.
It may have been an auspicious sign when Fujioka hired Dijkstra to be the new Chied Deputy of County Animal Services. Will Mayeda be going soon?
It also demonstrates three things: 1. Villaraigosa is a bigger jerk than the Supervisors when it comes to getting rid of a non-performing Gneral Manager; 2. It helps to sue the City/County to get actions; 3. Winograd can really help when it comes to getting rid of a malfunctioning head.
From the Daily News today:
By Troy Anderson, Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 08/05/2008 06:02:45 AM PDT
Los Angeles County officials are investigating allegations that the county's animal-care director obstructed justice by instructing some employees to delete e-mails during an audit by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, county Chief Executive Officer Bill Fujioka said Monday.
Fujioka said he asked the County Counsel's Office to review the allegations after meeting recently with an animal-rights activist who blogs about alleged abuses of animals at county shelters.
Blog operator Ryan Olshan produced an e-mail dated Oct. 4, 2007, and purportedly written by Department of Animal Care & Control Director Marcia Mayeda, Fujioka said.
The e-mail instructs four employees to delete e-mails while the county was under investigation for not complying with euthanasia recordkeeping practices.
"The e-mail appears to be accurate," Fujioka said. "Right now, we have asked the County Counsel's Office to investigate the matter and to let me know if it constitutes any violation of the law. We are hoping to have a response from the County Counsel's Office within the next week."
The e-mail, provided to the Daily News by Olshan, appears to have been sent by Mayeda and says: "... I agree that everyone did an outstanding job on this matter! However, we do not need a paper trail on this. Everyone, please delete these emails from your computers and empty the trash files. Thanks!"
Mayeda said Monday that she could not comment until the County Counsel's Office completes its review.
DEA spokeswoman Sarah Pullen said federal investigators conducted a regulatory audit of Mayeda's agency and found that it was basically in compliance.
But Pullen said the DEA was not aware of allegations that Mayeda had allegedly ordered e-mails deleted in connection with the audit.
"Typically, during a routine audit, we won't look at e-mails being deleted," Pullen said. "If there is something else going on that may warrant a different investigation, we'd have to look at a variety of factors.
"If it looks like something criminal was going on, that would require a different type of investigation."
But court documents in one of three lawsuits against the county over alleged abusive treatment of animals at the shelters raise questions about whether the department tampered with records in last year's death of a 10-month-old puppy at the Carson animal shelter.
The documents also allege that Mayeda ordered e-mails to be deleted.
"For example, plaintiffs are aware of at least one October 2007 email from Marcia Mayeda to Josie Zabala, among others, in which Ms. Mayeda specifically directs Dr. Zabala and other DACC employees copied on the email to delete emails from their computers and empty the trash files," attorney Melissa Bonfiglio wrote in the March 26 court document.
In an April 18 court document, fellow attorney Orly Degani wrote that the DEA was investigating the department's improper use of euthanasia drugs.
The firm filed the lawsuit in December on behalf of the national No Kill Advocacy Center, alleging unlawful and abusive treatment of thousands of dogs and cats at the county's six shelters.
The lawsuit also alleges that the county misclassified animals as "ill" or "injured" to kill them before the holding period ended and killed lost animals without making reasonable attempts to find the animals' owners.
Among the other allegations: The county is improperly killing animals before the mandated holding period has expired; failing to provide adequate veterinary care to the animals as required by law; failing to scan animals for microchips so owners can be given an opportunity to go to the shelter and pick up their animal; and not providing adequate care to the animals in the sense of having clean water, keeping them in comfortable temperatures, making sure their kennels are clean and that they are properly cared for while impounded.
County Counsel Ray Fortner did not return calls for comment.
The lawsuit followed protests over 2007's puppy death in which the animal reportedly had frozen.
The county Board of Supervisors ordered an investigation and in February, Fujioka and Mayeda wrote that the puppy had became ill with a respiratory infection, missed a couple of doses of antibiotics during a "temporary veterinary medical staffing shortage" and later died.
Mayeda said the Board of Supervisors has allocated more than $20 million in the past two years to modernize shelter facilities and hire more veterinarians, nurses and staff.
Mayeda said the department operates the largest animal-care and -control operation in the nation, taking in nearly 90,000 animals a year at shelters in Agoura Hills, Lancaster, Castaic, Carson, Downey and Baldwin Park.
Mayeda said the county works with more than 100 animal-rescue organizations and many individuals who are passionate about saving animals.
"I've spent my whole life working with animals," Mayeda said. "My bachelor's degree is in animal science and my master's degree is in nonprofit administration. I've pretty much dedicated my whole life to this work. I think some people, in their heart, are very sad about the status of animals in society, which I understand and agree with.
"But they don't have the benefit of having worked in an animal shelter and seeing the hardworking people doing their very best with very limited resources to make as many improvements as they can."
-----------------------------------------
We all know that Boks could throw a rattlesnake into Chick's car and the Mayor would applaud and give Boks another honor.
Mr. Boks, there is still the outstanding Request for Public Records about the alleged cover up and corruption in your own department, involving an LAAS employee and Pierce College.
I wonder if Anderson would be interested in that story?
.
San Francisco Chronicle Goes Fascist; Urges War on Animal Radicals
.
I thought SF was still the left-leaning, animal loving, hippy city it was when I lived there, but today' editorial in the SF Chronicle leads me to believe that psychologically they are in the same boat mentally as Cleveland or Oklahoma City.
Get this, they are for declaring war on the animal rights terrorists who are disrupting scientific research that helps everyone, and further stomp on our First Amendment and Fourth (I think) rights to free speech and privacy.
The Editorial:
For all the national chatter that persists about international terrorists striking the United States, this weekend's firebombings in Santa Cruz offered us a frightening reminder that our greatest dangers may be right here at home.
The perennial nature of these attacks on scientists who conduct animal experiments, and the increasing sophistication of the devices being used to attack them, speak to catastrophes in the making. But where is the outrage, and where are the wars to protect scientists like Feldheim?
We're not talking about real, actual wars - we've got enough of those already. But Feldheim was right to say that the citizens of Santa Cruz and the city's elected officials need to "step up" and condemn this sort of violence. We would expand the scope to say that all citizens and elected officials need to be emphatic in saying that this is unacceptable and step up their willingness to defend scientists struggling to do their research.
For example, why didn't the Santa Cruz coffee shop remove the threatening animal-rights pamphlet that listed the names and addresses of 13 researchers - and call the police? Why can't Internet service providers threaten those who post threats, bomb recipes, and information about animal researchers with cessation of their services - and then follow through with that threat? And where are the moderate voices in the animal-rights community, when they're needed to straighten out someone like Dr. Jerry Vlasak of the Animal Liberation Front, who didn't claim responsibility for the attacks but called them "necessary?"
If these seem like drastic maneuvers, think again: This country has taken far more invasive steps in its "war on terror," with less productive ends and far less justifiable means. Here what's at stake is the ability of scientists to do their jobs - and the ability of the rest of us to benefit from their work.
Quietly, for many years now scientists have been abandoning their research in response to threats and bombs. These kinds of attacks place public health at risk in every way imaginable. The sooner we take steps to protect our scientists, the sooner we'll realize we're also protecting ourselves.
Commentary:
Notice how the editor claims a Molotov Cocktail is an "increasingly sophisticated device." A Molotov Cocktail is a glass bottle filled with gasoline wrapped in a burning rag. Hmmm. Maybe that is sophisticated for someone in Cleveland.
It is also very interesting to note--and I don't know how true it is--that "scientists" have been abandoning research in response to threats and bombings. Notice the editorial makes no mention of what kind of scientists these are they want to protect, or what their research entails.
.
I thought SF was still the left-leaning, animal loving, hippy city it was when I lived there, but today' editorial in the SF Chronicle leads me to believe that psychologically they are in the same boat mentally as Cleveland or Oklahoma City.
Get this, they are for declaring war on the animal rights terrorists who are disrupting scientific research that helps everyone, and further stomp on our First Amendment and Fourth (I think) rights to free speech and privacy.
The Editorial:
For all the national chatter that persists about international terrorists striking the United States, this weekend's firebombings in Santa Cruz offered us a frightening reminder that our greatest dangers may be right here at home.
The perennial nature of these attacks on scientists who conduct animal experiments, and the increasing sophistication of the devices being used to attack them, speak to catastrophes in the making. But where is the outrage, and where are the wars to protect scientists like Feldheim?
We're not talking about real, actual wars - we've got enough of those already. But Feldheim was right to say that the citizens of Santa Cruz and the city's elected officials need to "step up" and condemn this sort of violence. We would expand the scope to say that all citizens and elected officials need to be emphatic in saying that this is unacceptable and step up their willingness to defend scientists struggling to do their research.
For example, why didn't the Santa Cruz coffee shop remove the threatening animal-rights pamphlet that listed the names and addresses of 13 researchers - and call the police? Why can't Internet service providers threaten those who post threats, bomb recipes, and information about animal researchers with cessation of their services - and then follow through with that threat? And where are the moderate voices in the animal-rights community, when they're needed to straighten out someone like Dr. Jerry Vlasak of the Animal Liberation Front, who didn't claim responsibility for the attacks but called them "necessary?"
If these seem like drastic maneuvers, think again: This country has taken far more invasive steps in its "war on terror," with less productive ends and far less justifiable means. Here what's at stake is the ability of scientists to do their jobs - and the ability of the rest of us to benefit from their work.
Quietly, for many years now scientists have been abandoning their research in response to threats and bombs. These kinds of attacks place public health at risk in every way imaginable. The sooner we take steps to protect our scientists, the sooner we'll realize we're also protecting ourselves.
Commentary:
Notice how the editor claims a Molotov Cocktail is an "increasingly sophisticated device." A Molotov Cocktail is a glass bottle filled with gasoline wrapped in a burning rag. Hmmm. Maybe that is sophisticated for someone in Cleveland.
It is also very interesting to note--and I don't know how true it is--that "scientists" have been abandoning research in response to threats and bombings. Notice the editorial makes no mention of what kind of scientists these are they want to protect, or what their research entails.
.
Vegetarian Running in Congressional 27th
.
I recently met Navraj Singh who is running for Congress against Democrat Brad Sherman.
Singh is a Republican, all of whom I tend to consider as bad as Villaraigosa at heart. Can you imagine anyone running as a Republican this year?
In any event, Singh--a Sikh--has owned and operated strings of restaurants, usually Indian restaurants for 35 years, which, of course makes him as incompetent as any to lead this nation's government, just as Tony leads LA's corrupt government.
Anyway, Singh is a vegetarian, 2 oz of milk in his tea each day away from being Vegan. He said anything that hurts animals he'll strongly oppose and anythings that helps animals he will strongly support.
Unfortunately, he supports increased oil drilling but also supports increased immigration. He is from India of course. He wants national universal health care, but naturally through the insurance companies backed by government. He is a Republican, what do you expect?
He says he will not accept money from any special interest group and will donate his entire salary to veteran groups. He won't accept Congressional health care for himself, nor any pension.
He is for the usual Republican stuff of reducing "Wasteful government spending" which usually means cutting social service programs, but at the same time supports increased care for the elderly. So, is he a Republican or Democrat? You ask him.
He has two dogs, which is 200% better than Obama.
Anyway, I have no doubt he would be tough on any laws that increase meat eating, killing animals, vivisection, killing off herds of wild horses, and maybe sponsor a national No-Kill effort.
