt about that at this point, maybe by March of next year.
There is a tiny chance if he were to embrace outside help and resources he could keep his job longer and a lot more lives would be saved.
This is a comment on Ed's closed door admission policy by another shelter system director:
This policy is so bad! What he needs to do is say bring all unwanted pets to the shelter and offer free S/N's to people who bring in pets. They will likely keep one, the mom, and volunteers can foster the others and find homes for them. This should increase adoptions of cats and dogs significantly.
Transferring the problem to another day is stupid.
Thanks for the update and info. I think Mr. Boks is listening to the chickens while the coop burns down.
.
LAAS is the first municipal shelter in the country to implement a closed door policy.
Like I said before. I agree in principle that not taking animals into the shelters saves lives, but it also makes others suffer more.
The problem is thrown back onto the community to solve for itself with few resources.
This is irresponsible and artificially brings LAAS to No-Kill. No animals; no kill.
There has to be some way for LAAS to help the rescue groups at this time, and not just provide the public with “resource” lists of full-up non-profits. Regarding neonatals, who he killed 5,600 last year, the situation is most desperate. he has to have some of his lazy-assed employees greet people at the shelter door telling people the truth about neonatals, returning the kittens to their moms, teaching how to bottle-feed, and working with groups to help them deal with the flood of kittens.
Why not assign some of his lazy-assed employees do nothing but bottle-feed and work with New Hope groups? Why not have some employees bottle feeding kittens in the shelter reception area when the public brings the kittens in? Anything.
What is happening with East Valley and the SALA's 150 day neonatal center?
One thing is unquestionable. Ed is not sharing the wealth or success with anyone else. He is not embracing offered help and expertise from the community or from across the country. He is not bringing the New Hope and welfare groups together for the common good. There is too much of Ed in everything. New Hope rescues have been down all during his tenure here.
Ed has to accept help from No-Kill experts and offered help from out the city.
I know of one shelter director who offered his shelter management expertise, free for the asking. Ed did not return his phone calls. For his own good and that of the animals he really needs to bring Nathan in, no matter how much humiliation this brings him. It will show the community he is working to help the animals not just his reputation.
Hell, he could ask for consulting help from Carl Friedman from the San Francisco municipal shelter instead of investing in programs that do not work.
Boks is going. There is no doubt about that at this point, maybe by March of next year.
There is a tiny chance if he were to embrace outside help and resources he could keep his job longer and a lot more lives would be saved.
This is a comment from an outside shelter director:
Like I said before. I agree in principle that not taking animals into the shelters saves lives, but it also makes others suffer more.
The problem is thrown back onto the community to solve for itself with few resources.
This is irresponsible and artificially brings LAAS to No-Kill. No animals; no kill.
There has to be some way for LAAS to help the rescue groups at this time, and not just provide the public with “resource” lists of full-up non-profits.
What is happening with East Valley and the SALAS 150 day neonatal center?
One thing is unquestionable. Ed is not sharing the wealth or success with anyone else. He is not embracing offered help and expertise from the community or from across the country. He is not bringing the New Hope and welfare groups together for the common good. There is too much of Ed in everything. New Hope rescues have been down all during his tenure here.
Ed has to accept help from No-Kill experts and offered help from out the city.
I know of one shelter director who offered his shelter management expertise, free for the asking. Ed did not return his phone calls. For his own good and that of the animals he really needs to bring Nathan in, no matter how much humiliation this brings him. It will show the community he is working to help the animals not just his reputation.
Hell, he could ask for consulting help from Carl Friedman from the San Francisco municipal shelter instead of investing in programs that do not work.
Boks is going. There is no doubt about that at this point, maybe by March of next year.
There is a tiny chance if he were to embrace outside help and resources he could keep his job longer and a lot more lives would be saved.
This is a comment on Ed's closed door admission policy by another shelter system director:
This policy is so bad! What he needs to do is say bring all unwanted pets to the shelter and offer free S/N's to people who bring in pets. They will likely keep one, the mom, and volunteers can foster the others and find homes for them. This should increase adoptions of cats and dogs significantly.
Transferring the problem to another day is stupid.
Thanks for the update and info. I think Mr. Boks is listening to the chickens while the coop burns down.
.
Comments on the Policy Change
.
I'm just shocked that things are getting worse. Who would have ever believed that they'd just shutter the shelter doors to stop intake to reduce euthanasia numbers?
Blame not just Boks, but much of LAAS personnel. Someone told me 80% are deadheads.
In fact when Stuckey first started here he told someone that he had no idea the staff could possibly be so stupid and lazy. Now with Boks they are more than just stupid and lazy. They hate him because he comes from more of an activist background. The staff turned Boks in to the LAPD telling them he was a terrorist with ADL.
The City’s red tape, sociopaths in the Mayor’s Office (not Bickhart), stupid lazy employees working against you, Boks doesn't have an easy job. He bit off way more than he could chew and the animals are paying for it. He didn't think it'd be this bad. He thought activists would love him. Of course he brought a lot of this on himself by lying and making impossible projections.
We were told Debbie Knaan quit because she was offered a job she couldn't refuse. But any job would be unrefusable compared to working for this department. Employee problems, Boks' alleged criminal actions, Hayden act violations, fudging the books, upcoming lawsuits, activist opposition; who wants to go down with Boks?
It is Interesting that Knaan announced her resignation the day after ADL protested at her house.
Before she was the AGM, she knew there were major problems. She just thought she could fix them. I think she made progress but there are just too many problems.
You could make great new policies and programs but if the employees aren't implementing things, what's the point?
.
I'm just shocked that things are getting worse. Who would have ever believed that they'd just shutter the shelter doors to stop intake to reduce euthanasia numbers?
Blame not just Boks, but much of LAAS personnel. Someone told me 80% are deadheads.
In fact when Stuckey first started here he told someone that he had no idea the staff could possibly be so stupid and lazy. Now with Boks they are more than just stupid and lazy. They hate him because he comes from more of an activist background. The staff turned Boks in to the LAPD telling them he was a terrorist with ADL.
The City’s red tape, sociopaths in the Mayor’s Office (not Bickhart), stupid lazy employees working against you, Boks doesn't have an easy job. He bit off way more than he could chew and the animals are paying for it. He didn't think it'd be this bad. He thought activists would love him. Of course he brought a lot of this on himself by lying and making impossible projections.
We were told Debbie Knaan quit because she was offered a job she couldn't refuse. But any job would be unrefusable compared to working for this department. Employee problems, Boks' alleged criminal actions, Hayden act violations, fudging the books, upcoming lawsuits, activist opposition; who wants to go down with Boks?
It is Interesting that Knaan announced her resignation the day after ADL protested at her house.
Before she was the AGM, she knew there were major problems. She just thought she could fix them. I think she made progress but there are just too many problems.
You could make great new policies and programs but if the employees aren't implementing things, what's the point?
.
Implosion!!
.
If nothing else, Ed's new policy points out clearly to one and all that he is utterly unable to successfully manage a large shelter system.
Cynically he has been manipulating the numbers to make it appear there was progress to no-kill. He has crowded the shelters to make the March-May figures really good, and now that the reality of the crush is catching up, as id did last June, he shuts the shelters' doors and teaches a no-kill seminar at the end of June.
I have been hounded by the Son of Naysayer who says this is what all no-kill shelters do: juggle animals, manipulate numbers, lie, and spin. Ed does all of that and more. But Boks case is more of the usual rather than having gone. The whole system is collapsing under Boks' incredible need for adulation, instead of implementing what has to be done to really get to no-kill.
This is why Debbie Knaan jumped ship and took an offer she could not refuse. As someone said, any job would be unrefusable compared to being Boks' AGM when the ship is sinking.
Ed's done here.
.
If nothing else, Ed's new policy points out clearly to one and all that he is utterly unable to successfully manage a large shelter system.
Cynically he has been manipulating the numbers to make it appear there was progress to no-kill. He has crowded the shelters to make the March-May figures really good, and now that the reality of the crush is catching up, as id did last June, he shuts the shelters' doors and teaches a no-kill seminar at the end of June.
I have been hounded by the Son of Naysayer who says this is what all no-kill shelters do: juggle animals, manipulate numbers, lie, and spin. Ed does all of that and more. But Boks case is more of the usual rather than having gone. The whole system is collapsing under Boks' incredible need for adulation, instead of implementing what has to be done to really get to no-kill.
This is why Debbie Knaan jumped ship and took an offer she could not refuse. As someone said, any job would be unrefusable compared to being Boks' AGM when the ship is sinking.
Ed's done here.
.
Mayor Villaraigosa Closes City Shelters
.
by Ann Angeleno Tuesday, Jun. 19, 2007 at 3:12 PM
annangeleno@yahoo.com
In astounding news earlier this week the Los Angeles Department of Animal Services announced that they are basically closing the shelter doors to owner relinquished animals. Their rationale behind this move as per Ed Boks the General Manager is to "fine tune" "the population during the annual spring/summer crush of neonatal turn-ins." Read that, "we have no more room because we've been warehousing animals all year to keep our euthanasia rate artificially low to try to make me look good."
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa closes City animal shelters
In astounding news earlier this week the Los Angeles Department of Animal Services announced that they are basically closing the shelter doors to owner relinquished animals. Their rationale behind this move as per Ed Boks the General Manager is to "fine tune" "the population during the annual spring/summer crush of neonatal turn-ins." Read that, "we have no more room because we've been warehousing animals all year to keep our euthanasia rate artificially low to try to make me look good."