I'll call him about that. He gave me his cell number.
Singh's website:
http://www.singhforcongress2008.com/
Looking at his website he appears to be a typical Republican in many ways, and not in a few. No taxes on Social Security income, yet drill the crap out of Alaska. Go figure. I would never, ever vote for him if he were not vegetarian and pro animal.
.
I recently met Navraj Singh who is running for Congress against Democrat Brad Sherman.
Singh is a Republican, all of whom I tend to consider as bad as Villaraigosa at heart. Can you imagine anyone running as a Republican this year?
In any event, Singh--a Sikh--has owned and operated strings of restaurants, usually Indian restaurants for 35 years, which, of course makes him as incompetent as any to lead this nation's government, just as Tony leads LA's corrupt government.
Anyway, Singh is a vegetarian, 2 oz of milk in his tea each day away from being Vegan. He said anything that hurts animals he'll strongly oppose and anythings that helps animals he will strongly support.
Unfortunately, he supports increased oil drilling but also supports increased immigration. He is from India of course. He wants national universal health care, but naturally through the insurance companies backed by government. He is a Republican, what do you expect?
He says he will not accept money from any special interest group and will donate his entire salary to veteran groups. He won't accept Congressional health care for himself, nor any pension.
He is for the usual Republican stuff of reducing "Wasteful government spending" which usually means cutting social service programs, but at the same time supports increased care for the elderly. So, is he a Republican or Democrat? You ask him.
He has two dogs, which is 200% better than Obama.
Anyway, I have no doubt he would be tough on any laws that increase meat eating, killing animals, vivisection, killing off herds of wild horses, and maybe sponsor a national No-Kill effort.
I'll call him about that. He gave me his cell number.
Singh's website:
http://www.singhforcongress2008.com/
Looking at his website he appears to be a typical Republican in many ways, and not in a few. No taxes on Social Security income, yet drill the crap out of Alaska. Go figure. I would never, ever vote for him if he were not vegetarian and pro animal.
.
Another Commissioner With No Animal Experience Named as President of the Commission
.
Glen Brown, a Blackman appointee, who I heard took the position on the Animal Services Board so that he could get investigative contracts with the City and also whose wife allegedly works for the City, is now president of the Commission. God help us all.
Naturally, as a Blackman/Villaraigosa appointee, he has no animal experience whatsoever.
I understand that ever since he realized he could not get a contract with the City until he left the Commission, he has been doing everything possible to get away. I guess kicking him up a rung is supposed to get him to stick around.
Boks had nothing but praise for him, mentioning all of Brown's PI and security background experience, but ZIP about any animal related experience or interest--because he doesn't have any. Maybe he wants Brown to investigate ADL for free.
This guy is no hope or advocate for the animals, but purely a political appointee without a clue.
When does the stupidity and corruption of Villaraigosa's administration end? We thought Hahn was bad news, who thought Villaraigosa would be worse?
Here is Boks announcement of Brown's elevation to head puppet:
http://www.laanimalservices.com/PDF/pressrelease/2008/Press%20Release%20-%20PresidentBrown.pdf
.
Glen Brown, a Blackman appointee, who I heard took the position on the Animal Services Board so that he could get investigative contracts with the City and also whose wife allegedly works for the City, is now president of the Commission. God help us all.
Naturally, as a Blackman/Villaraigosa appointee, he has no animal experience whatsoever.
I understand that ever since he realized he could not get a contract with the City until he left the Commission, he has been doing everything possible to get away. I guess kicking him up a rung is supposed to get him to stick around.
Boks had nothing but praise for him, mentioning all of Brown's PI and security background experience, but ZIP about any animal related experience or interest--because he doesn't have any. Maybe he wants Brown to investigate ADL for free.
This guy is no hope or advocate for the animals, but purely a political appointee without a clue.
When does the stupidity and corruption of Villaraigosa's administration end? We thought Hahn was bad news, who thought Villaraigosa would be worse?
Here is Boks announcement of Brown's elevation to head puppet:
http://www.laanimalservices.com/PDF/pressrelease/2008/Press%20Release%20-%20PresidentBrown.pdf
.
Complaints Against LAAS Are Down
.
Ed Boks told the Commission at the June 30 meeting that complaints about LAAS are down.
Why?
Ed Boks now is the one who handles all complaints.
.
Ed Boks told the Commission at the June 30 meeting that complaints about LAAS are down.
Why?
Ed Boks now is the one who handles all complaints.
.
Mayeda Gets New AGM
.
The County shelter system has been mismanaged by Mayeda for seven years. The Supervisors in their infinite wisdom, have decided she needs help getting the department to operate at even 30% efficiency, so they have sent in a heavyweight, CEO-type from County Administration to be her own administrative Linda Barth equivalent.
As the announcement is stated, it sounds like this guy will be doing all of Mayeda's work including shelter services. What work is there for poor Marcia to do? PR?
This was sent by Fujioka to the Supervisors:
DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL TO APPOINT DAVID DlJKSTRA TO THE POSITION Of CHIEF DEPUTY DIRECTOR. ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL
We would like to inform you of the appointment of David Dijkstra to the position of Chief Deputy Director for the Department of Animal Care and Control, effective August 1. 2008. Mr. Dijkstra will be placed within the R14 range and with a 5 percent increase over his current base salary of $135.103.92.
Mr. Dijkstra is highly qualified with 25 years of various public sector experience, which includes over 20 years of experience with Los Angeles County, the last 11 years in the Chief Executive
Office. Mr. Dijkstra has been performing in his current position as Manager, Chief Executive Office since 2003. He Is currently in the Office of legislation, Intergovernmental Affairs and External Relations, and previously worked in the Office of Budget and Operations Management and Unincorporated Area Services and Special Projects.
As the Chief Deputy Director for the Department of Animal Care and Control, Mr. Dijkstra will be responsible for managing through subordinate staff the Department's operation and
administrative functions of Human Resources, Budget and Fiscal, Contracts. Information Technology, Licensing, Outreach and Enforcement and Shelter Services. The placement of Mr. Dijkstra within the control point of this R14 position is consistent with the level of experience and knowledge that he brings to this position.
Like Linda, Dijkstra has no shelter or other animal-related experience. Shades of Guerdon Stuckey.
.
The County shelter system has been mismanaged by Mayeda for seven years. The Supervisors in their infinite wisdom, have decided she needs help getting the department to operate at even 30% efficiency, so they have sent in a heavyweight, CEO-type from County Administration to be her own administrative Linda Barth equivalent.
As the announcement is stated, it sounds like this guy will be doing all of Mayeda's work including shelter services. What work is there for poor Marcia to do? PR?
This was sent by Fujioka to the Supervisors:
DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL TO APPOINT DAVID DlJKSTRA TO THE POSITION Of CHIEF DEPUTY DIRECTOR. ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL
We would like to inform you of the appointment of David Dijkstra to the position of Chief Deputy Director for the Department of Animal Care and Control, effective August 1. 2008. Mr. Dijkstra will be placed within the R14 range and with a 5 percent increase over his current base salary of $135.103.92.
Mr. Dijkstra is highly qualified with 25 years of various public sector experience, which includes over 20 years of experience with Los Angeles County, the last 11 years in the Chief Executive
Office. Mr. Dijkstra has been performing in his current position as Manager, Chief Executive Office since 2003. He Is currently in the Office of legislation, Intergovernmental Affairs and External Relations, and previously worked in the Office of Budget and Operations Management and Unincorporated Area Services and Special Projects.
As the Chief Deputy Director for the Department of Animal Care and Control, Mr. Dijkstra will be responsible for managing through subordinate staff the Department's operation and
administrative functions of Human Resources, Budget and Fiscal, Contracts. Information Technology, Licensing, Outreach and Enforcement and Shelter Services. The placement of Mr. Dijkstra within the control point of this R14 position is consistent with the level of experience and knowledge that he brings to this position.
Like Linda, Dijkstra has no shelter or other animal-related experience. Shades of Guerdon Stuckey.
.
Sent to Me by ADL--You'll Love This
.
Heart warming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adYbFQFXG0U
The long form of this video was just posted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhzCk6TLXTw&watch_response
.
Heart warming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adYbFQFXG0U
The long form of this video was just posted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhzCk6TLXTw&watch_response
.
Carolina Biological Imports Live Cats for Killing
.
March 14, 2005
From Montgomery Blair High School’s on line newspaper:
Dan James, vice president of business development at Carolina Biological Supply Company, which provides Blair with cats, says that efforts to stop dissection would not mean more cats are saved. "We get the cats from animal shelters in Mexico, already dead or the ones that they are going to put to sleep," says James. "It's not like any fewer animals are going to be killed if we stopped providing cats."
http://silverchips.mbhs.edu/inside.php?sid=5085
.
Carolina spokesperson Keither Barker lied to me last July 10 when he said all cat cadavers sold by Carolina Biological were received already euthanized approved animal shelters. He specifically denied they were received alive from Mexico or elsewhere and killed at Carolina Facilities for dissection.
March 14, 2005
From Montgomery Blair High School’s on line newspaper:
Dan James, vice president of business development at Carolina Biological Supply Company, which provides Blair with cats, says that efforts to stop dissection would not mean more cats are saved. "We get the cats from animal shelters in Mexico, already dead or the ones that they are going to put to sleep," says James. "It's not like any fewer animals are going to be killed if we stopped providing cats."
http://silverchips.mbhs.edu/inside.php?sid=5085
.
Carolina spokesperson Keither Barker lied to me last July 10 when he said all cat cadavers sold by Carolina Biological were received already euthanized approved animal shelters. He specifically denied they were received alive from Mexico or elsewhere and killed at Carolina Facilities for dissection.
No Answer From Pierce or Boks
.
On July 20 I submitted request for public records to Pierce and Boks regarding the Dancy case and investigation.
I have heard nothing from either party.
This is interesting. Why are they stonewalling.
I have Ed Boks complete mailing list containing numerous staff and all Council members. I also have a large list of Pierce faculty and staff.
If these two parties do not respond within a few more days, over 100 people are going to get emails about what looks like a cover up of campus/LAAS corruption.
.
On July 20 I submitted request for public records to Pierce and Boks regarding the Dancy case and investigation.
I have heard nothing from either party.
This is interesting. Why are they stonewalling.
I have Ed Boks complete mailing list containing numerous staff and all Council members. I also have a large list of Pierce faculty and staff.
If these two parties do not respond within a few more days, over 100 people are going to get emails about what looks like a cover up of campus/LAAS corruption.
.
THE TOTAL MASON CASE
Many have asked me for an overview of the Mason case. I provided such for a long time. But the inquiries keep coming. I now refer everyone to my blog which may have 80 or more entries about the Mason case.
Below are some of the key links to read.
The first several are just the initial posts about Mason and the raid and you need to start here to get a feel for the case. Later on, more and more information began to come out, such as Mason’s private vet before the raid was Cynthia Hockman, who apparently turned Mason in, because she became a Boks’ employee 2-3 weeks after the bust. Also, Ron was not provided the required post seizure hearing about the whereabouts of his cats. Later it was disclosed that the whole bust may have been related to an upcoming contract with Animal Planet to film the Animal Cruelty Task Force in action—the same ones that raided Mason, which produced the videotape we think was an audition tape. Then too, all the Mason evidence was “lost,” as the cover up began.