None of the previous General Managers ever turned away animals yet they had many more animals, smaller shelters, less money and fewer employees. How could Ed Boks the supposed "NoKill King" have no room to receive animals when his shelters are much larger than before and fewer animals are coming in? More importantly, why is the Mayor still doing nothing about the problem? This author wrote an article about all of these issues March of this year and things have only gotten worse. http://www.geocities.com/annangeleno
On June 14, 2007 the Department released the press release entitled "Cat-Tastrophe forces policy change." They stated that as of June 18th they will only accept healthy owned animals Wednesday and Friday from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Tuesday and Thursday from 2:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. This means that people who work could only relinquish their pets during a small window after work. There is already a long wait to relinquish pets when they can do so any day of the week. People line up outside the shelter doors in the mornings. Some just leave their pets in boxes, bags, running free in the parking lot or tied to the fence.
For the past two months the shelters were already telling the public that they should find their animal a new home themselves. If it's a cat, they should spay or neuter them and just set them free in a feral colony. If they don't want to do that, they are instructed to contact private rescues who will "gladly" take the animals. The people take their animals home and call rescuers who are of course all full. In frustration which can be seen by many complaints on craigslist.com, people are just setting the animals free in parks. One man threatened to kill kittens if someone didn't come and get them.
In the days since Boks' press release he has backpedaled a little. He now says that he will accept ill, injured and orphaned owner relinquished animals at any time. He said he will "revisit the policy" if problems arise. He says he will also "politely" accept any animal if the person is really "insistent." So then, has anything changed at all, except for the promise of being "polite?"
The Rescue and Humane Alliance represents most of the animal groups in Los Angeles. They sent out a bulletin about this new policy this morning. They don't believe it's a good idea and raise some valid points which I've paraphrased here. (1) People will not have a change of heart. They will just abandon the animal somewhere else. (2) Then these animals will be picked up as strays which must be held longer than owned animals before being offered up for adoption. (3) People will lie and say their animal is a stray. They already do this because they're embarrassed that they're an irresponsible pet owner. (4) Some may get confused and think this policy applies to all animals so they won't pick up a stray animal. (5) The restricted hours are deliberately inconvenient so few people will be able to relinquish their animal. The public will complain that the Department isn't doing their job.
RHA believes this is "an act of desperation" and I agree. They say "despite all the 'new' programs, the shelters are more overwhelmed than ever and have no real plan and no real solutions." The new policy "seeks to address the problem by not addressing the problem. It amounts to a refusal by LA Animal Services to perform it's charter-mandated public safety function. It seeks to improve statistics at the expense of animal welfare." "RHA-LA is outraged, and you should be, too!" Very well said.
RHA-LA suggests that you contact your LA City councilmember and complain about this new policy now before countless more animals end up on the street. Find your councilmember here http://www.lacity.org On a note of levity, the Department's press release fueled another more creative "press release" written by NoKill Joe. http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i20582
by Ann Angeleno Tuesday, Jun. 19, 2007 at 3:12 PM
annangeleno@yahoo.com
In astounding news earlier this week the Los Angeles Department of Animal Services announced that they are basically closing the shelter doors to owner relinquished animals. Their rationale behind this move as per Ed Boks the General Manager is to "fine tune" "the population during the annual spring/summer crush of neonatal turn-ins." Read that, "we have no more room because we've been warehousing animals all year to keep our euthanasia rate artificially low to try to make me look good."
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa closes City animal shelters
In astounding news earlier this week the Los Angeles Department of Animal Services announced that they are basically closing the shelter doors to owner relinquished animals. Their rationale behind this move as per Ed Boks the General Manager is to "fine tune" "the population during the annual spring/summer crush of neonatal turn-ins." Read that, "we have no more room because we've been warehousing animals all year to keep our euthanasia rate artificially low to try to make me look good."
None of the previous General Managers ever turned away animals yet they had many more animals, smaller shelters, less money and fewer employees. How could Ed Boks the supposed "NoKill King" have no room to receive animals when his shelters are much larger than before and fewer animals are coming in? More importantly, why is the Mayor still doing nothing about the problem? This author wrote an article about all of these issues March of this year and things have only gotten worse. http://www.geocities.com/annangeleno
On June 14, 2007 the Department released the press release entitled "Cat-Tastrophe forces policy change." They stated that as of June 18th they will only accept healthy owned animals Wednesday and Friday from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Tuesday and Thursday from 2:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. This means that people who work could only relinquish their pets during a small window after work. There is already a long wait to relinquish pets when they can do so any day of the week. People line up outside the shelter doors in the mornings. Some just leave their pets in boxes, bags, running free in the parking lot or tied to the fence.
For the past two months the shelters were already telling the public that they should find their animal a new home themselves. If it's a cat, they should spay or neuter them and just set them free in a feral colony. If they don't want to do that, they are instructed to contact private rescues who will "gladly" take the animals. The people take their animals home and call rescuers who are of course all full. In frustration which can be seen by many complaints on craigslist.com, people are just setting the animals free in parks. One man threatened to kill kittens if someone didn't come and get them.
In the days since Boks' press release he has backpedaled a little. He now says that he will accept ill, injured and orphaned owner relinquished animals at any time. He said he will "revisit the policy" if problems arise. He says he will also "politely" accept any animal if the person is really "insistent." So then, has anything changed at all, except for the promise of being "polite?"
The Rescue and Humane Alliance represents most of the animal groups in Los Angeles. They sent out a bulletin about this new policy this morning. They don't believe it's a good idea and raise some valid points which I've paraphrased here. (1) People will not have a change of heart. They will just abandon the animal somewhere else. (2) Then these animals will be picked up as strays which must be held longer than owned animals before being offered up for adoption. (3) People will lie and say their animal is a stray. They already do this because they're embarrassed that they're an irresponsible pet owner. (4) Some may get confused and think this policy applies to all animals so they won't pick up a stray animal. (5) The restricted hours are deliberately inconvenient so few people will be able to relinquish their animal. The public will complain that the Department isn't doing their job.
RHA believes this is "an act of desperation" and I agree. They say "despite all the 'new' programs, the shelters are more overwhelmed than ever and have no real plan and no real solutions." The new policy "seeks to address the problem by not addressing the problem. It amounts to a refusal by LA Animal Services to perform it's charter-mandated public safety function. It seeks to improve statistics at the expense of animal welfare." "RHA-LA is outraged, and you should be, too!" Very well said.
RHA-LA suggests that you contact your LA City councilmember and complain about this new policy now before countless more animals end up on the street. Find your councilmember here http://www.lacity.org On a note of levity, the Department's press release fueled another more creative "press release" written by NoKill Joe. http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i20582
400 Cats in the EV Shelter Need Help
.
From a rescuer:
"GET THIS -- I spoke with an employee yesterday who told me they have FOUR HUNDRED CATS at East Valley. I asked where these four hundred cats are, and the employee said, "oh, they are in lots of different rooms." Many of them are nursing moms and kittens in the back area. Yetthe shelter's spay/neuter clinic is STILL closed.
(The City's website shows 213 as of right now,but they do not show them all. 213 is bad enough.)
BREED and OTHER RESCUERS NOTE: Bengal mix, Lynx-Point Siamese, white Angora,
and a beautiful Polydactyl. And apparently three hundred and ninety six
more cats/kittens.
This is why Boks is restricting admissions. He does not want to kill the animals. Maybe for him, it is mostly about the numbers, but for me, and I assume for most of you, it is about the animals.
Can anyone do a media blitz or get this emergency notice out? The shelter has been crowded since it opened and Ed cancelled a media interview because he did not want the cameras to see how full his new shelter is.
All that I can say is let's help Ed and the animals out--not for his sake, butfor the animals.
.
From a rescuer:
"GET THIS -- I spoke with an employee yesterday who told me they have FOUR HUNDRED CATS at East Valley. I asked where these four hundred cats are, and the employee said, "oh, they are in lots of different rooms." Many of them are nursing moms and kittens in the back area. Yetthe shelter's spay/neuter clinic is STILL closed.
(The City's website shows 213 as of right now,but they do not show them all. 213 is bad enough.)
BREED and OTHER RESCUERS NOTE: Bengal mix, Lynx-Point Siamese, white Angora,
and a beautiful Polydactyl. And apparently three hundred and ninety six
more cats/kittens.
This is why Boks is restricting admissions. He does not want to kill the animals. Maybe for him, it is mostly about the numbers, but for me, and I assume for most of you, it is about the animals.
Can anyone do a media blitz or get this emergency notice out? The shelter has been crowded since it opened and Ed cancelled a media interview because he did not want the cameras to see how full his new shelter is.
All that I can say is let's help Ed and the animals out--not for his sake, butfor the animals.
.
There are 400 cats in the EV shelter. Help!!!
.
From a rescuer:
"GET THIS -- I spoke with an employee yesterday who told me they have FOUR HUNDRED CATS at East Valley.
I asked where these four hundred cats are, and the employee said, "oh, they are in lots of different rooms." Many of them are nursing moms and kittens in the back area. .....
BREED and OTHER RESCUERS NOTE: Bengal mix, Lynx-Point Siamese, white Angora, and a beautiful Polydactyl. And apparently three hundred and ninety six more cats/kittens.
Look. This is a triple A emergency. This is why Boks can't take any more. Rescuing these cats now is of upmost importance.
Imagine a Lynx-Point Siamese, Angora, and I'll bet, 200 Tuxedos.
.
From a rescuer:
"GET THIS -- I spoke with an employee yesterday who told me they have FOUR HUNDRED CATS at East Valley.
I asked where these four hundred cats are, and the employee said, "oh, they are in lots of different rooms." Many of them are nursing moms and kittens in the back area. .....
BREED and OTHER RESCUERS NOTE: Bengal mix, Lynx-Point Siamese, white Angora, and a beautiful Polydactyl. And apparently three hundred and ninety six more cats/kittens.
Look. This is a triple A emergency. This is why Boks can't take any more. Rescuing these cats now is of upmost importance.
Imagine a Lynx-Point Siamese, Angora, and I'll bet, 200 Tuxedos.
.
Press Release-LAAS
.