One of the key pieces of evidence in this case is the Video shot by City TV35 which shows the kind of person Mason is even when in handcuffs—a gentleman—vs. the uniformed “thugs” and Lt. Ortega’s and Social Worker’s psychobabble.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_kJ9nGiVis
.
Daily News Article:
.
.
Daily News Photo Slideshow:
.
.
The most important posts are below. This is about 1/4 of the total.
.
The most important posts are below. This is about 1/4 of the total.
.
.
Boks original response to criticism of the ACTF raid:
.
.
.
.
.
Pierce Coverup; Animal Neglect Now Underground
.
Rather than righting things at Pierce, after the alleged cover up of the Dancy cow business at Pierce, and the mouse and other lab killings at Pierce, faculty changed their policies.
New policies:
1. No cameras or tape recorders can be brought into any classes with animals--none!!
2. No students are allowed unaccompanied to see the farm animals, unless they are paid employees taking care of the animals.
3. If a student wants to see an animal, he can only do so if accompanied by a department faculty or staffer. However, in no case will cameras be allowed.
4. The sheep facility is closed to the public and cows are usually huddled in the middle of a pasture at least 100 yards from any access.
I wonder how one can get to see the animals and if they are being taken care of? Maybe I should ask Dick South if I can visit. Click image below to enlarge.
Notice how the Sheriff's campus detail is set to deal with students with cameras or even the public now. Security?
.
Dick South says anyone can contact him about the reasons for going underground. Why don't you contact him and Dean Rupert.
southrw@piercecollege.edu, rupertdw@piercecollege.edu
Rather than righting things at Pierce, after the alleged cover up of the Dancy cow business at Pierce, and the mouse and other lab killings at Pierce, faculty changed their policies.
New policies:
1. No cameras or tape recorders can be brought into any classes with animals--none!!
2. No students are allowed unaccompanied to see the farm animals, unless they are paid employees taking care of the animals.
3. If a student wants to see an animal, he can only do so if accompanied by a department faculty or staffer. However, in no case will cameras be allowed.
4. The sheep facility is closed to the public and cows are usually huddled in the middle of a pasture at least 100 yards from any access.
I wonder how one can get to see the animals and if they are being taken care of? Maybe I should ask Dick South if I can visit. Click image below to enlarge.
Notice how the Sheriff's campus detail is set to deal with students with cameras or even the public now. Security?
.
Dick South says anyone can contact him about the reasons for going underground. Why don't you contact him and Dean Rupert.
southrw@piercecollege.edu, rupertdw@piercecollege.edu
More About HSUS
.
HSUS's own financial accounting:
The HSUS by the Numbers (2007 Year-End Totals)
Here are two links (part one and part two) for their 2007 Annual report:
MEMBERS
10,571,955 Members and Constituents
1,020,000 HSUS Online Community Members
134,532 Humane Society International Online Members
438 Staff
FINANCES
$120,552,973 2007 Revenues
$112,827,228 2007 Expenses
$5,472,000 Amount Raised through Online Donations
OUTREACH
2,400,000 Advocacy Actions by Online Members
14,201 Attendance at HSUS Training Courses and Workshops
$6,801,762 Grants to Animal Care Partner Programs
438 Grant Awardees
275 HSUS Action in Cruelty Cases
15 Completed Covert Investigations
24,078 Animals Receiving Direct Care from The HSUS
27,973 Media Hits
4,900,000 Unique Visits to humanesociety.org
165 Videos Produced
1,336,000 Video Viewings on humanesociety.org
.
HSUS's own financial accounting:
The HSUS by the Numbers (2007 Year-End Totals)
Here are two links (part one and part two) for their 2007 Annual report:
10,571,955 Members and Constituents
1,020,000 HSUS Online Community Members
134,532 Humane Society International Online Members
438 Staff
FINANCES
$120,552,973 2007 Revenues
$112,827,228 2007 Expenses
$5,472,000 Amount Raised through Online Donations
OUTREACH
2,400,000 Advocacy Actions by Online Members
14,201 Attendance at HSUS Training Courses and Workshops
$6,801,762 Grants to Animal Care Partner Programs
438 Grant Awardees
275 HSUS Action in Cruelty Cases
15 Completed Covert Investigations
24,078 Animals Receiving Direct Care from The HSUS
27,973 Media Hits
4,900,000 Unique Visits to humanesociety.org
165 Videos Produced
1,336,000 Video Viewings on humanesociety.org
.
Nathan Goes After Pacelle Again
.
Carla Hall made it very clear that HSUS's Wayne Pacelle is a very political animal. She also made it clear he just tolerates animals. In fact, she also mentions that Wayne told her he just fell into animal work when he found out he could make a living at it.
This epiphany is exactly what led Boks into getting into animal shelter work: I can make a living in animal work.
I talked to Bob Hoover, president to the company that makes Chameleon software, about two years ago after Katrina. Bob had been there helping in some capacity.
He told me that HSUS was diverting a lot of the money given to them to rescue animals into organizing animal rescue and welfare groups across the country into a nationwide congress for social change. Sounds good, doesn't it.
However, recently one person has been feeding me a lot of info about HSUS and the phony methods they have for fundraising and then diverting that money away from rescue into organization building a political movement.
Here is one of many posts sent me:
Look at these figures!! $2 MILLION. $1.35 MILLION.
All those small individual contributions that roll in from John Q Public who "think" that the Humane Society of the United States is affiliated with their local shelters. Here is just one instance of $3.35 MILLION that has been "donated" to just one of the issues getting pushed by HSUS.
Tens of thousands of individuals that do not understand the goals of HSUS and their political warchest. HSUS uses "stock" photos of dogs and cats in their fundraising materials. They rush in following fires and floods to get those million-dollar photo opportunities that will generate more $$$ for them in the future.
HSUS is the wealthiest animal rights organization in the world. There is nothing "humane" about them. Whereas most local animal shelters are either financial struggling or under-funded, the HSUS is sitting fat and happy in the nation's Capitol.
In my next email, I will send "HSUS by the Numbers." It is an account of their 2007 Annual Review. They had 15 completed "covert" investigations and paid out less than SIX PERCENT (6%) in grant monies to Animal Care Partner Programs. Additionally, only 24,078 animals received direct care in 2007. But, hey, they did manage to produce 165 videos.
In addtion, Nathan posted another Pacelle hitpiece today on his blog:
Wayne Pacelle in a photo op with a dog belonging to someone else.
In an earlier blog, I discussed how Wayne Pacelle, the head of the Humane Society of the United States, is supposed to be a champion for the “winged” and the “furry,” but is, in many ways, an apologist for their killing. The question, of course, is why is that so? Why does he fail to embrace No Kill and to promote it as the head of the nation’s largest and most influential animal protection organization should? Why does he continue to pretend in statements to the media that No Kill communities do not exist and that the formula for ending the killing has not been discovered? Why does he allow HSUS representatives nationwide to misrepresent and deride No Kill and its supporters and to defend shelters with a poor record for lifesaving?
Time and time again, the positions he has taken regarding companion animals have vexed those of us who have dedicated ourselves to saving the lives of animals. But perhaps there is a simple, logical explanation. Perhaps Wayne Pacelle behaves as though he doesn’t care about animals because, by his own actions and admissions, he doesn’t.
When he was with the Fund For Animals, Pacelle was quoted as saying:
I don't have a hands-on fondness for animals. To this day I don't feel bonded to any non-human animal.
Admittedly, that was over a decade ago. But in this month’s Los Angeles Times feature, the reporter writes:
For years, Pacelle did not even have a pet. But when [his girlfriend] moved in with him, she brought along her cat, Libby."
He's interesting with animals… He doesn't want to bother them or invade their space. He's like 'Hello, Libby.'“ She imitated a formal, masculine voice, then laughed. “I just want to swoop her up and bury my head in her fur. He just lets her be. So, of course, she just crawls on the counters and he lets her crawl up and sit on his chest. If he needs to work, he'll ask me to remove her."
Despite the facile attempt to spin this into a positive, for those of us who have deep and meaningful relationships with animals, this description is disturbing. He doesn’t share his life with animals. He doesn’t feel compelled to rescue one from death row at any of the shelters he defends or promotes at his conferences. In fact, he has no real relationship with even his girlfriend’s cat who now lives in his home.
Don’t the five million animals facing certain and yet unnecessary deaths in our nation’s regressive shelters and pounds deserve to have a dedicated, passionate animal lover who is motivated by those very qualities overseeing the organization that has the greatest potential to bring that national tragedy to a speedy and final end?
Don’t donors to HSUS, who send that organization their hard earned dollars to the tune of over $100 million a year under the belief that their donations are going to be used to save animals, deserve to have an earnest individual who shares their values towards animals making decisions about how that organization's influence and capital can best be expended to further that cause?
In other words, shouldn’t a love for animals be a qualification for running HSUS since right now, it doesn’t appear to be? Is it any surprise then that HSUS under Pacelle continues to champion shelter policies which reflect a lack of caring for animals?
Perhaps he is thus unable to advocate for a nobler and just future for companion animals because he does not know what that future should look like. And he doesn’t know because he does not hurt at the thought of all the beings needlessly put to death. He fails to find it abhorrent. And he can’t even call it for what it is: a slaughter—something he has said is a “lamentable” choice of words when others have used it, because in his view, it is nothing more than “humane euthanasia.”
.
Carla Hall made it very clear that HSUS's Wayne Pacelle is a very political animal. She also made it clear he just tolerates animals. In fact, she also mentions that Wayne told her he just fell into animal work when he found out he could make a living at it.
This epiphany is exactly what led Boks into getting into animal shelter work: I can make a living in animal work.
I talked to Bob Hoover, president to the company that makes Chameleon software, about two years ago after Katrina. Bob had been there helping in some capacity.
He told me that HSUS was diverting a lot of the money given to them to rescue animals into organizing animal rescue and welfare groups across the country into a nationwide congress for social change. Sounds good, doesn't it.
However, recently one person has been feeding me a lot of info about HSUS and the phony methods they have for fundraising and then diverting that money away from rescue into organization building a political movement.
Here is one of many posts sent me:
Look at these figures!! $2 MILLION. $1.35 MILLION.
All those small individual contributions that roll in from John Q Public who "think" that the Humane Society of the United States is affiliated with their local shelters. Here is just one instance of $3.35 MILLION that has been "donated" to just one of the issues getting pushed by HSUS.
Tens of thousands of individuals that do not understand the goals of HSUS and their political warchest. HSUS uses "stock" photos of dogs and cats in their fundraising materials. They rush in following fires and floods to get those million-dollar photo opportunities that will generate more $$$ for them in the future.
HSUS is the wealthiest animal rights organization in the world. There is nothing "humane" about them. Whereas most local animal shelters are either financial struggling or under-funded, the HSUS is sitting fat and happy in the nation's Capitol.
In my next email, I will send "HSUS by the Numbers." It is an account of their 2007 Annual Review. They had 15 completed "covert" investigations and paid out less than SIX PERCENT (6%) in grant monies to Animal Care Partner Programs. Additionally, only 24,078 animals received direct care in 2007. But, hey, they did manage to produce 165 videos.
In addtion, Nathan posted another Pacelle hitpiece today on his blog:
Wayne Pacelle in a photo op with a dog belonging to someone else.
In an earlier blog, I discussed how Wayne Pacelle, the head of the Humane Society of the United States, is supposed to be a champion for the “winged” and the “furry,” but is, in many ways, an apologist for their killing. The question, of course, is why is that so? Why does he fail to embrace No Kill and to promote it as the head of the nation’s largest and most influential animal protection organization should? Why does he continue to pretend in statements to the media that No Kill communities do not exist and that the formula for ending the killing has not been discovered? Why does he allow HSUS representatives nationwide to misrepresent and deride No Kill and its supporters and to defend shelters with a poor record for lifesaving?
Time and time again, the positions he has taken regarding companion animals have vexed those of us who have dedicated ourselves to saving the lives of animals. But perhaps there is a simple, logical explanation. Perhaps Wayne Pacelle behaves as though he doesn’t care about animals because, by his own actions and admissions, he doesn’t.
When he was with the Fund For Animals, Pacelle was quoted as saying:
I don't have a hands-on fondness for animals. To this day I don't feel bonded to any non-human animal.
Admittedly, that was over a decade ago. But in this month’s Los Angeles Times feature, the reporter writes:
For years, Pacelle did not even have a pet. But when [his girlfriend] moved in with him, she brought along her cat, Libby."
He's interesting with animals… He doesn't want to bother them or invade their space. He's like 'Hello, Libby.'“ She imitated a formal, masculine voice, then laughed. “I just want to swoop her up and bury my head in her fur. He just lets her be. So, of course, she just crawls on the counters and he lets her crawl up and sit on his chest. If he needs to work, he'll ask me to remove her."
Despite the facile attempt to spin this into a positive, for those of us who have deep and meaningful relationships with animals, this description is disturbing. He doesn’t share his life with animals. He doesn’t feel compelled to rescue one from death row at any of the shelters he defends or promotes at his conferences. In fact, he has no real relationship with even his girlfriend’s cat who now lives in his home.
Don’t the five million animals facing certain and yet unnecessary deaths in our nation’s regressive shelters and pounds deserve to have a dedicated, passionate animal lover who is motivated by those very qualities overseeing the organization that has the greatest potential to bring that national tragedy to a speedy and final end?
Don’t donors to HSUS, who send that organization their hard earned dollars to the tune of over $100 million a year under the belief that their donations are going to be used to save animals, deserve to have an earnest individual who shares their values towards animals making decisions about how that organization's influence and capital can best be expended to further that cause?
In other words, shouldn’t a love for animals be a qualification for running HSUS since right now, it doesn’t appear to be? Is it any surprise then that HSUS under Pacelle continues to champion shelter policies which reflect a lack of caring for animals?
Perhaps he is thus unable to advocate for a nobler and just future for companion animals because he does not know what that future should look like. And he doesn’t know because he does not hurt at the thought of all the beings needlessly put to death. He fails to find it abhorrent. And he can’t even call it for what it is: a slaughter—something he has said is a “lamentable” choice of words when others have used it, because in his view, it is nothing more than “humane euthanasia.”
.
Ed, Why Aren't There Cameras in the Shelters--Looking at Employees?
.
Boks response to Winograd's blog videos of alleged animal abuse at LAAS:
New Day in LA Animal Services Challenges a blast from the past...
Recent blog posts by Nathan Winograd of No Kill Solutions are accompanied by videos depicting the unacceptable actions of two former LA Animal Services employees. One employee depicted has not worked for the department since September 2004. Another left more than a year ago.
LA Animal Services has policies in place today to prevent the kind of behavior and activity depicted in Mr. Winograd's blog and the LA Animal Services team is committed to completely eliminating these kinds of errors and abuses.
Improper treatment of animals in our Animal Care Centers is neither condoned nor tolerated. It is our belief that the kind of incidents that are the subject of Mr. Winograd's allegations do not occur in today's LA Animal Services. If they ever do, and there is demonstrable proof of it, the perpetrators will be disciplined appropriately.
Today’s LA Animal Services values the integrity of each employee, volunteer and partner contributing to the professional delivery of excellent customer service and the humane treatment of animals, in an atmosphere of open, honest communication, predicated on our trust in and respect for each other.
Anyone with any evidence of inappropriate or abusive conduct towards our customers, partners, or the animals in our care is encouraged to forward that evidence to the Department so appropriate action can be taken immediately.
Posted by Ed Boks
My own response is:
What would you consider " demonstrable proof?" A handwritten confession of abuse, or maybe a video.
Ed, how do you expect the public to get videos of neglect or abuse at the shelters? Public access is rather limited and anyone would be a fool to abuse an animal or a visitor in plain sight.
Therefore, I ask you, why has LAAS resisted all efforts to place video cameras into the shelters to monitor the day to day activities of staff with regard to animals?
If there are allegations of abuse, either of the public or animals by employees, why not have video cameras installed? Other public shelters do it. I don't know about LA, but police patrol cars in other jurisdictions have cameras in case of allegations of police wrongdoing; the truth will be told by the cameras.
Why are you and your shelters hiding from cameras?
Why not be as transparent with operations as you are with statistics?
Without video proof, you have no demonstrable proof of innocence.
.
Boks response to Winograd's blog videos of alleged animal abuse at LAAS:
New Day in LA Animal Services Challenges a blast from the past...
Recent blog posts by Nathan Winograd of No Kill Solutions are accompanied by videos depicting the unacceptable actions of two former LA Animal Services employees. One employee depicted has not worked for the department since September 2004. Another left more than a year ago.
LA Animal Services has policies in place today to prevent the kind of behavior and activity depicted in Mr. Winograd's blog and the LA Animal Services team is committed to completely eliminating these kinds of errors and abuses.
Improper treatment of animals in our Animal Care Centers is neither condoned nor tolerated. It is our belief that the kind of incidents that are the subject of Mr. Winograd's allegations do not occur in today's LA Animal Services. If they ever do, and there is demonstrable proof of it, the perpetrators will be disciplined appropriately.
Today’s LA Animal Services values the integrity of each employee, volunteer and partner contributing to the professional delivery of excellent customer service and the humane treatment of animals, in an atmosphere of open, honest communication, predicated on our trust in and respect for each other.
Anyone with any evidence of inappropriate or abusive conduct towards our customers, partners, or the animals in our care is encouraged to forward that evidence to the Department so appropriate action can be taken immediately.
Posted by Ed Boks
My own response is:
What would you consider " demonstrable proof?" A handwritten confession of abuse, or maybe a video.
Ed, how do you expect the public to get videos of neglect or abuse at the shelters? Public access is rather limited and anyone would be a fool to abuse an animal or a visitor in plain sight.
Therefore, I ask you, why has LAAS resisted all efforts to place video cameras into the shelters to monitor the day to day activities of staff with regard to animals?
If there are allegations of abuse, either of the public or animals by employees, why not have video cameras installed? Other public shelters do it. I don't know about LA, but police patrol cars in other jurisdictions have cameras in case of allegations of police wrongdoing; the truth will be told by the cameras.
Why are you and your shelters hiding from cameras?
Why not be as transparent with operations as you are with statistics?
Without video proof, you have no demonstrable proof of innocence.
.
Rancho Cucamonga Statistics
.
One commenter said Winograd's Rancho consult was a disaster. Someone sent the Rancho and County stats. They sounded really good for Rancho, a vindication of Nathan, even though he never claimed Rancho a success.
Then Brad Jensen posted the comment below that 1,000 animals were missing from their stats! That is 20%.
Therefore, any Rancho stats are worthless and they don't prove anything one way or another.
I'll leave the comments below.
Sorry.
Strangeky, looking at the rabies reports submitted to the state by LAAS and their published stats, they are thousands apart also.
One commenter said Winograd's Rancho consult was a disaster. Someone sent the Rancho and County stats. They sounded really good for Rancho, a vindication of Nathan, even though he never claimed Rancho a success.
Then Brad Jensen posted the comment below that 1,000 animals were missing from their stats! That is 20%.
Therefore, any Rancho stats are worthless and they don't prove anything one way or another.
I'll leave the comments below.
Sorry.
Strangeky, looking at the rabies reports submitted to the state by LAAS and their published stats, they are thousands apart also.
Winograd Detractors-Updated
.
Winograd has polarized the animal welfare and rescue communities across the country. Some love him, some hate him. Some love the idea of no kill, others find it only a marketing tool.
Neither community presents much in terms of proof, although Winograd can point to shelter published statistics.
The naysayers present their observations and hearsay about what others have told them. One repeatedly cites Rancho Cucamonga and only tells of its failure and really does not provide any dates or names with contact numbers.
The pro-Winograd people generally supply statistics to prove improvement. The naysayers say these people are liars and are in it for donations. They also say that these shelters do not supply independent statistics. My comment would be they do provide something while the naysayers do not except acrimony.
If the naysayers want to be believed, they need to supply credible proof other than just hearsay about what others told them.
I am just blown away by how easily the animal community accepts the most ridiculous assertions as fact and get outraged--on any side of any issue.
For example, with regard to my Pierce allegations, I present documents and printed articles. Many have photos.
One cannot claim to know anything for certain without providing proof that their observations are accurate. No one in any scientific community, from physics to sociology to demographics, would ever accept as proof the statement, "Trust me, I know everything." In fact, such an attitude would be laughed at because so many fraudulent claims made without proof or suport.
Foremost among the frauds is Clifton Merritt whose claim to authority is his claim to authority--40 years in the field of animal statistics. He really never provides any proof and when asked, says "Look at my body of work and. "Everyone who is anyone, says I am terrific."
For the Cucamonga claim, you'd need to have statistics as to the shelters' statistics before 2005, during 2005, and after 2005 when Winograd's "plan" was being implemented.
I have seen no facts, only claims by Naysayers, or observations by Naysayer's friends and acquaintances.
On the other side, one commonly accepted belief in the animal rescue community is that manditory spay/neuter is the answer. Yet, during the past three years LAAS has made a dramatic improvement in spay/neuter efforts (36,000 to 44,000 plus 2 city-owned opened spay/neuter clinics, with no real reduction in impounds during those years. Indeed, during the last 8-9 months there has been a dramatic increase in impounds. The spay/neuter people do not explain this.
They hold onto spay/neuter solutions with extraordinary disregard for statistics that go against their viewpoint as lies for donations. They don't even touch recent stats here but talk about failures in some distant town and maybe refer to a news article about success or failure there.
As to the claim that after a shelter is announced no-kill, impounds dramatically increase along with kill rates, this "common sense" point of view is contradicted in LA, and Reno and Philly.
LA's impound numbers have been steady for the last three years and almost totally plateaued for six years (except for the last 8 months) despite the fact of Boks' repeated contentions that LA is close to no-kill. Impounds have not increased at all except during the past eight months and Ed blames that on foreclosures.
According to Naysayers, impound rates should have dramatically increased since May of 2006 when he published his fantastic decrease in killing during his first 6 months, saying LA was rapidly approaching no-kill. It didn't.
It should have dramatically increased in April of 2007 when he announced March was LA's first No-Kill month. It didn't.
In addition, the adoption rate has dramatically increased in LA during the past 2-1/2 years, by a little over 30%, meaning demand has increased. Actually it does not mean demand has increased, it means supply has been made more readily available through increased adoption efforts, new shelters and more outreach. Demand may have been increased a little through PR.
The same with Philly. According to their statistics, which Naysayer denies because she thinks they lie, as does anyone with a different viewpoint or experience lies.
She bases almost all of her observations on her experience with Rancho Cucamonga. She has not seen the Philly, Reno, Charlottesville or San Francisco shelters in the last 2 years. She refuses to accept their numbers calling them all liars because they want to appear to be no-kill to get more donations.