In our continuing efforts at increasing our transparency, starting with the April 2007 report, we break down the former "Stolen" category into three more precise categories. Animals still shown in the "Stolen" category had a police report for the theft. Animals for which the outcome is not certain due to inputing errors or other techie problems are simply "Missing."
We then added a few more unprecise categories which are also not "Euthanized" but some other condition. These new categories include the following: "Abducted by aliens," "Spontaneous combustion," "Struck by lightning," "Kidnapped by the Russian mob," "Ran away to join the circus," "Transferred Lord only knows where," and the ever popular "Animal signed consent form to be used in animal research." Consequently, LA is now the first large municipal City to become "NoKill !
Honestly yours,
Ed Boks
In our continuing efforts at increasing our transparency, starting with the April 2007 report, we break down the former "Stolen" category into three more precise categories. Animals still shown in the "Stolen" category had a police report for the theft. Animals for which the outcome is not certain due to inputing errors or other techie problems are simply "Missing."
We then added a few more unprecise categories which are also not "Euthanized" but some other condition. These new categories include the following: "Abducted by aliens," "Spontaneous combustion," "Struck by lightning," "Kidnapped by the Russian mob," "Ran away to join the circus," "Transferred Lord only knows where," and the ever popular "Animal signed consent form to be used in animal research." Consequently, LA is now the first large municipal City to become "NoKill !
Honestly yours,
Ed Boks
LA Animal Services Opens Cages - Shuts Doors
by No-Kill Joe
LOS ANGELES - General Manager Ed Boks of the Los Angeles Department of
Animal Services, in a controversial move which has come under fire from City
Hall, ordered all cages at the City's six Animal Care Centers opened and all
animals set free. Citing desperation in its failure to manage, care for and
adopt out the thousands of homeless pets impounded each year, Boks said the
Department was forced to take this unprecedented action early Saturday
morning.
At 8am, residents were awakened by barking, caterwauling, and braying as
over 1,500 cats, dogs and rabbits, together with hundreds of reptiles, 2
donkeys, 7 horses, and assorted livestock ran out of the six facilities and
into the streets of Los Angeles.
Council offices and City Hall were immediately flooded with calls. While
many expressed outrage, some animal activists praised the move.
"I guess we're no-kill now!" proclaimed a representative of ADL-LA, a group
which has criticized Boks for killing shelter animals, and organized
protests at the homes of various officials.
The move wreaked havoc on busy intersections throughout the City, as animals
darted in and out of traffic. In Van Nuys, the sudden appearance of
hundreds of cats and dogs bounding joyfully down Vanowen Street caused 6
separate collisions, injuring 12 people.
Elsewhere, residents experienced memorable encounters with the newly-freed
pets. In Lincoln Heights, three exotic dancers from a local strip club were
initially frightened when a pack of pit bulls and rottweilers ran up to them
as they were leaving work. Surprisingly, the young women were ultimately
greeted with kisses and tail wags from the happy pooches finally released
from bondage.
Boks, who has been the subject of controversy throughout his 18-month
tenure, cited the Department's inability to manage the thousands of animals
in their care. "We just didn't know what to do. We're completely
overwhelmed. If someone has a better idea, I'd like to hear it so I can
write a blog to refute it."
The doors of each facility were closed as soon as the last animal passed
safely through. Department officials said that barring a court order, they
would not reopen.
Many employees expressed relief that they would no longer have to see
animals killed every day. "I think it's a good move," said one shelter
worker. "Look, if the General Manager doesn't know what to do, and he makes
a six-figure salary, how am I supposed to figure this out for $13.75 an
hour."
The president of the union that represents most of the shelter staff
reassured members via email that regardless of the shelter closings,
employees would be paid indefinitely their full salaries.
The Mayor, who sources say spent the night at a hotel with "a good friend,"
was unavailable for comment.
.
LOS ANGELES - General Manager Ed Boks of the Los Angeles Department of
Animal Services, in a controversial move which has come under fire from City
Hall, ordered all cages at the City's six Animal Care Centers opened and all
animals set free. Citing desperation in its failure to manage, care for and
adopt out the thousands of homeless pets impounded each year, Boks said the
Department was forced to take this unprecedented action early Saturday
morning.
At 8am, residents were awakened by barking, caterwauling, and braying as
over 1,500 cats, dogs and rabbits, together with hundreds of reptiles, 2
donkeys, 7 horses, and assorted livestock ran out of the six facilities and
into the streets of Los Angeles.
Council offices and City Hall were immediately flooded with calls. While
many expressed outrage, some animal activists praised the move.
"I guess we're no-kill now!" proclaimed a representative of ADL-LA, a group
which has criticized Boks for killing shelter animals, and organized
protests at the homes of various officials.
The move wreaked havoc on busy intersections throughout the City, as animals
darted in and out of traffic. In Van Nuys, the sudden appearance of
hundreds of cats and dogs bounding joyfully down Vanowen Street caused 6
separate collisions, injuring 12 people.
Elsewhere, residents experienced memorable encounters with the newly-freed
pets. In Lincoln Heights, three exotic dancers from a local strip club were
initially frightened when a pack of pit bulls and rottweilers ran up to them
as they were leaving work. Surprisingly, the young women were ultimately
greeted with kisses and tail wags from the happy pooches finally released
from bondage.
Boks, who has been the subject of controversy throughout his 18-month
tenure, cited the Department's inability to manage the thousands of animals
in their care. "We just didn't know what to do. We're completely
overwhelmed. If someone has a better idea, I'd like to hear it so I can
write a blog to refute it."
The doors of each facility were closed as soon as the last animal passed
safely through. Department officials said that barring a court order, they
would not reopen.
Many employees expressed relief that they would no longer have to see
animals killed every day. "I think it's a good move," said one shelter
worker. "Look, if the General Manager doesn't know what to do, and he makes
a six-figure salary, how am I supposed to figure this out for $13.75 an
hour."
The president of the union that represents most of the shelter staff
reassured members via email that regardless of the shelter closings,
employees would be paid indefinitely their full salaries.
The Mayor, who sources say spent the night at a hotel with "a good friend,"
was unavailable for comment.
.
Some Comments on Policy Change
From Readers:.
This is the most ridiculous idea that ever has been - people will dump
their animals, people will state they are strays and that means the
animals are in the shelter longer before they can be adopted - whoever
thought of this idea should be fired!
Hiding from the problem won't make it go away. This is like the police department just refusing to take crime reports. It doesn't make crime go away. Incidentally LAPD did do this to try to make it seem like crime was down. They got caught and now they must take all reports.
Any owner who dumps their animal at a kill shelter can not be trusted to do right by that animal when turned away. They will set it loose. It'll get ill, injured, pregnant, maybe killed. Or else the owners may just murder their pets by drowning kittens, throwing puppies out the window of moving cars.
I think this is a bad idea. It is putting the problem of pet overpopulation into the hands of the irresponsible owners. They can't just shutter the shelters doors and proclaim themselves "No-Kill!" Boks can't just refuse to do his job in order to better his numbers. The numbers represent animals lives. They aren't just an arbitrary measure to try to make Boks look good.
This is the most ridiculous idea that ever has been - people will dump
their animals, people will state they are strays and that means the
animals are in the shelter longer before they can be adopted - whoever
thought of this idea should be fired!
Hiding from the problem won't make it go away. This is like the police department just refusing to take crime reports. It doesn't make crime go away. Incidentally LAPD did do this to try to make it seem like crime was down. They got caught and now they must take all reports.
Any owner who dumps their animal at a kill shelter can not be trusted to do right by that animal when turned away. They will set it loose. It'll get ill, injured, pregnant, maybe killed. Or else the owners may just murder their pets by drowning kittens, throwing puppies out the window of moving cars.
I think this is a bad idea. It is putting the problem of pet overpopulation into the hands of the irresponsible owners. They can't just shutter the shelters doors and proclaim themselves "No-Kill!" Boks can't just refuse to do his job in order to better his numbers. The numbers represent animals lives. They aren't just an arbitrary measure to try to make Boks look good.
Boks' Shifting Statistics
.
Part of LAAS's shifting statistics is warehousing animals and another is inventing new categories which he says makes the statistics more transparent and accurate. The latter results in endless republishing of statistics so no one can depend on any number for analysis.
Yet other massive changes, like the disappearing neonates, have no rational explanation.
Someone who knows Ed well speaks for him:
"In our continuing efforts at increasing our transparency, starting with the April 2007 report, we break down the former "Stolen" category into three more precise categories. Animals still showning in the "Stolen" category had a police report for the theft. Animals for which the outcome is not certain due to inputing errors or other techie problems are simply "Missing." We then added a few more unprecise categories which are also not "Euthanized" but some other condition. These new categories include the following: "Abducted by aliens," "Spontaneous combustion," "Struck by lightning," "Kidnapped by the Russian mob," "Ran away to join the circus," "Transferred Lord only knows where," and the ever popular "Animal signed consent form to be used in animal research." Consequently, LA is now the first large municipal City to become "NoKill""!
Honestly yours,
Ed Boks
.
PS: Blogger appears to be allowing me to post comments once again. I have deleted one Son of Naysayer comment because she just wants to yell at people and say how ignorant, stupid or blind they (me) are. Dear Son, get your own blog!
.
Part of LAAS's shifting statistics is warehousing animals and another is inventing new categories which he says makes the statistics more transparent and accurate. The latter results in endless republishing of statistics so no one can depend on any number for analysis.
Yet other massive changes, like the disappearing neonates, have no rational explanation.
Someone who knows Ed well speaks for him:
"In our continuing efforts at increasing our transparency, starting with the April 2007 report, we break down the former "Stolen" category into three more precise categories. Animals still showning in the "Stolen" category had a police report for the theft. Animals for which the outcome is not certain due to inputing errors or other techie problems are simply "Missing." We then added a few more unprecise categories which are also not "Euthanized" but some other condition. These new categories include the following: "Abducted by aliens," "Spontaneous combustion," "Struck by lightning," "Kidnapped by the Russian mob," "Ran away to join the circus," "Transferred Lord only knows where," and the ever popular "Animal signed consent form to be used in animal research." Consequently, LA is now the first large municipal City to become "NoKill""!