According to the Philly stats, impounds have decreased every year since the Winograd consult while adoptions have increased and eithanasia decreased.
Naysays will send me articles of claimed failures in Philly or Rancho, but these are only claimed, ad hoc, observations of failure. I talked to the reporter who wrote the article that Naysayer sent me, and he said though there were claims of failure of the shelter, even by Winograd, the statistics did not worsen, but only failed to improve with the rapidity they did before. I am sure Naysays did not call and talk to the reporter.
I have given this person a free run to express her opinion. I am sure she will say what I am saying now is denegrating her once again. This is not true. I am constanttly appalled by her lack of facts and how strongly she opposes No-Kill and Winograd without proof, or proof based on hearsay about Rancho Cuvamonga.
She states she has not hatred of Winograd yet complains that Nathan has threaten to sue her twice. Winograd repudiates her opinion and she attacks him. She attacked me by calling me uninformed or not listening to her even though she knows better because she has spayed/neuter 100 times as many cats, or she "laughs" at my inexperience. Only she should be believed.
Experience does not trump science.
.
Winograd has polarized the animal welfare and rescue communities across the country. Some love him, some hate him. Some love the idea of no kill, others find it only a marketing tool.
Neither community presents much in terms of proof, although Winograd can point to shelter published statistics.
The naysayers present their observations and hearsay about what others have told them. One repeatedly cites Rancho Cucamonga and only tells of its failure and really does not provide any dates or names with contact numbers.
The pro-Winograd people generally supply statistics to prove improvement. The naysayers say these people are liars and are in it for donations. They also say that these shelters do not supply independent statistics. My comment would be they do provide something while the naysayers do not except acrimony.
If the naysayers want to be believed, they need to supply credible proof other than just hearsay about what others told them.
I am just blown away by how easily the animal community accepts the most ridiculous assertions as fact and get outraged--on any side of any issue.
For example, with regard to my Pierce allegations, I present documents and printed articles. Many have photos.
One cannot claim to know anything for certain without providing proof that their observations are accurate. No one in any scientific community, from physics to sociology to demographics, would ever accept as proof the statement, "Trust me, I know everything." In fact, such an attitude would be laughed at because so many fraudulent claims made without proof or suport.
Foremost among the frauds is Clifton Merritt whose claim to authority is his claim to authority--40 years in the field of animal statistics. He really never provides any proof and when asked, says "Look at my body of work and. "Everyone who is anyone, says I am terrific."
For the Cucamonga claim, you'd need to have statistics as to the shelters' statistics before 2005, during 2005, and after 2005 when Winograd's "plan" was being implemented.
I have seen no facts, only claims by Naysayers, or observations by Naysayer's friends and acquaintances.
On the other side, one commonly accepted belief in the animal rescue community is that manditory spay/neuter is the answer. Yet, during the past three years LAAS has made a dramatic improvement in spay/neuter efforts (36,000 to 44,000 plus 2 city-owned opened spay/neuter clinics, with no real reduction in impounds during those years. Indeed, during the last 8-9 months there has been a dramatic increase in impounds. The spay/neuter people do not explain this.
They hold onto spay/neuter solutions with extraordinary disregard for statistics that go against their viewpoint as lies for donations. They don't even touch recent stats here but talk about failures in some distant town and maybe refer to a news article about success or failure there.
As to the claim that after a shelter is announced no-kill, impounds dramatically increase along with kill rates, this "common sense" point of view is contradicted in LA, and Reno and Philly.
LA's impound numbers have been steady for the last three years and almost totally plateaued for six years (except for the last 8 months) despite the fact of Boks' repeated contentions that LA is close to no-kill. Impounds have not increased at all except during the past eight months and Ed blames that on foreclosures.
According to Naysayers, impound rates should have dramatically increased since May of 2006 when he published his fantastic decrease in killing during his first 6 months, saying LA was rapidly approaching no-kill. It didn't.
It should have dramatically increased in April of 2007 when he announced March was LA's first No-Kill month. It didn't.
In addition, the adoption rate has dramatically increased in LA during the past 2-1/2 years, by a little over 30%, meaning demand has increased. Actually it does not mean demand has increased, it means supply has been made more readily available through increased adoption efforts, new shelters and more outreach. Demand may have been increased a little through PR.
The same with Philly. According to their statistics, which Naysayer denies because she thinks they lie, as does anyone with a different viewpoint or experience lies.
She bases almost all of her observations on her experience with Rancho Cucamonga. She has not seen the Philly, Reno, Charlottesville or San Francisco shelters in the last 2 years. She refuses to accept their numbers calling them all liars because they want to appear to be no-kill to get more donations.
According to the Philly stats, impounds have decreased every year since the Winograd consult while adoptions have increased and eithanasia decreased.
Naysays will send me articles of claimed failures in Philly or Rancho, but these are only claimed, ad hoc, observations of failure. I talked to the reporter who wrote the article that Naysayer sent me, and he said though there were claims of failure of the shelter, even by Winograd, the statistics did not worsen, but only failed to improve with the rapidity they did before. I am sure Naysays did not call and talk to the reporter.
I have given this person a free run to express her opinion. I am sure she will say what I am saying now is denegrating her once again. This is not true. I am constanttly appalled by her lack of facts and how strongly she opposes No-Kill and Winograd without proof, or proof based on hearsay about Rancho Cuvamonga.
She states she has not hatred of Winograd yet complains that Nathan has threaten to sue her twice. Winograd repudiates her opinion and she attacks him. She attacked me by calling me uninformed or not listening to her even though she knows better because she has spayed/neuter 100 times as many cats, or she "laughs" at my inexperience. Only she should be believed.
Experience does not trump science.
.
Want a Baby Goat or Lamb for Dinner? Get one at Pierce for $75
.
I am appalled that it is so easy to purchase a baby goat or a 10 month old lamb for consumption for a lousy $70 if you buy two. You can slaughter them yourself if kept out of sight, or take them somewhere do be slaughtered in a USDA "approved" way.
Below is a list of prices for baby and adult animals, sheep and goats only.
The cost of life is so cheap.
I am appalled that it is so easy to purchase a baby goat or a 10 month old lamb for consumption for a lousy $70 if you buy two. You can slaughter them yourself if kept out of sight, or take them somewhere do be slaughtered in a USDA "approved" way.
Below is a list of prices for baby and adult animals, sheep and goats only.
The cost of life is so cheap.
Click on image to enlarge
PETA ALSO INVESTIGATING PIERCE
.
What on earth is going on at Pierce? Skinned cat, farm animal abuse and now torture, abuse and killing of lab animals.
What is wrong there? What are the ethics of those in charge, from low grade faculty like Crista Slattery, on up to Leland Shapiro and Dick South, on up to Dean Rupert? Is there no oversight by anyone at Pierce?
Mr. Boks, we need you to investigate all of the complaints of animal cruelty, neglect, mismanagement, illegal collusion between LAAS employees, obstruction of justice, etc., involving Pierce faculty, staff and LAAS and ACTF employees. This is a cesspool and you need to clean it up.
All these complaints of animal harm is happening on your watch now, about animals in Los Angeles on a state community college campus. Mr. Boks, you must mount a credible investigation and present the findings, not in months, but within days of this notice.
As I posted before, you make promises to Council to do studies, but you don't do them and people forget that you ever promised anything. Act now Mr. Boks. Investigate Pierce.
The four URLs below refer to various PETA posts and petitions.
http://blog.peta.org/archives/pierce_college
http://getactive.peta.org/campaign/pierce_petition
http://www.stopanimaltests.com/index.aspx
http://blog.peta.org/archives/2008/06/abuse_suffering.php
Story #1
Prompted by a complaint from PETA, federal officials are investigating allegations that animals are being abused and killed in Pierce College's veterinary technology program—in violation of federal animal welfare regulations—by an instructor and her students. According to a student who blew the whistle on the abuse, faculty member Christa Slattery, who is also an animal resources supervisor in the Division of Laboratory Animal Medicine at the University of California Los Angeles, is operating a classroom laboratory without adhering to legally required guidelines for the treatment of animals. This has apparently caused unnecessary suffering and death.
The following are just some of the alleged abuses:
Slattery seems unqualified to show veterinary technician procedures on animals. She used just one rabbit to teach all the students in a class to withdraw blood.
The rabbit's ears were stuck with a needle 12 times in a single blood-collection session, far exceeding the commonly accepted maximum of four punctures.
Slattery permitted an untrained student to attempt to trim a rat's teeth, which resulted in a severe laceration and profuse bleeding from the rat's tongue.
Slattery forced a large mouse into a restraint tube and even suggested that the tube was too small. The severely restrained animal died within minutes. When students complained, Slattery reportedly told them, "I'd appreciate it if you guys are discreet."
Given no direction, a student who attempted to restrain a mouse in a piece of cloth wrapped the mouse so tightly that the animal suffered a seizure.
Christa Slattery's dismissive attitude toward animals' pain and distress, her apparent failure to provide adequate instruction to and careful supervision of students who attempt to perform procedures on animals, and her overall incompetence leave animals vulnerable to neglect, mistreatment, and abuse.
PETA is calling on Pierce College to fully investigate these claims and should they prove true to fire Christa Slattery and implement guidelines to ensure that animals do not continue to suffer.
Story #2
Abuse, Suffering, and Death in Pierce College Classrooms
OK, here's the thing: You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand the handful of regulations that govern the treatment of animals in laboratories.
What's required of folks who use animals in laboratories is so embarrassingly obvious—animals who are sick or injured need veterinary care, animals who are too ill to be treated should be euthanized, dogs should be exercised, cages should be cleaned, and so on. And yet, vivisectors in labs across the country violate federal law every single day.
Take this situation at Pierce College: A whistleblower has informed PETA that animals are being abused and killed in classroom laboratories by an instructor (Christa Slattery) and her students, in apparent violation of federal animal welfare regulations.
The whistleblower told us that Slattery operates her classes like a "free for all," allowing students to poke, prod, bleed, and inject animals with minimum guidance or instruction. And reportedly, when Slattery gets to the animals, it seems that she barely knows what she's doing!
The whistleblower told PETA that Slattery tried to push a large mouse into a small tube to restrain the mouse; she wondered whether the tube was too small but just shrugged her shoulders and continued to force the mouse into the tube. Minutes later, the mouse was dead.
Here's what the whistleblower had to say about the matter:
Ms. Slattery's failure to provide detailed guidance in the form of thorough instruction, science-based guidelines, and careful supervision deprives the students in her class of an opportunity to receive adequate training in animal care procedures and leaves the animals used in demonstrations open to neglect, mistreatment, and abuse.
And here's what PETA's director of laboratory investigations told the media today:
Pierce College's veterinary technician program appears to be teaching students that animals' lives don't matter. Slattery's laboratory is apparently in violation of a host of federal regulations, and we're urging the USDA to investigate and force Pierce to comply with animal protection regulations.
Posted by Grace Freidan, Researcher
What on earth is going on at Pierce? Skinned cat, farm animal abuse and now torture, abuse and killing of lab animals.
What is wrong there? What are the ethics of those in charge, from low grade faculty like Crista Slattery, on up to Leland Shapiro and Dick South, on up to Dean Rupert? Is there no oversight by anyone at Pierce?
Mr. Boks, we need you to investigate all of the complaints of animal cruelty, neglect, mismanagement, illegal collusion between LAAS employees, obstruction of justice, etc., involving Pierce faculty, staff and LAAS and ACTF employees. This is a cesspool and you need to clean it up.
All these complaints of animal harm is happening on your watch now, about animals in Los Angeles on a state community college campus. Mr. Boks, you must mount a credible investigation and present the findings, not in months, but within days of this notice.
As I posted before, you make promises to Council to do studies, but you don't do them and people forget that you ever promised anything. Act now Mr. Boks. Investigate Pierce.
The four URLs below refer to various PETA posts and petitions.
http://blog.peta.org/archives/pierce_college
http://getactive.peta.org/campaign/pierce_petition
http://www.stopanimaltests.com/index.aspx
http://blog.peta.org/archives/2008/06/abuse_suffering.php
Story #1
Prompted by a complaint from PETA, federal officials are investigating allegations that animals are being abused and killed in Pierce College's veterinary technology program—in violation of federal animal welfare regulations—by an instructor and her students. According to a student who blew the whistle on the abuse, faculty member Christa Slattery, who is also an animal resources supervisor in the Division of Laboratory Animal Medicine at the University of California Los Angeles, is operating a classroom laboratory without adhering to legally required guidelines for the treatment of animals. This has apparently caused unnecessary suffering and death.
The following are just some of the alleged abuses:
Slattery seems unqualified to show veterinary technician procedures on animals. She used just one rabbit to teach all the students in a class to withdraw blood.
The rabbit's ears were stuck with a needle 12 times in a single blood-collection session, far exceeding the commonly accepted maximum of four punctures.
Slattery permitted an untrained student to attempt to trim a rat's teeth, which resulted in a severe laceration and profuse bleeding from the rat's tongue.
Slattery forced a large mouse into a restraint tube and even suggested that the tube was too small. The severely restrained animal died within minutes. When students complained, Slattery reportedly told them, "I'd appreciate it if you guys are discreet."
Given no direction, a student who attempted to restrain a mouse in a piece of cloth wrapped the mouse so tightly that the animal suffered a seizure.
Christa Slattery's dismissive attitude toward animals' pain and distress, her apparent failure to provide adequate instruction to and careful supervision of students who attempt to perform procedures on animals, and her overall incompetence leave animals vulnerable to neglect, mistreatment, and abuse.
PETA is calling on Pierce College to fully investigate these claims and should they prove true to fire Christa Slattery and implement guidelines to ensure that animals do not continue to suffer.
Story #2
Abuse, Suffering, and Death in Pierce College Classrooms
OK, here's the thing: You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand the handful of regulations that govern the treatment of animals in laboratories.
What's required of folks who use animals in laboratories is so embarrassingly obvious—animals who are sick or injured need veterinary care, animals who are too ill to be treated should be euthanized, dogs should be exercised, cages should be cleaned, and so on. And yet, vivisectors in labs across the country violate federal law every single day.
Take this situation at Pierce College: A whistleblower has informed PETA that animals are being abused and killed in classroom laboratories by an instructor (Christa Slattery) and her students, in apparent violation of federal animal welfare regulations.
The whistleblower told us that Slattery operates her classes like a "free for all," allowing students to poke, prod, bleed, and inject animals with minimum guidance or instruction. And reportedly, when Slattery gets to the animals, it seems that she barely knows what she's doing!
The whistleblower told PETA that Slattery tried to push a large mouse into a small tube to restrain the mouse; she wondered whether the tube was too small but just shrugged her shoulders and continued to force the mouse into the tube. Minutes later, the mouse was dead.
Here's what the whistleblower had to say about the matter:
Ms. Slattery's failure to provide detailed guidance in the form of thorough instruction, science-based guidelines, and careful supervision deprives the students in her class of an opportunity to receive adequate training in animal care procedures and leaves the animals used in demonstrations open to neglect, mistreatment, and abuse.
And here's what PETA's director of laboratory investigations told the media today:
Pierce College's veterinary technician program appears to be teaching students that animals' lives don't matter. Slattery's laboratory is apparently in violation of a host of federal regulations, and we're urging the USDA to investigate and force Pierce to comply with animal protection regulations.
Posted by Grace Freidan, Researcher
Comment from a Winograd Critic
.
For almost 2 years I've been having a "fight" with a Winograd critic. Neither of us really heard each other. She uses his Rancho consult as one example of his failure to be "great" leader of No-Kill.
Recently Charlottesville has fallen out of the No-Kill category and Philly's efforts were roundly criticized by Nathan when one Tara Derby was his pride and joy, getting his shelter director of the year award.
Of course, it appears shelters all over the country are failing even compared with previous years--or so I am told by some; I have not seen statistics to prove it other than at LAAS.
If the failures are truly beyond the shelter's coping ability, then is is difficult to say Rancho's current failure, or Charlottesville's, is do to Winograd's failed consults.
If anyone has actual statistics to offer re impounds, cat and dog, Southern California and beyond, please send them to me.
Here is the post:
Thank you for opening discussion and not degrading this time. Rancho was overcrowded, disease ridden, and turning away owner surrenders within the first three months of implementing Winograd's program. They have poured money into the shelter to do everything he recommended to no avail.
Numbers can be manipulated just by telling the ACO's to not pick up animals and turning away owners. How do we know owners were turned away - they were going to the other shelters in San Bernardino trying to surrender. One interesting note is that the county shelter had an increase in adoptions because people were so put off at the Rancho shelter.
I saw first hand, cats and dogs in the hallways in crates and carriers, beside each other, almost no room to walk. The staff could not keep up with medicating and new animals just re-infected anyway. Rancho citizens went to public forum before the City Council to describe how they had seen horrible fights and even death in the dog kennels from overcrowding.
Yes, the City Clerk knows me quite well from my public records request. Now things are so bad that they are starting to ignore requests not only from myself but others as well.
Rancho claims to have over 400 volunteers but these "volunteers" have to have their parents with them while at the shelter. I have witnessed first hand the rudeness of the present staff because they are so frustrated at the whole thing. And Rancho even stopped canvassing for dog licenses for a great while they were so committed to this program.
I witnessed the lines awaiting the opening of the shelter in the mornings of owners surrendering their pets when the shelter declared no kill. Never saw this before. As far as I know Rancho has done everything recommended by Winograd, I know his report almost by heart.He did have input on the new director.
I don't "hate" Winograd, I hate the ignorance of his program and his statements. Actually I feel sorry for him in many ways but I hate the damage he is doing with his ignorance and inexperience.
I, too, want to believe. I will not do so at the expense of the animals in the shelters however. A truly great leader would have gone into Philly to see where his program went wrong and offer to solve the problem. I can't respect someone who only sits and condemns.
Does he only care to get his money or does he truly care about helping the animals? He's done nothing to convince me he cares for anything other than his own greed by failing to look at the reasons for the failures. It is so easy to say that "they were not committed enough".
I didn't misunderstand his statement on overpopulation and neither did the breeding industry. Have you looked at their web site lately? Breeders are recommending his book for use to fight laws against breeding. It was used to defeat the one thing that will stop the influx into the shelters, AB1634. If you want to insist I misunderstood, then all those others misunderstood too and it resulted in stopping the one thing that can make a difference.
Right now I am more concerned about how we will fare with this lousy economy. Realtors are reporting dead and dying animals they are finding in foreclosed homes. Horses are being abandoned in the desert in record numbers. Livestock keeping in our shelters is more of a drain on the shelters than dogs and cats.
The shelters cannot turn away these people who are losing their homes or their animals will be dumped. Most people try to place their pets with rescues prior to taking them to the shelter, the shelter is the last resort.
We are looking at one of the hardest times ever as far as animals go. Budgets will be cut, more animals will be dumped and surrendered, and shelters will be hurting more than ever. Adoptions will decrease because of the uncertainly of having a home to take them to.
Now with the loss of donated food from Petco, many rescues will not be able to pull from the shelters any more. Many rescues will fail as well without that donation. Caregivers will drop like flies and feral cat colonies will be abandoned. Almost every rescue I know gets food from Petco to some extent. And in hard economic times, their donations will fall compounding the problem.
.
For almost 2 years I've been having a "fight" with a Winograd critic. Neither of us really heard each other. She uses his Rancho consult as one example of his failure to be "great" leader of No-Kill.
Recently Charlottesville has fallen out of the No-Kill category and Philly's efforts were roundly criticized by Nathan when one Tara Derby was his pride and joy, getting his shelter director of the year award.
Of course, it appears shelters all over the country are failing even compared with previous years--or so I am told by some; I have not seen statistics to prove it other than at LAAS.
If the failures are truly beyond the shelter's coping ability, then is is difficult to say Rancho's current failure, or Charlottesville's, is do to Winograd's failed consults.
If anyone has actual statistics to offer re impounds, cat and dog, Southern California and beyond, please send them to me.
Here is the post:
Thank you for opening discussion and not degrading this time. Rancho was overcrowded, disease ridden, and turning away owner surrenders within the first three months of implementing Winograd's program. They have poured money into the shelter to do everything he recommended to no avail.
Numbers can be manipulated just by telling the ACO's to not pick up animals and turning away owners. How do we know owners were turned away - they were going to the other shelters in San Bernardino trying to surrender. One interesting note is that the county shelter had an increase in adoptions because people were so put off at the Rancho shelter.
I saw first hand, cats and dogs in the hallways in crates and carriers, beside each other, almost no room to walk. The staff could not keep up with medicating and new animals just re-infected anyway. Rancho citizens went to public forum before the City Council to describe how they had seen horrible fights and even death in the dog kennels from overcrowding.
Yes, the City Clerk knows me quite well from my public records request. Now things are so bad that they are starting to ignore requests not only from myself but others as well.
Rancho claims to have over 400 volunteers but these "volunteers" have to have their parents with them while at the shelter. I have witnessed first hand the rudeness of the present staff because they are so frustrated at the whole thing. And Rancho even stopped canvassing for dog licenses for a great while they were so committed to this program.
I witnessed the lines awaiting the opening of the shelter in the mornings of owners surrendering their pets when the shelter declared no kill. Never saw this before. As far as I know Rancho has done everything recommended by Winograd, I know his report almost by heart.He did have input on the new director.
I don't "hate" Winograd, I hate the ignorance of his program and his statements. Actually I feel sorry for him in many ways but I hate the damage he is doing with his ignorance and inexperience.
I, too, want to believe. I will not do so at the expense of the animals in the shelters however. A truly great leader would have gone into Philly to see where his program went wrong and offer to solve the problem. I can't respect someone who only sits and condemns.
Does he only care to get his money or does he truly care about helping the animals? He's done nothing to convince me he cares for anything other than his own greed by failing to look at the reasons for the failures. It is so easy to say that "they were not committed enough".
I didn't misunderstand his statement on overpopulation and neither did the breeding industry. Have you looked at their web site lately? Breeders are recommending his book for use to fight laws against breeding. It was used to defeat the one thing that will stop the influx into the shelters, AB1634. If you want to insist I misunderstood, then all those others misunderstood too and it resulted in stopping the one thing that can make a difference.
Right now I am more concerned about how we will fare with this lousy economy. Realtors are reporting dead and dying animals they are finding in foreclosed homes. Horses are being abandoned in the desert in record numbers. Livestock keeping in our shelters is more of a drain on the shelters than dogs and cats.