Honestly yours,
Ed Boks
.
PS: Blogger appears to be allowing me to post comments once again. I have deleted one Son of Naysayer comment because she just wants to yell at people and say how ignorant, stupid or blind they (me) are. Dear Son, get your own blog!
.
The Mysterious May Numbers
.
There was a dramatic decrease in the number of animals killed in May. Dramatic! Dogs down by 145 compared to last year, but cats killed has been reduced by a huge 576! Combined, this is 721 cats and dogs fewer than last year! Comparing March, April and May, 1,150 fewer animals were killed compared to the year before.
This has led to a drop in the number of cats and dogs by 1,150 compared to last year. This is not a lot compared to the decreases made by Stuckey and Greenwalt, but it is a lot for Boks.
This is especially surprising as there has been little increase in lives saved. Normally anomalies such as this would be explained by stuffing the shelters to the gills—which is happening.
Of the intakes for April and May, there are 183 dogs unaccounted for, and an amazing 645 cats! So there are an amazing 828 animals not accounted for! Last year only 53 were not accounted for.
These “missing” animals would explain much of the decrease in animals killed compared to last year.
What is odd, and would not be explained by stuffing the shelter, is that 373 unweaned kittens are not accounted for in April and May. This is a lot considering the short lifespan of neonates.
These missing can only be explained by:
They had an in-house feeding group, which they tried and failed last year. NOT!
They may be keeping many more neonates with their moms. MAYBE.
It may mean they were mis-classified in “Condition” as neonates when they were actually weaned kittens (or puppies for that matter as strangely as the numbers change). MAYBE, This does not compute given the historical May numbers.
Number manipulation?
Historically, May has averaged about 400 more intakes than April. This year was only 141 more. He is turning away neonates by the hundreds. Hopefully a large percentage of them will live, perhaps by being returned to their moms, and others being saved by unregistered bottles feeders.
Of course, the hundreds turned away mean a larger cat intake next year.
Besides neonates, he is turning away ferals--an unofficial “Release” program.
So far I heartily agree with these policy changes. It gives more cats a chance to live, but it also creates a big problem for next year’s intake. Phyllis Daugherty complained about this at the Town Hall. No one likes her anyway.
However, the missing 828 animals is a concern given that monthly numbers posted on the LAAS change constantly. About 60% of the posted figures are different from the year before. So far, I have not found a pattern. They are almost random. But the interesting thing is, THAT THEY CHANGE AT ALL.
Changing figures mean the statistics are unreliable and open to manipulation. Comparisons will always be tentative as the numbers are always changing. It also leads to booby traps, as Ed did to me at the Town Hall meeting, where I was surprised with much different numbers than anticipated.
As I said in an earlier post, there are two versions of his annual report. In versions #1, he stated that the number of animals that will be saved is projected to drop by 2% from 54% to 52% as a result of increasing intakes.
However, after he talked to a reporter from the LA Times, who pointed out a discrepancy in his statistics, the numbers of animals projected to be saved increased 2%, from 52% to 54%, or 1,900 animals in Version #2 of the report. How there can be a change of mind regarding so large a difference in a period of a few weeks is suspect, especially as it followed a reporter pointing out a discrepancy.
Ed says he is changing the numbers to make them more accurate. He is creating new categories of animals each month, such as missing. It also means that he is probably changing the condition of animals after their initial intake condition is registered, such as he said happened to explain his way out of the Hayden violations.
If he is doing this, the terms treatable and adoptable are meaningless, and he can say, with a straight face, that all animals left in the shelter should be killed, as the County is doing. If in addition, hundreds more of animals are also unaccounted, the posted statistics become even more meaningless.
In any event, Boks had a good year last year through May; June began the debacle of high kills. Will this scenario be repeated—YES!
But what about the missing neonates and 60% changing numbers? I would certainly like to see the insides of Chameleon and see what it can and cannot do.
.
There was a dramatic decrease in the number of animals killed in May. Dramatic! Dogs down by 145 compared to last year, but cats killed has been reduced by a huge 576! Combined, this is 721 cats and dogs fewer than last year! Comparing March, April and May, 1,150 fewer animals were killed compared to the year before.
This has led to a drop in the number of cats and dogs by 1,150 compared to last year. This is not a lot compared to the decreases made by Stuckey and Greenwalt, but it is a lot for Boks.
This is especially surprising as there has been little increase in lives saved. Normally anomalies such as this would be explained by stuffing the shelters to the gills—which is happening.
Of the intakes for April and May, there are 183 dogs unaccounted for, and an amazing 645 cats! So there are an amazing 828 animals not accounted for! Last year only 53 were not accounted for.
These “missing” animals would explain much of the decrease in animals killed compared to last year.
What is odd, and would not be explained by stuffing the shelter, is that 373 unweaned kittens are not accounted for in April and May. This is a lot considering the short lifespan of neonates.
These missing can only be explained by:
They had an in-house feeding group, which they tried and failed last year. NOT!
They may be keeping many more neonates with their moms. MAYBE.
It may mean they were mis-classified in “Condition” as neonates when they were actually weaned kittens (or puppies for that matter as strangely as the numbers change). MAYBE, This does not compute given the historical May numbers.
Number manipulation?
Historically, May has averaged about 400 more intakes than April. This year was only 141 more. He is turning away neonates by the hundreds. Hopefully a large percentage of them will live, perhaps by being returned to their moms, and others being saved by unregistered bottles feeders.
Of course, the hundreds turned away mean a larger cat intake next year.
Besides neonates, he is turning away ferals--an unofficial “Release” program.
So far I heartily agree with these policy changes. It gives more cats a chance to live, but it also creates a big problem for next year’s intake. Phyllis Daugherty complained about this at the Town Hall. No one likes her anyway.
However, the missing 828 animals is a concern given that monthly numbers posted on the LAAS change constantly. About 60% of the posted figures are different from the year before. So far, I have not found a pattern. They are almost random. But the interesting thing is, THAT THEY CHANGE AT ALL.
Changing figures mean the statistics are unreliable and open to manipulation. Comparisons will always be tentative as the numbers are always changing. It also leads to booby traps, as Ed did to me at the Town Hall meeting, where I was surprised with much different numbers than anticipated.
As I said in an earlier post, there are two versions of his annual report. In versions #1, he stated that the number of animals that will be saved is projected to drop by 2% from 54% to 52% as a result of increasing intakes.
However, after he talked to a reporter from the LA Times, who pointed out a discrepancy in his statistics, the numbers of animals projected to be saved increased 2%, from 52% to 54%, or 1,900 animals in Version #2 of the report. How there can be a change of mind regarding so large a difference in a period of a few weeks is suspect, especially as it followed a reporter pointing out a discrepancy.
Ed says he is changing the numbers to make them more accurate. He is creating new categories of animals each month, such as missing. It also means that he is probably changing the condition of animals after their initial intake condition is registered, such as he said happened to explain his way out of the Hayden violations.
If he is doing this, the terms treatable and adoptable are meaningless, and he can say, with a straight face, that all animals left in the shelter should be killed, as the County is doing. If in addition, hundreds more of animals are also unaccounted, the posted statistics become even more meaningless.
In any event, Boks had a good year last year through May; June began the debacle of high kills. Will this scenario be repeated—YES!
But what about the missing neonates and 60% changing numbers? I would certainly like to see the insides of Chameleon and see what it can and cannot do.
.
Boks' Town Hall Dance
.
I went to the Town Hall meeting where Boks presented his No-Kill Schick. Security was slightly heavier than one would expect if meeting Dick Cheney.
There was a security check for IDs on the first floor, and then Mike Bell and I were referred to a security desk run by Town Hall, where we were given security badges. Then a security person pointed us to the proper elevator bank. No finger prints were taken at any point.
At the conference room on the 16th floor, we were not surprised to see two plain clothes cops as well as a uniform. There was another plain clothes guy there, who dressed like the others, but I did not see him leave with Boks. Ed must be REALLY scared of the ADLLA.
I noticed on the handout, which had all of his recent statistics, that, as on his blog, he claimed to have established the first municipal No-Kill shelter in the United States. I talked to him about that later.
I’ve got to say, as a person I like Boks. He is charismatic and likable. I told him that. I also told him that I thought he sucked as a GM.
Anyway, he presented the long laundry list of imaginary programs that were supposed to be operational. The KNBC reporter was sleeping throughout Ed’s presentation. I didn’t sleep. Instead I read the ALL-NEW annual report that was similar to the one that he presented to Council some time ago and which was posted on the LAAS website.
However, in the brand new annual report, there was at least one change. In version #1, he stated that the percentage of animals saved was projected to decrease from 54% to 52% because of increased intakes. In version #2, now on the website, that number was changed to stating there will be an increase in save rate from 54% to 56%.
So, he edited the first report which made him look bad, and re-issued a report that made him look good. One of my questions was based on his version #1, regarding his projected poorer performance, and which was in a hand out I gave everyone.
If anyone were to check my numbers against the new version he gave reporters, it would make me look like a boob.
Mike asked a question about the STAR program. Ed pleaded ignorance saying it was a new program. Mike pointed out that Boks had stated he initiated the program 16 months ago. It appeared that Ed didn’t know anything about Star and its financing, but Mike Bell did. Linda Barth didn’t know how much money was in the fund, but Mike did. The reporter was sleeping, so I think he didn’t know or care either.
Guss questioned him on his claim that he had “rectified” the vet situation. For some reason, I don’t recall what Ed said in response, as a lot of what he says does not compute. Maybe he dodged the question.