The shelters cannot turn away these people who are losing their homes or their animals will be dumped. Most people try to place their pets with rescues prior to taking them to the shelter, the shelter is the last resort.
We are looking at one of the hardest times ever as far as animals go. Budgets will be cut, more animals will be dumped and surrendered, and shelters will be hurting more than ever. Adoptions will decrease because of the uncertainly of having a home to take them to.
Now with the loss of donated food from Petco, many rescues will not be able to pull from the shelters any more. Many rescues will fail as well without that donation. Caregivers will drop like flies and feral cat colonies will be abandoned. Almost every rescue I know gets food from Petco to some extent. And in hard economic times, their donations will fall compounding the problem.
.
Request For Public Records to Ed Boks
.
To:
Ed Boks,
Ross Pool
Dear Ed and Ross,
I am interested in any LAAS/ACTF records, statements, complaints or reports regarding allegations of animal neglect on the Pierce Campus, including all records and emails pertaining to the subsequent investigation by LAAS/ACTF regarding these complaints.
Of special interest are the investigations of animal neglect complaints occurring during 2004, 2005 and 2006. Also of special interest are inspection reports of farm animals during these years, photographs taken, or veterinary inspection reports, as well as written records dated October 2005 to January 2006 regarding results of the closed investigation of the neglect complaints.
This request is being made subject to the California Public Records Act: Government Code §6250-6268. Under this statute you have 10 calendar days from the date of receipt of this request to respond as to whether you will release the records requested as detailed below. It is preferred your response be made in writing to either the street address or email above.
Information Requested
1. Copies of all complaints, or notations of complaints received by LAAS/ACTF regarding neglect or abuse of any farm animal on the Pierce Campus during 2004 and 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.
2.Any email or written records, including complaints, notes, citations or investigation results from any of the following officers, Bowers, Boswell, Navattette, Selder, Frias, Botta, Dancy or Frias regarding the investigation by LAAS or the LA ACTF conducted between March 1, 2005 and May 1, 2006 concerning alleged neglect of farm animals on the Pierce campus addressed to Guerdon Stuckey, Ed Boks, Richard South, Dean Dorthy Rupert, Dean Paul Whalen, Elizebeth South, Dr. Yates, or Scott Henderson.
3. Written results of the 2005-06 investigation, which apparently was closed by testimony of Captain Bowers because the animals were not there when the inspection was made, which would include dates when the camplaints were first received, the dates of the inspections, and the date the investigation closed.
4. Records of animal neglect complaints and investigations of Pierce in 2004, 2007 and 2008.
Form of Information Requested
The requested information should be provided as any standard wordprocessing file, PDF file, Tiff file, JPEG file, or other file type that can be electronically transferred to the email address shown below. Should there be file size limitations on what you are permitted to send outside of your internal network, please contact me so that other arrangements for data transfer can be made. In lieu of electronic conveyance, please supply a hardcopy of the requested documents.
Denial and Redaction
Should you choose to deny this request, as required by law, please indicate the exact reason for denial and the person and title of the person who made such decision. Should information be redacted from the files, statute requires that you list for EACH record the reason for redaction and type of information redacted.
Fees
I am willing to pay reasonable copying fees, as defined under law, not to exceed $25.00. Should fees run higher, please contact me.
Should you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me immediately.
Sincerely,
Edward Muzika, Ph.D.
.
To:
Ed Boks,
Ross Pool
Dear Ed and Ross,
I am interested in any LAAS/ACTF records, statements, complaints or reports regarding allegations of animal neglect on the Pierce Campus, including all records and emails pertaining to the subsequent investigation by LAAS/ACTF regarding these complaints.
Of special interest are the investigations of animal neglect complaints occurring during 2004, 2005 and 2006. Also of special interest are inspection reports of farm animals during these years, photographs taken, or veterinary inspection reports, as well as written records dated October 2005 to January 2006 regarding results of the closed investigation of the neglect complaints.
This request is being made subject to the California Public Records Act: Government Code §6250-6268. Under this statute you have 10 calendar days from the date of receipt of this request to respond as to whether you will release the records requested as detailed below. It is preferred your response be made in writing to either the street address or email above.
Information Requested
1. Copies of all complaints, or notations of complaints received by LAAS/ACTF regarding neglect or abuse of any farm animal on the Pierce Campus during 2004 and 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.
2.Any email or written records, including complaints, notes, citations or investigation results from any of the following officers, Bowers, Boswell, Navattette, Selder, Frias, Botta, Dancy or Frias regarding the investigation by LAAS or the LA ACTF conducted between March 1, 2005 and May 1, 2006 concerning alleged neglect of farm animals on the Pierce campus addressed to Guerdon Stuckey, Ed Boks, Richard South, Dean Dorthy Rupert, Dean Paul Whalen, Elizebeth South, Dr. Yates, or Scott Henderson.
3. Written results of the 2005-06 investigation, which apparently was closed by testimony of Captain Bowers because the animals were not there when the inspection was made, which would include dates when the camplaints were first received, the dates of the inspections, and the date the investigation closed.
4. Records of animal neglect complaints and investigations of Pierce in 2004, 2007 and 2008.
Form of Information Requested
The requested information should be provided as any standard wordprocessing file, PDF file, Tiff file, JPEG file, or other file type that can be electronically transferred to the email address shown below. Should there be file size limitations on what you are permitted to send outside of your internal network, please contact me so that other arrangements for data transfer can be made. In lieu of electronic conveyance, please supply a hardcopy of the requested documents.
Denial and Redaction
Should you choose to deny this request, as required by law, please indicate the exact reason for denial and the person and title of the person who made such decision. Should information be redacted from the files, statute requires that you list for EACH record the reason for redaction and type of information redacted.
Fees
I am willing to pay reasonable copying fees, as defined under law, not to exceed $25.00. Should fees run higher, please contact me.
Should you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me immediately.
Sincerely,
Edward Muzika, Ph.D.
.
Request for Public Records Re Animal Neglect at Pierce
.
The below request for punci records we emailed to various faculty and deans at Pierce regarding the 2005-06 investigation by LAAS of animal neglect on the Pierce campus, as well as similar complaints of animal neglect in 2004.
A similar request will be sent to Ed Boks and others at LAAS.
To:
Richard South
Dean Dorthy Rupert,
Dean Paul Whalen,
Elizebeth South,
Dr. Yates
Scott Henderson
Dear Above Mentioned,
This request is being made subject to the California Public Records Act: Government Code §6250-6268. Under this statute you have 10 calendar days from the date of receipt of this request to respond as to whether you will release the records requested as detailed below. It is preferred your response be made in writing to either the street address or email above.
Information Requested
Monthly Pierce College Farm Statements of balance sheets for farm projects or sales from January 1, 2001 to date.
Veterinary records for all student project animals since January 1, 2003.
Copies of all complaints received by any department, division, veterinarian or Dean, regarding treatment of project animals in 2004 and 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.
Any email from any of the above to Officers Bowers, Boswell, Navattette, Selder, Frias, Botta, Dancy or Frias regarding the investigation by LAAS or the LA ACTF conducted between March 1, 2005 and May 1, 2006 concerning alleged neglect of farm animals on the Pierce campus,.
Bill of sale or disposition data regarding animals mentioned as neglected on the website www.piercefarmwatch.com, including Bandit, Papa Billy, and Thomas, including date of sale.
Enrollment records for Ag 181 and AG 596 for 2002, and from 2005-to date.
Form of Information Requested
The requested information should be provided as an standard wordprocessing file, PDF file, Tiff file, JPEG file, and can be electronically transferred to the email address shown below. Should there be file size limitations on what you are permitted to send outside of your internal network, please contact me so that other arrangements for data transfer can be made. In lieu of electronic conveyance, please supply a hardcopy of the requested documents.
Denial and Redaction
Should you choose to deny this request, as required by law, please indicate the exact reason for denial and the person and title of the person who made such decision. Should information be redacted from the files, statute requires that you list for EACH record the reason for redaction and type of information redacted.
Fees
I am willing to pay reasonable copying fees, as defined under law, not to exceed $25.00. Should fees run higher, please contact me.
Should you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me immediately.
Sincerely,
Edward Muzika, Ph.D.
The below request for punci records we emailed to various faculty and deans at Pierce regarding the 2005-06 investigation by LAAS of animal neglect on the Pierce campus, as well as similar complaints of animal neglect in 2004.
A similar request will be sent to Ed Boks and others at LAAS.
To:
Richard South
Dean Dorthy Rupert,
Dean Paul Whalen,
Elizebeth South,
Dr. Yates
Scott Henderson
Dear Above Mentioned,
This request is being made subject to the California Public Records Act: Government Code §6250-6268. Under this statute you have 10 calendar days from the date of receipt of this request to respond as to whether you will release the records requested as detailed below. It is preferred your response be made in writing to either the street address or email above.
Information Requested
Monthly Pierce College Farm Statements of balance sheets for farm projects or sales from January 1, 2001 to date.
Veterinary records for all student project animals since January 1, 2003.
Copies of all complaints received by any department, division, veterinarian or Dean, regarding treatment of project animals in 2004 and 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.
Any email from any of the above to Officers Bowers, Boswell, Navattette, Selder, Frias, Botta, Dancy or Frias regarding the investigation by LAAS or the LA ACTF conducted between March 1, 2005 and May 1, 2006 concerning alleged neglect of farm animals on the Pierce campus,.
Bill of sale or disposition data regarding animals mentioned as neglected on the website www.piercefarmwatch.com, including Bandit, Papa Billy, and Thomas, including date of sale.
Enrollment records for Ag 181 and AG 596 for 2002, and from 2005-to date.
Form of Information Requested
The requested information should be provided as an standard wordprocessing file, PDF file, Tiff file, JPEG file, and can be electronically transferred to the email address shown below. Should there be file size limitations on what you are permitted to send outside of your internal network, please contact me so that other arrangements for data transfer can be made. In lieu of electronic conveyance, please supply a hardcopy of the requested documents.
Denial and Redaction
Should you choose to deny this request, as required by law, please indicate the exact reason for denial and the person and title of the person who made such decision. Should information be redacted from the files, statute requires that you list for EACH record the reason for redaction and type of information redacted.
Fees
I am willing to pay reasonable copying fees, as defined under law, not to exceed $25.00. Should fees run higher, please contact me.
Should you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me immediately.
Sincerely,
Edward Muzika, Ph.D.
Nathan is Wrong
.
In a post below, I linked to Winograd's blogpost where he claimed LAAS ACO were seizing or forcing owners to relinquish dogs.
I thought that not credible, that is, Ed would issue an enforcement of an order that would increase impounds. Since Ed goes out his way not to increase impounds, I know he would not enforce this one.
Yet, Nathan made the claim. I sent Boks a request for a rebuttal.
In my understanding the law had not gone into effect yet as the grace period ends on October 1 of this year. I can only think Winograd has relied on very poor information from activists in our own animals community, OR, the shelters themselves have been enforcing the ordinance even when it is not in effect and contrary to Boks orders not to impound.
http://nathanwinograd.blogspot.com/2008/07/ding-dong-witch-is-dead-or-is-she.html
In any event, Nathan should have been more cautious in his accusations.
.
In a post below, I linked to Winograd's blogpost where he claimed LAAS ACO were seizing or forcing owners to relinquish dogs.
I thought that not credible, that is, Ed would issue an enforcement of an order that would increase impounds. Since Ed goes out his way not to increase impounds, I know he would not enforce this one.