I asked why he told Dana Bartholomew that new vets made $92,000 while the LAAS website says $80,800. His response was he “intended” to have new vets start in mid range. Since no new vet has started since he lied to Dana, it is impossible to know if any was offered $92,000.
The reporter from KNBC saw my hand-out flyer where I claimed Boks' numbers indicated crappy performance. The reporter had Ed and I stand about 6 inches apart. Ed denied my numbers were true and had stats in his hand. The reported told Boks to point out the stats and if I had anything to say about them.
Well, the stats Ed pointed out to me when we were on camera, were the new May euth stats that came out just a day before. Usually Ed presents his analysis on the 6th of the month, and pastes them on the web on the 8th or 10th or so. This time he had fresh stats from the day before. Try computing performance stats in 15 seconds in front of a camera. Boks made me look bad because I hadn’t had a chance to analyze them and the reporter then turned the camera off.
Boks made his usual spiel that No-Kill should be based on the number of animals killed per thousand people, saying NY was at 2.5 and most experts believe no-kill begins at about 5.0 per thousand. In other words, he implied he took NYC to No-Kill.
Had I been able to ask a question at that point, I would have asked how killing 18,900 animals out of 47,000 coming in could be considered no-kill.
He then totted out a new concept that I didn’t get even though he repeated it twice more.
He said, in effect, that when LA finally gets to No-Kill, all the animals in the shelter would be killed. I felt a kind of mental vertigo, a severe cognitive dissonance, trying to grasp this apparent paradox. I am sure Ed will post an explanation on his blog soon.
I think he was saying that when we get to no kill, only the unadoptable and untreatable animals would be in the shelter, and therefore killed. I really don’t know what he was saying. It is also interesting that he said in contrast, when computing his stats, he does not use the vague and arbitrary concepts of adoptable and treatable. Again, my mind spins.
Oh, the Town Hall people said they were moving the meeting downtown because they had a larger room there than at Manatt. Christ, there were only 25 or so seats there and maybe 20 people in attendance. I can’t imagine Manatt’s conference rooms were any smaller than that.
Mike and I had an incredibly hard time finding parking in the area that would not cost $18.00.
I think Manatt kicked the Boks event out of their building because, as ADL claims, the event was getting too much negative publicity and picketing by the ADL was possible, which it was not downtown.
Anyway, next time you go to a Boks event, be sure you carry a sheet with all of the recent department statistics. You might even carry Roger Maris’ or Babe Ruth’s stats and point at it. The reports won’t know the difference.
After the camera was off, I asked Boks how on earth he could possibly claim that he established the first municipal no kill shelter in the United States in 2002, when they killed 51% of their impounds that year.
Ed replied, almost under his breath, that Maricopa has three shelters, and he brought one of them to no-kill. Well, for some reason I found this funny, and a tad silly as well as being a deceptive lie. I accused him of using semantics to make himself look good. His reply to the reporter was “He is the one using distorting semantics.” Again, for some reason, I found this amusing and started laughing. I couldn’t stop. I still can’t stop.
Recently someone told me that Maricopa has two shelters and an adoption center. Therefore, Boks was referring to the adoption center as being no-kill, not either shelter.
I guess Boks can create LA's first no-kill shelter in WLA if he transfers a few animals to EV or WV.
I wonder that Winogard would say about who established to first municipal no-kill shelter with his 8% kill figure in 2002, or Carl Friedman, in San Francisco, with his 20% kill rate, and who still does not claim SF to be no-kill.
.
I went to the Town Hall meeting where Boks presented his No-Kill Schick. Security was slightly heavier than one would expect if meeting Dick Cheney.
There was a security check for IDs on the first floor, and then Mike Bell and I were referred to a security desk run by Town Hall, where we were given security badges. Then a security person pointed us to the proper elevator bank. No finger prints were taken at any point.
At the conference room on the 16th floor, we were not surprised to see two plain clothes cops as well as a uniform. There was another plain clothes guy there, who dressed like the others, but I did not see him leave with Boks. Ed must be REALLY scared of the ADLLA.
I noticed on the handout, which had all of his recent statistics, that, as on his blog, he claimed to have established the first municipal No-Kill shelter in the United States. I talked to him about that later.
I’ve got to say, as a person I like Boks. He is charismatic and likable. I told him that. I also told him that I thought he sucked as a GM.
Anyway, he presented the long laundry list of imaginary programs that were supposed to be operational. The KNBC reporter was sleeping throughout Ed’s presentation. I didn’t sleep. Instead I read the ALL-NEW annual report that was similar to the one that he presented to Council some time ago and which was posted on the LAAS website.
However, in the brand new annual report, there was at least one change. In version #1, he stated that the percentage of animals saved was projected to decrease from 54% to 52% because of increased intakes. In version #2, now on the website, that number was changed to stating there will be an increase in save rate from 54% to 56%.
So, he edited the first report which made him look bad, and re-issued a report that made him look good. One of my questions was based on his version #1, regarding his projected poorer performance, and which was in a hand out I gave everyone.
If anyone were to check my numbers against the new version he gave reporters, it would make me look like a boob.
Mike asked a question about the STAR program. Ed pleaded ignorance saying it was a new program. Mike pointed out that Boks had stated he initiated the program 16 months ago. It appeared that Ed didn’t know anything about Star and its financing, but Mike Bell did. Linda Barth didn’t know how much money was in the fund, but Mike did. The reporter was sleeping, so I think he didn’t know or care either.
Guss questioned him on his claim that he had “rectified” the vet situation. For some reason, I don’t recall what Ed said in response, as a lot of what he says does not compute. Maybe he dodged the question.
I asked why he told Dana Bartholomew that new vets made $92,000 while the LAAS website says $80,800. His response was he “intended” to have new vets start in mid range. Since no new vet has started since he lied to Dana, it is impossible to know if any was offered $92,000.
The reporter from KNBC saw my hand-out flyer where I claimed Boks' numbers indicated crappy performance. The reporter had Ed and I stand about 6 inches apart. Ed denied my numbers were true and had stats in his hand. The reported told Boks to point out the stats and if I had anything to say about them.
Well, the stats Ed pointed out to me when we were on camera, were the new May euth stats that came out just a day before. Usually Ed presents his analysis on the 6th of the month, and pastes them on the web on the 8th or 10th or so. This time he had fresh stats from the day before. Try computing performance stats in 15 seconds in front of a camera. Boks made me look bad because I hadn’t had a chance to analyze them and the reporter then turned the camera off.
Boks made his usual spiel that No-Kill should be based on the number of animals killed per thousand people, saying NY was at 2.5 and most experts believe no-kill begins at about 5.0 per thousand. In other words, he implied he took NYC to No-Kill.
Had I been able to ask a question at that point, I would have asked how killing 18,900 animals out of 47,000 coming in could be considered no-kill.
He then totted out a new concept that I didn’t get even though he repeated it twice more.
He said, in effect, that when LA finally gets to No-Kill, all the animals in the shelter would be killed. I felt a kind of mental vertigo, a severe cognitive dissonance, trying to grasp this apparent paradox. I am sure Ed will post an explanation on his blog soon.
I think he was saying that when we get to no kill, only the unadoptable and untreatable animals would be in the shelter, and therefore killed. I really don’t know what he was saying. It is also interesting that he said in contrast, when computing his stats, he does not use the vague and arbitrary concepts of adoptable and treatable. Again, my mind spins.
Oh, the Town Hall people said they were moving the meeting downtown because they had a larger room there than at Manatt. Christ, there were only 25 or so seats there and maybe 20 people in attendance. I can’t imagine Manatt’s conference rooms were any smaller than that.
Mike and I had an incredibly hard time finding parking in the area that would not cost $18.00.
I think Manatt kicked the Boks event out of their building because, as ADL claims, the event was getting too much negative publicity and picketing by the ADL was possible, which it was not downtown.
Anyway, next time you go to a Boks event, be sure you carry a sheet with all of the recent department statistics. You might even carry Roger Maris’ or Babe Ruth’s stats and point at it. The reports won’t know the difference.
After the camera was off, I asked Boks how on earth he could possibly claim that he established the first municipal no kill shelter in the United States in 2002, when they killed 51% of their impounds that year.
Ed replied, almost under his breath, that Maricopa has three shelters, and he brought one of them to no-kill. Well, for some reason I found this funny, and a tad silly as well as being a deceptive lie. I accused him of using semantics to make himself look good. His reply to the reporter was “He is the one using distorting semantics.” Again, for some reason, I found this amusing and started laughing. I couldn’t stop. I still can’t stop.
Recently someone told me that Maricopa has two shelters and an adoption center. Therefore, Boks was referring to the adoption center as being no-kill, not either shelter.
I guess Boks can create LA's first no-kill shelter in WLA if he transfers a few animals to EV or WV.
I wonder that Winogard would say about who established to first municipal no-kill shelter with his 8% kill figure in 2002, or Carl Friedman, in San Francisco, with his 20% kill rate, and who still does not claim SF to be no-kill.
.
And then there was One
.
Dr. Cristo, the invisible LAAS vet, has resigned; Rainey had resigned some time before. We are down to one vet, Dr. Steve Feldman.
I have known Dr. Feldman for some time. Formerly he was my own private vet. I had suggested many times he might look into submitting an application to work in LAAS. This was a mistake. I lost a good vet.
He was not interested for a long time. One day a few months ago he had a change of heart. He is now the Acting Chief Vet of LAAS. Of course at this point he is the only vet at LAAS.
We all tend to be rather negative about anything that happens within LAAS, but Feldman is making a difference.
He conducts frequent training seminars for the ACTs using videos available on the Internet and elsewhere, such as the on-line classes from Davis. He also creates his own Power Point presentation classes. He is outfitting the new surgery suite at East Valley.
He is updating the parasitology aspect of LAAS treatment. He has added two RVTs. He is the person who confirmed that anesthesia prior to euthanasia should be the universal protocol and is implementing the same.
As a personal aside, Dr. Feldman has euthanized two of my cats over the years. Their deaths were the least traumatic of any that I have ever been through. Two cats, Momma and Mr. Gray, appeared to almost welcome death at his hands. There was no anxiety. There was no fear. They did not even start for a moment when he administered the anesthetic while I was holding them. Their deaths were very peaceful.
He works 11 hours a day and is quite happy feeling he is making a difference in upgrading the medical function of LAAS. AND, he is the only vet.
He says LAAS is on the verge of hiring two new vets and regarding the ones who resigned, he will say nothing. We do have a chance to start over.
Dr. Feldman has over 20 years of private practice. His own specialty is behavioral medicine and rehabilitation. Take a look at his previous private practice website:
www.creaturecope.com.
.
Dr. Cristo, the invisible LAAS vet, has resigned; Rainey had resigned some time before. We are down to one vet, Dr. Steve Feldman.
I have known Dr. Feldman for some time. Formerly he was my own private vet. I had suggested many times he might look into submitting an application to work in LAAS. This was a mistake. I lost a good vet.
He was not interested for a long time. One day a few months ago he had a change of heart. He is now the Acting Chief Vet of LAAS. Of course at this point he is the only vet at LAAS.
We all tend to be rather negative about anything that happens within LAAS, but Feldman is making a difference.
He conducts frequent training seminars for the ACTs using videos available on the Internet and elsewhere, such as the on-line classes from Davis. He also creates his own Power Point presentation classes. He is outfitting the new surgery suite at East Valley.
He is updating the parasitology aspect of LAAS treatment. He has added two RVTs. He is the person who confirmed that anesthesia prior to euthanasia should be the universal protocol and is implementing the same.
As a personal aside, Dr. Feldman has euthanized two of my cats over the years. Their deaths were the least traumatic of any that I have ever been through. Two cats, Momma and Mr. Gray, appeared to almost welcome death at his hands. There was no anxiety. There was no fear. They did not even start for a moment when he administered the anesthetic while I was holding them. Their deaths were very peaceful.
He works 11 hours a day and is quite happy feeling he is making a difference in upgrading the medical function of LAAS. AND, he is the only vet.
He says LAAS is on the verge of hiring two new vets and regarding the ones who resigned, he will say nothing. We do have a chance to start over.
Dr. Feldman has over 20 years of private practice. His own specialty is behavioral medicine and rehabilitation. Take a look at his previous private practice website:
www.creaturecope.com.
.
This is a nasty situation.
The East Valley shelter just open up and they are filled to the brim. As of 3:00 p.m., they are holding 525 animals. The link below takes you to a listing of the animals available at the shelter.
http://www.ci.la.ca.us/ANI/findapet_eval.htm
Forwarded to me:
It has been open only 2 weeks and already the shelter is starting to bust at
the seams. I know everyone is packed. Now that the neighborhood sees how great the facility looks, they are dumping there animals in non stop...it is frightening.
The animals need your help. If you cannot pull, please cross post widely.
.
The East Valley shelter just open up and they are filled to the brim. As of 3:00 p.m., they are holding 525 animals. The link below takes you to a listing of the animals available at the shelter.
http://www.ci.la.ca.us/ANI/findapet_eval.htm
Forwarded to me:
It has been open only 2 weeks and already the shelter is starting to bust at
the seams. I know everyone is packed. Now that the neighborhood sees how great the facility looks, they are dumping there animals in non stop...it is frightening.
The animals need your help. If you cannot pull, please cross post widely.
.
Boks Numbers Manipulation? Part III
.
The last part of the allegation that Boks manipulated animal disposition statistics goes like this:
Boks approached Napa Dumriwat, who worked on both Chameleon and the LAAS website for administrative IT. She made all changes and updates on both programs. He asked her for the website access codes many, many times, and she refused many, many times.Napa complained to LA's main IT (information technology) person about Boks asking for the website user name and pass code. She may have complained to Dov Lesel.
It is alleged Boks also asked her for the Chameleon access name and password. When refused, Boks ordered Linda Barth to get the access and password information. What happened at this point is unknown to me even by rumor.
Why Boks wanted access is also a mystery. Could it have been to change input entries on Chameleon, or to edit past predictions and expressed info on the LAAS website?
If you belong to a service that provides change information on blogs, you’ll find that Ed edits archived posts every week. Why he is editing posts no longer visible is beyond me, except, perhaps to change predictions or modify statements he made about statistics in the past.
In summary, it is alleged that Boks manipulated the NYC Chameleon numbers to make it appear NY was doing better than it was. The whistle blower stated "they" left their jobs because of his deceptions.
There is a similar charge here, including the specific name of Napa Dumriwat, who refused Boks access to these programs. Ed then turned the task over to Linda Barth, his administrative AGM.
We know he knows the Chameleon software backwards and forwards as he was in charge of the Arizona Chameleon application rewrite program. I have found no reference for this doing a google.
Therefore, Ed has the technical knowledge of the software to change the outcomes if he wanted. He certainly has the motivation. But it is unclear if he had the opportunity to change the Chameleon disposition numbers or add or delete entries when LAAS recently added the category of "adopted to foster--or if he even ever did so.
The April statistics were posted weeks late, purportedly to add the new disposition category. It would also have allowed Ed the time—if he wanted—to delete or add hundreds of entries in Chameleon.Of course, this is all just speculation. On the other hand, knowing how Boks works, I tend to always assume the worst.
.
The last part of the allegation that Boks manipulated animal disposition statistics goes like this:
Boks approached Napa Dumriwat, who worked on both Chameleon and the LAAS website for administrative IT. She made all changes and updates on both programs. He asked her for the website access codes many, many times, and she refused many, many times.Napa complained to LA's main IT (information technology) person about Boks asking for the website user name and pass code. She may have complained to Dov Lesel.
It is alleged Boks also asked her for the Chameleon access name and password. When refused, Boks ordered Linda Barth to get the access and password information. What happened at this point is unknown to me even by rumor.
Why Boks wanted access is also a mystery. Could it have been to change input entries on Chameleon, or to edit past predictions and expressed info on the LAAS website?
If you belong to a service that provides change information on blogs, you’ll find that Ed edits archived posts every week. Why he is editing posts no longer visible is beyond me, except, perhaps to change predictions or modify statements he made about statistics in the past.
In summary, it is alleged that Boks manipulated the NYC Chameleon numbers to make it appear NY was doing better than it was. The whistle blower stated "they" left their jobs because of his deceptions.
There is a similar charge here, including the specific name of Napa Dumriwat, who refused Boks access to these programs. Ed then turned the task over to Linda Barth, his administrative AGM.
We know he knows the Chameleon software backwards and forwards as he was in charge of the Arizona Chameleon application rewrite program. I have found no reference for this doing a google.
Therefore, Ed has the technical knowledge of the software to change the outcomes if he wanted. He certainly has the motivation. But it is unclear if he had the opportunity to change the Chameleon disposition numbers or add or delete entries when LAAS recently added the category of "adopted to foster--or if he even ever did so.
The April statistics were posted weeks late, purportedly to add the new disposition category. It would also have allowed Ed the time—if he wanted—to delete or add hundreds of entries in Chameleon.Of course, this is all just speculation. On the other hand, knowing how Boks works, I tend to always assume the worst.
.
Boks Stuffs Shelters; County is Empty Because Mayeda Kills them Quicker
.
Proof Boks is stuffing the shelters:
Being held today:
LA City Dog (921) LA County (697)
LA City Cat (843) LA County (491)
LA City Other (423) LA County (40)
La City's six shelters are holding 50% more animals than the county's six shelters, even though county impounds 80% more animals.
This means Boks is holding on to the animals, which gives them a greater chance of living--this is good. But it is not helping adoptions at all.
Of course Marcia Mayeda doesn't worry about space. She considers the vast majority of cats coming in as unadoptable because of being too young, too sick or too aggressive to live. She kills all non-adoptable animals and 10% of the adoptable. She kills more animals than LAAS has impounds.
LAAS now has a policy of not accepting feral cats. They no longer rent out traps. They do not accept cats brought in by trap. I think this is wonderful news. It means fewer are killed even though it might exacerbate the overpopulation problems on the street. If LAAS and rescuers can spay/neuter more ferals, it will balance out.
In the meantime, it diminishes the worry of colony managers who are constantly harassed by homeowners and business with threats of trapping the cats and taking them to the shelter.
.
Proof Boks is stuffing the shelters:
Being held today:
LA City Dog (921) LA County (697)
LA City Cat (843) LA County (491)
LA City Other (423) LA County (40)
La City's six shelters are holding 50% more animals than the county's six shelters, even though county impounds 80% more animals.
This means Boks is holding on to the animals, which gives them a greater chance of living--this is good. But it is not helping adoptions at all.
Of course Marcia Mayeda doesn't worry about space. She considers the vast majority of cats coming in as unadoptable because of being too young, too sick or too aggressive to live. She kills all non-adoptable animals and 10% of the adoptable. She kills more animals than LAAS has impounds.
LAAS now has a policy of not accepting feral cats. They no longer rent out traps. They do not accept cats brought in by trap. I think this is wonderful news. It means fewer are killed even though it might exacerbate the overpopulation problems on the street. If LAAS and rescuers can spay/neuter more ferals, it will balance out.
In the meantime, it diminishes the worry of colony managers who are constantly harassed by homeowners and business with threats of trapping the cats and taking them to the shelter.
.
Boks' Numbers Manipulation? Part II
.
Part II Boks and Numbers
There are two issues with regard to Boks’ statistics in Phoenix, New York and LA. Neither would be illegal, but both would be deceptive.
The first allegation is that Boks just changed the Chameleon data or data categories to improve the kill/save numbers. I have no idea of how this could be done or what numbers would be changed.
There was the NY allegation that he directly changed the tracking software outcomes. Of course, this would require a thorough knowledge of Chameleon, which Ed has. He was in charge of what was called the Chameleon application rewrite" in Phoenix. What this was, I don’t know, but, if true, it means Boks is aware of all aspects of Chameleon.
The same charge was leveled against Boks here eight months ago. I challenged that allegation by saying if he were “cooking the books,” why didn’t he cook them so that he would look good? The July—October numbers were not looking good at all. Of course, I never thought then that maybe his numbers might have looked even worse.
The other issue is the save rate and semantics.
A commentor below said, “Until now no one has been looking at his raw numbers posted on the LAAS web site. But in his PR (and on his blog) he basically talks about "adoptable" animals. He's doing that now with "no adoptable animal was killed in March! We didn't kill any adoptable animals for Valentine's day event!" Obviously, they are getting sick and now they're dying in the shelter, more than ever before. They went from being adoptable, to unadoptable, to dead. At least he is better than LA County who just labels 80% as unadoptable instantly, and then kills them.
So the second charge is not that he is cooking the books, but that he is changing his definition of No-Kill to the kill definitions used by other shelters, where animals are determined to be adoptable or treatable. No kill happens when no adoptable or treatable animals are killed, even if he kills 70% of all animals that come in, like the County. These definitions are heavily dependent on protocols to determine healthy/unhealthy, treatable/untreatable, and adoptable or non-adoptable behavioral signs.
Boks is shifting from his original definition of no-kill, which was on his site and which he told everyone, that a shelter was no-kill only when the criteria used for killing were those that would be used by a compassionate owner or vet. The definition change obviously, was because his numbers were so bad, and he promised to make LA no-kill by 2008 or 2010.
Definition change of No-Kill from his original definition, to the new adoptable/treatable, allows him to say March was No-Kill even if 550 animals were killed.
He has already stated we are “so close to no-kill.” Soon, he will define no-kill as whatever LAAS is doing at the moment. He will declare victory and hopefully move on to another city, which after a month on the job, will have the fewest number of cats killed, EVER!!
This is how the County, who killed 28,000 cats, or 79%, said 90% of all adoptable cats were adopted or sent to rescue groups. Mayeda said they used standardized temperament tests for cats, even though none exist. She is a liar of the worst sort because her lies involve issues of life and death.
It seems the County is saying, if they were adopted, they were adoptable; if not, they were no adoptable. Ed appears to be following close behind. Perhaps Boks and Mayeda can call the entire city/county no-kill even while killing 75,000 animals a year. How can they live with themselves?
This is the second of a three part exposition of Boks and statistics.
.
Part II Boks and Numbers
There are two issues with regard to Boks’ statistics in Phoenix, New York and LA. Neither would be illegal, but both would be deceptive.
The first allegation is that Boks just changed the Chameleon data or data categories to improve the kill/save numbers. I have no idea of how this could be done or what numbers would be changed.
There was the NY allegation that he directly changed the tracking software outcomes. Of course, this would require a thorough knowledge of Chameleon, which Ed has. He was in charge of what was called the Chameleon application rewrite" in Phoenix. What this was, I don’t know, but, if true, it means Boks is aware of all aspects of Chameleon.
The same charge was leveled against Boks here eight months ago. I challenged that allegation by saying if he were “cooking the books,” why didn’t he cook them so that he would look good? The July—October numbers were not looking good at all. Of course, I never thought then that maybe his numbers might have looked even worse.
The other issue is the save rate and semantics.
A commentor below said, “Until now no one has been looking at his raw numbers posted on the LAAS web site. But in his PR (and on his blog) he basically talks about "adoptable" animals. He's doing that now with "no adoptable animal was killed in March! We didn't kill any adoptable animals for Valentine's day event!" Obviously, they are getting sick and now they're dying in the shelter, more than ever before. They went from being adoptable, to unadoptable, to dead. At least he is better than LA County who just labels 80% as unadoptable instantly, and then kills them.
So the second charge is not that he is cooking the books, but that he is changing his definition of No-Kill to the kill definitions used by other shelters, where animals are determined to be adoptable or treatable. No kill happens when no adoptable or treatable animals are killed, even if he kills 70% of all animals that come in, like the County. These definitions are heavily dependent on protocols to determine healthy/unhealthy, treatable/untreatable, and adoptable or non-adoptable behavioral signs.
Boks is shifting from his original definition of no-kill, which was on his site and which he told everyone, that a shelter was no-kill only when the criteria used for killing were those that would be used by a compassionate owner or vet. The definition change obviously, was because his numbers were so bad, and he promised to make LA no-kill by 2008 or 2010.
Definition change of No-Kill from his original definition, to the new adoptable/treatable, allows him to say March was No-Kill even if 550 animals were killed.
He has already stated we are “so close to no-kill.” Soon, he will define no-kill as whatever LAAS is doing at the moment. He will declare victory and hopefully move on to another city, which after a month on the job, will have the fewest number of cats killed, EVER!!
This is how the County, who killed 28,000 cats, or 79%, said 90% of all adoptable cats were adopted or sent to rescue groups. Mayeda said they used standardized temperament tests for cats, even though none exist. She is a liar of the worst sort because her lies involve issues of life and death.
It seems the County is saying, if they were adopted, they were adoptable; if not, they were no adoptable. Ed appears to be following close behind. Perhaps Boks and Mayeda can call the entire city/county no-kill even while killing 75,000 animals a year. How can they live with themselves?
This is the second of a three part exposition of Boks and statistics.
.
Boks' Numbers Manipulation? Part I
.
This email was sent to me by the ADL some time ago and forwarded to me again yesterday. I remember that, at the time, I argued that Boks certainly did not do this. Now I think a lot more may have been happening than I thought then.
For a précis of the long post below, just read the text in red.
EMAIL:
A source at NYCACC - who wishes to remain anonymous - supplied the following information on Ed Boks and how he manipulates data:
* Ed was obsessed with trying to make the data fit his story rather than trying to actually get real results. He did this by changing the way he kept and reported statistics.
* He stopped reporting owner requested euthanasia. When you change the reporting and don't tell anyone, it looks like the numbers of impounds and deaths have come down, but they haven't. And Ed never told anyone he changed the way NYCACC was reporting data.
* He kept asking us to make changes to the system and we wouldn't. We finally just left.
* He also reported only end status of animals. NYCACC has a rating system of 1 through 5 for each dog or cat who comes in. A healthy dog or cat is a "1" while a supposed unadoptable dog or cat was a rating "5." Dogs and cats with different problems can be 2, 3 or 4. We always reported status based on intake.
So, for example, if a dog came in healthy but got kennel cough because our facility was dirty or lack of care and his status changed to a 3 or a 4, when we killed that dog, we still reported him as a 1 because he was a healthy, adoptable dog and we made him or allowed him to get sick.
But Ed forced us to change that to a 3 or 4. Basically, by reporting the dog as a 3 or 4, he created the impression that the dog was always unadoptable. That way, it looked like the number of adoptable animals being saved increased, when all we were doing was reclassifying them as unadoptable and comparing apples to oranges. (By the way, kennel cough is highly treatable and should not classify a dog as unadoptable. In addition, kennel cough is non-fatal and self-delimiting, meaning that the condition will resolve without medical intervention. An animal with the condition should still be made available for adoption.)
Also, I was at a conference when Ed was at Maricopa where he said kennel cough was treatable and that he treated all those dogs. In NY, he was calling them "unadoptable."
* If Ed had kept the same reporting the way it was always reported before he got there, there would have basically been no change at all. But that didn't fit Ed's story so he just changed the way we reported things but didn't tell people. That way he could take credit for all the death rate decline of adoptable animals when that did not occur.
* Chameleon reports data based on Crystal reports. If you look at the written formulas under Marilyn (Blohm) who used to run NYCACC and Ed, you'll see that they are different.
* He also liked to report per capita euthanasia rates which actually unfairly help big cities. According to per capita rates, New York City is basically No Kill, but that isn't true.
*By manipulating the reporting and ranking systems, Ed deceptively took credit for the resultant appearance of a substantial "decline" in the death rate.
On February 25, 2007, I posted the below on my blog. I alleged that LAAS may have been guilty of 1,400 Hayden Act violations by killing that many healthy animals within the legally required 4 day hold period:
.”As George Orwell’s pig in Animal Farm stated, some animals are more equal than others. Cats get the shaft at LAAS. They are held a shorter period of time and killed earlier.”500 healthy cats were euthanized on their first day of impound as opposed to 180 healthy dogs. 450 healthy dogs were adopted that first day compared to about 220 healthy cats.”The charts below are gruesome evidence of LAAS' discrimination.These numbers do not include unweaned dogs or cats. These numbers also do not include sick or injured animals. There are separate charts and numbers for them which will be posted later.
This email was sent to me by the ADL some time ago and forwarded to me again yesterday. I remember that, at the time, I argued that Boks certainly did not do this. Now I think a lot more may have been happening than I thought then.
For a précis of the long post below, just read the text in red.
EMAIL:
A source at NYCACC - who wishes to remain anonymous - supplied the following information on Ed Boks and how he manipulates data:
* Ed was obsessed with trying to make the data fit his story rather than trying to actually get real results. He did this by changing the way he kept and reported statistics.
* He stopped reporting owner requested euthanasia. When you change the reporting and don't tell anyone, it looks like the numbers of impounds and deaths have come down, but they haven't. And Ed never told anyone he changed the way NYCACC was reporting data.
* He kept asking us to make changes to the system and we wouldn't. We finally just left.
* He also reported only end status of animals. NYCACC has a rating system of 1 through 5 for each dog or cat who comes in. A healthy dog or cat is a "1" while a supposed unadoptable dog or cat was a rating "5." Dogs and cats with different problems can be 2, 3 or 4. We always reported status based on intake.
So, for example, if a dog came in healthy but got kennel cough because our facility was dirty or lack of care and his status changed to a 3 or a 4, when we killed that dog, we still reported him as a 1 because he was a healthy, adoptable dog and we made him or allowed him to get sick.
But Ed forced us to change that to a 3 or 4. Basically, by reporting the dog as a 3 or 4, he created the impression that the dog was always unadoptable. That way, it looked like the number of adoptable animals being saved increased, when all we were doing was reclassifying them as unadoptable and comparing apples to oranges. (By the way, kennel cough is highly treatable and should not classify a dog as unadoptable. In addition, kennel cough is non-fatal and self-delimiting, meaning that the condition will resolve without medical intervention. An animal with the condition should still be made available for adoption.)
Also, I was at a conference when Ed was at Maricopa where he said kennel cough was treatable and that he treated all those dogs. In NY, he was calling them "unadoptable."
* If Ed had kept the same reporting the way it was always reported before he got there, there would have basically been no change at all. But that didn't fit Ed's story so he just changed the way we reported things but didn't tell people. That way he could take credit for all the death rate decline of adoptable animals when that did not occur.
* Chameleon reports data based on Crystal reports. If you look at the written formulas under Marilyn (Blohm) who used to run NYCACC and Ed, you'll see that they are different.
* He also liked to report per capita euthanasia rates which actually unfairly help big cities. According to per capita rates, New York City is basically No Kill, but that isn't true.
*By manipulating the reporting and ranking systems, Ed deceptively took credit for the resultant appearance of a substantial "decline" in the death rate.
On February 25, 2007, I posted the below on my blog. I alleged that LAAS may have been guilty of 1,400 Hayden Act violations by killing that many healthy animals within the legally required 4 day hold period:
.”As George Orwell’s pig in Animal Farm stated, some animals are more equal than others. Cats get the shaft at LAAS. They are held a shorter period of time and killed earlier.”500 healthy cats were euthanized on their first day of impound as opposed to 180 healthy dogs. 450 healthy dogs were adopted that first day compared to about 220 healthy cats.”The charts below are gruesome evidence of LAAS' discrimination.These numbers do not include unweaned dogs or cats. These numbers also do not include sick or injured animals. There are separate charts and numbers for them which will be posted later.
”I don't understand why 500 cats were euthanized the same day as impounded, or 180 healthy dogs for that matter.”This appears to be a clear violation of the Hayden Act, which states:”No dog or cat impounded by a public pound or specified shelter shall be killed until after a minimum of four or six days have elapsed, not including the day impounded.
These rules also apply to owner turn ins as quoted from the Act below.”The statistics provided are the department's own statistics; they are for healthy cats and dogs.”Therefore, why were they killed?”If the department deemed many of the healthy cats feral on impound, they were still required by the Hayden Act to hold them a minimum of three days and only then temperament tested to determine whether a cat is a frightened tame cat or truly feral.”Hayden Act:If an apparently feral cat has not been reclaimed by its owner or caretaker within the first three days of the required holding period, shelter personnel qualified to verify the temperament of the animal shall verify whether it is feral or tame by using a standardized protocol.If the cat is determined to be docile or a frightened or difficult tame cat, the cat shall be held for the entire required holding period specified in Section 31752. If the cat is determined to be truly feral, the cat may be euthanized or relinquished to a nonprofit.
Not only is it terribly clear that LAAS discriminates against cats, these charts present prima facie evidence of multiple (over a thousand illegal acts by LAAS.If this is true, LAAS has been in violation of the Hayden Act over one thousand, four hundred time during just the first nine months of 2006.
Now Ed Boks responded to my allegation as follows, which is #4 of his Rumor vs. Truth section of the LAAS website:
Examination of Statistical Suggestions of Alleged Hayden Act Discrepancies
On February 26, 2007, member of the public Ed Muzika raised allegations that some number of animals were healthy upon intake by the Department of Animal Services but then were euthanized prior to completion of the holding period mandated under the Hayden Act.
We further delved with Mr. Muzika over the next two days to determine the specifics or facts upon which his generalized allegations were based, eventually receiving spreadsheet information compiled by another member of the public, Brad Jensen. Mr. Jensen’s data analysis was based on statistics requested from Animal Services under a California Public Records Act request, covering the period from January 1, 2006, to October 31, 2006. Mr. Jensen’s exposition of the data has been duplicated by my staff and is accurate.
However, the data is not comprehensive of all the information about every animal, either at intake, nor information added to the kennel record as the animal is examined further after intake.
In this case, in order to make the fullest investigation, my staff replicated the basic report, which was to identify any animal that has “Apparently Healthy” noted as Condition on Intake, but which was Euthanized prior to expiration of the intake day plus four days as required under the Hayden Act.
To be fully transparent, our report covered the full 2006 calendar year, January 1 to December 31, 2006. We further sorted this data by type of Intake (i.e. Owner Surrender, Stray, and so forth) and by subtype of Euthanasia (i.e. Medical, Unweaned, and so forth).
Together, the records show 1155 animals in 2006 (809 cats and 346 dogs) which have
“Apparently Healthy” in the Condition field, but which were euthanized prior to the impound day plus four days. Further discussion of the findings from reading the full kennel records, including all memos, owner receipts, and most importantly medical treatments, follows, separately for cats and for dogs. Note that the Condition field is not being completed subsequent to any examination, but is merely the result of an immediate visual check, often done in the midst of multiple activities.
The choices for that field are:
Apparently Healthy, Dead, Injured, Litter, Pending Veterinarian, Sick, Unweaned, and Wildlife.
Apparently Healthy is the first choice on the pull-down menu. What is abundantly clear from this research is that staff members do not consider Condition to be of primary importance because other fields provide additional information (Intake type can be Unweaned, for example), and because every animal will later be checked by a Registered Veterinary Technician or a Veterinarian, who will complete a treatment form that provides actual information on the animal’s health condition. In the same vein, many of the animals on this list, upon Intake, were in cages or were unweaned, and indeed may have seemed Apparently Healthy, but simply could not be sustained.
RECORDS OF CATS
For the period of January 1, 2006, through December 1, 2006, records for 809 cats showed the Intake condition as Apparently Healthy, but were shown as Euthanized within four or less days.
Number of Cats
Selection of Apparently Healthy was done with only superficial visual check:
103 Irremediably suffering.
353 Medical condition, many due to infectious nature of illness.
But examination of the Medical Treatment form (confirmed by photo) showed sick, unweaned kitten.
----------------
The point of this incredibly long post is there are allegations that employees, upon multiple occasions, changed an inputted healthy animals' status to unadoptable due to a purported medical condition.
In Boks response to my allegations of Hayden violations, he said 456 “apparently healthy” cats were later found to be too sick to remain alive even for the 4 day Hayden hold period. I did not include the entirety of his response, but he later added that 276 “apparently healthy” dogs were reclassified as sick or suffering and therefore killed.
All of these cases apply to animals killed within the first 4 Hayden hold days, but the bar charts above show that many, many hundreds of health animals were euthanized. If we were to look at those cases, would we again find that the apparently healthy animals were no longer healthy after being examined by a RVT or vet?
That is, medical euthanasia figures would expand at the rate that euthanasia of "adoptable" animals contracted.
Is this just a huge coincidence?
It could also support the hypothesis affirmed by many, that too many healthy animals are held too long and they become sick with upper respiratory conditions, then euthanized as having a medical condition. This theory is supported by the increasing number of Died in Shelter numbers, where they died of disease or fighting without being euthanized.
Or, it could be that the data was changed just to make it look like adoptable animals were not killed, that is, the NYC accusation all over again.
More coming soon.
.
Check Out the May 16 Post
.
Take a look at the comment wars on the May 16 posting called, "Mr. Boks, Where are the April Statistics."
There is a dialogue between old school, catch and kill shelter people, and Winograd-style No-Kill proponents.
Some of the old school people were once No-Kill advocates, but then watched 'n0-kill" shelters like LAAS, where everything is done to decrease the kill numbers, but no more animals are saved than before. This means crowding, which causes disease, which allows killing for medical or temperament reasons, transfers to other municipal high-kill shelters, etc. These people got angry and have denounced the entire No-Kill movement is a fraud.
Some of these people have sent me comments that now that we have uncovered Boks' fraud, we should realize all No-Kill endeavors are fraudulent. Of course, this does not follow logically. You cannot condemn all No-Kill efforts because they are run by shelter directors like Ed Boks who is doing everything to lower numbers, but saving even fewer according to his annual report predictions.
We do, however, ned to look closely at the statistics coming out of apparent No-Kill successes.
In any event, this dialogue is going on in comment section of the May 16 post. One of the dialoguers may be Nathan himself.
I would post these as a dialogue post on temperament testing, but right now we are on the verge of blockbuster revelation, concerning which I can say nothing now.
.
Take a look at the comment wars on the May 16 posting called, "Mr. Boks, Where are the April Statistics."
There is a dialogue between old school, catch and kill shelter people, and Winograd-style No-Kill proponents.
Some of the old school people were once No-Kill advocates, but then watched 'n0-kill" shelters like LAAS, where everything is done to decrease the kill numbers, but no more animals are saved than before. This means crowding, which causes disease, which allows killing for medical or temperament reasons, transfers to other municipal high-kill shelters, etc. These people got angry and have denounced the entire No-Kill movement is a fraud.
Some of these people have sent me comments that now that we have uncovered Boks' fraud, we should realize all No-Kill endeavors are fraudulent. Of course, this does not follow logically. You cannot condemn all No-Kill efforts because they are run by shelter directors like Ed Boks who is doing everything to lower numbers, but saving even fewer according to his annual report predictions.
We do, however, ned to look closely at the statistics coming out of apparent No-Kill successes.
In any event, this dialogue is going on in comment section of the May 16 post. One of the dialoguers may be Nathan himself.
I would post these as a dialogue post on temperament testing, but right now we are on the verge of blockbuster revelation, concerning which I can say nothing now.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)