Yet, Nathan made the claim. I sent Boks a request for a rebuttal.
In my understanding the law had not gone into effect yet as the grace period ends on October 1 of this year. I can only think Winograd has relied on very poor information from activists in our own animals community, OR, the shelters themselves have been enforcing the ordinance even when it is not in effect and contrary to Boks orders not to impound.
http://nathanwinograd.blogspot.com/2008/07/ding-dong-witch-is-dead-or-is-she.html
In any event, Nathan should have been more cautious in his accusations.
.
Carla Hall and Pacelle vs. Winograd
Carla Hall, who writes animal brown-nose fluff pieces for the LA Times wrote a suck-up of Wayne Pacelle today. In it he is quoted as saying animal shelter managers should not be attacked because they have high kill rates, that it is a community problem.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pacelle19-2008jul19,0,4840426.story
Nathan Winograd responded hours later on his blog:
http://nathanwinograd.blogspot.com/2008/07/real-wayne-pacelle-legacy.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pacelle19-2008jul19,0,4840426.story
Nathan Winograd responded hours later on his blog:
http://nathanwinograd.blogspot.com/2008/07/real-wayne-pacelle-legacy.html
Winograd's blog
.
Look at Winograd's blog which includes attacks on LAAS and Mayeda's County shelters with videos:
http://nathanwinograd.blogspot.com/2008/07/ding-dong-witch-is-dead-or-is-she.html
I really don't buy Nathan's charge that the increased death rate for dogs is because Animal Services is seizing dogs for not being speutered. This is too hard to believe. Besides, the ordinance was just signed by Villaraigosa and certainly has not been in effect for the past 7 months that dog impounds have been rising.
.
Look at Winograd's blog which includes attacks on LAAS and Mayeda's County shelters with videos:
http://nathanwinograd.blogspot.com/2008/07/ding-dong-witch-is-dead-or-is-she.html
I really don't buy Nathan's charge that the increased death rate for dogs is because Animal Services is seizing dogs for not being speutered. This is too hard to believe. Besides, the ordinance was just signed by Villaraigosa and certainly has not been in effect for the past 7 months that dog impounds have been rising.
.
.
From Nathan Winograd's blog:
California’s proposed mandatory spay/neuter law is all but dead. This is not news to anyone who has been following it. But it is good news for the animals. The question is: for how long? As proponents shift focus from the state to the local level, AB 1634 will continue to rear its ugly head.
And in light of the fact that there has been the first increase in the kill rate of animals in over a decade since its passage in the City of Los Angeles, animal lovers have much to be concerned about. Especially since shelter killing has not only increased, it has skyrocketed.
While leadership of Los Angeles Animal Services tries desperately to blame home foreclosures for the increased killing, the numbers—as usual—do not add up. According to the people in the trenches, an increase in impounds and killing is largely the result of officers telling people that “if you give me your dog, we won't write you a ticket” [for the sterilization law violation].
These animals enter death row at Los Angeles Animal Services, and then these individuals go out and get another animal (and not from a shelter). The law harms animals on two fronts:
increased impound and killing, and an increase in the market for backyard bred animals.
As seen time and time again, mandatory sterilization laws are largely a distraction, increasing the power of animal control to impound and kill yet more animals, while they divert resources from programs that do work so that agencies can hire yet more officers to write yet more tickets—or threaten to do so—to no avail. While proponents seek to punish the public, they only end up hurting the animals.
I’ve said this before: in a democracy, animal lovers are free to believe whatever they want. But believing something doesn’t make it so, and never will. Meanwhile, animals continue to be killed in appalling numbers and reform efforts are squandered on an agenda that has no hope of achieving success. Moreover, the animals are paying the ultimate price for the false beliefs of animal activists. They are the ones being slaughtered en masse because of it. With animals being killed every day in shelters because shelter leadership has not embraced the programs and services of the No Kill Equation or a culture of caring and accountability, activists must move beyond the empty hope that mandatory sterilization will ever be anything but a failure.
Look at what the animals in the Los Angeles city and county shelter system must endure.
(City of Los Angeles Animal Services) Take a look at a dog being violently handled on a control pole. Click here.
(City of Los Angeles Animal Services) Take a look at the callousness by which a dog is killed and then heaped into a trash bin. Click here.
(Los Angeles County Animal Control) Take a look at a puppy slowly dying while staff socializes. Click here.
(Los Angeles County Animal Control) Take a look at a rabbit desperately trying to drink from an empty water bowl, forgotten in a back room. Click here.
(Los Angeles County Animal Control) Take a look at cages deliberately kept empty to reduce the amount of work staff has to do, while animals are executed as a result. Click here.
(Los Angeles County Animal Control) And then take a look at a puppy, a young, friendly puppy who entered healthy, was made sick, and then was left to die; while shelter staff are oblivious to or unmoved by his plight. Click healthy, made sick, left to die.
This is not unique to Los Angeles. Look at the green algae covered water bowls that dogs have to drink from at a shelter in San Bernardino County. Click here.
Look into the eyes of a kitten scheduled to be executed simply because he came in a feral trap and without review or handling was classified as “unadoptable.” Click here.
Look at the puppies, huddled in a corner, the only “clean” spot left in the kennel; puppies who will be killed for parvo-virus because shelter staff are sloppy in their cleaning and handling, and because shelter leadership refuses to vaccinate. Click here.
This is your shelter system.
This is what your tax dollars are supporting.
This is where the animals in violation of your laws go to die.
And that is what we should all be fighting to end.
From Nathan Winograd's blog:
California’s proposed mandatory spay/neuter law is all but dead. This is not news to anyone who has been following it. But it is good news for the animals. The question is: for how long? As proponents shift focus from the state to the local level, AB 1634 will continue to rear its ugly head.
And in light of the fact that there has been the first increase in the kill rate of animals in over a decade since its passage in the City of Los Angeles, animal lovers have much to be concerned about. Especially since shelter killing has not only increased, it has skyrocketed.
While leadership of Los Angeles Animal Services tries desperately to blame home foreclosures for the increased killing, the numbers—as usual—do not add up. According to the people in the trenches, an increase in impounds and killing is largely the result of officers telling people that “if you give me your dog, we won't write you a ticket” [for the sterilization law violation].
These animals enter death row at Los Angeles Animal Services, and then these individuals go out and get another animal (and not from a shelter). The law harms animals on two fronts:
increased impound and killing, and an increase in the market for backyard bred animals.
As seen time and time again, mandatory sterilization laws are largely a distraction, increasing the power of animal control to impound and kill yet more animals, while they divert resources from programs that do work so that agencies can hire yet more officers to write yet more tickets—or threaten to do so—to no avail. While proponents seek to punish the public, they only end up hurting the animals.
I’ve said this before: in a democracy, animal lovers are free to believe whatever they want. But believing something doesn’t make it so, and never will. Meanwhile, animals continue to be killed in appalling numbers and reform efforts are squandered on an agenda that has no hope of achieving success. Moreover, the animals are paying the ultimate price for the false beliefs of animal activists. They are the ones being slaughtered en masse because of it. With animals being killed every day in shelters because shelter leadership has not embraced the programs and services of the No Kill Equation or a culture of caring and accountability, activists must move beyond the empty hope that mandatory sterilization will ever be anything but a failure.
Look at what the animals in the Los Angeles city and county shelter system must endure.
(City of Los Angeles Animal Services) Take a look at a dog being violently handled on a control pole. Click here.
(City of Los Angeles Animal Services) Take a look at the callousness by which a dog is killed and then heaped into a trash bin. Click here.
(Los Angeles County Animal Control) Take a look at a puppy slowly dying while staff socializes. Click here.
(Los Angeles County Animal Control) Take a look at a rabbit desperately trying to drink from an empty water bowl, forgotten in a back room. Click here.
(Los Angeles County Animal Control) Take a look at cages deliberately kept empty to reduce the amount of work staff has to do, while animals are executed as a result. Click here.
(Los Angeles County Animal Control) And then take a look at a puppy, a young, friendly puppy who entered healthy, was made sick, and then was left to die; while shelter staff are oblivious to or unmoved by his plight. Click healthy, made sick, left to die.
This is not unique to Los Angeles. Look at the green algae covered water bowls that dogs have to drink from at a shelter in San Bernardino County. Click here.
Look into the eyes of a kitten scheduled to be executed simply because he came in a feral trap and without review or handling was classified as “unadoptable.” Click here.
Look at the puppies, huddled in a corner, the only “clean” spot left in the kennel; puppies who will be killed for parvo-virus because shelter staff are sloppy in their cleaning and handling, and because shelter leadership refuses to vaccinate. Click here.
This is your shelter system.
This is what your tax dollars are supporting.
This is where the animals in violation of your laws go to die.
And that is what we should all be fighting to end.
Photos of the Pierce Farm Animals
To access the full sized photos of the Pierce farm injured and diseased animals, go to the www.piercefarmwatch.com site. On the left side near the top is a button called "blog." Go to the blog. (www.piercefarmwatch.blogspot.com) On the right side there is a button called "flickr." Clicking on this brings up 350 full sized photos of the sick and injured animals.
Below that is the YouTube button which has five videos of injured Pierce animals.
.
Below that is the YouTube button which has five videos of injured Pierce animals.
.
ACO Dancy's Cow Business With Pierce
It was alleged that in 2005, the then West Valley ACO, Stacy Dancy, gave Pierce College a heads up about animal neglect complaints involving Pierce farm animals. Purportedly this resulted in the sale to slaughter of the animals in question the day before there was to be an inspection by the LA Animal Cruelty Task Force.
The story is that Dancy, even while a student at Pierce, was running a for-profit farm business on the campus, involving her cows and may still continue.
Therefore, it appears that an Animal Services employee was moonlighting with her own private business on a community college campus, i.e., a state agency, and while so doing, gave Pierce faculty knowledge of animal neglect complaints against the College, and allegedly also informed them there was to be an inspection by the LA Animal Cruelty Task Force.
This sounds like a straightforward obstruction of justice problem as well as a tricky legal problem of an allegedly moonlighting employee using a state agency's premises to conduct a for-profit business called a "student animal project."
This letter was sent to me. It was written by Dick South, head of Pierce's Agricultural program and directed to Dean Rupert.
It states there was now a moratorium on "Student Animal Projects," which does appear to be a euphemism for private, for-profit animal businesses. Notice, the letter states that Stacy's and Sam's "projects" would not be affected by the moratorium.
That is, Dancy was allegedly running a for-profit business at Pierce even before 2003. Does this business arrangement continue even today? Has she been a "student" at a community collge for six or more years?
Click on letter to enlarge
Dick South cites the reason for the moratorium is complaints that the animals were being neglected; that is, no one was paying any attention to them, which is exactly what the http://www.piercefarmwatch.com/ website alleges continues today.
Has nothing changed? Can we expect the ACTF to bust another "hoarder" rather than conduct a surprise inspection at Pierce? Of course, it really wouldn't be a surprise, would it?
The story sent to me by commenters and included in several posts below, is that many, many LAAS and ACTF employees were aware of the complaints of neglect of the animals and of a planned ACTF that came 9 days late with the full knowledge of those employees.
Click to enlarge
The second document is an accounting statement dated May 31, 2005, two years and three months after South's moratorium letter, which states apparently $5,600 worth of cows were sold (although it does not say cow sales), and that the college received $1,980 during the first five months of 2005 for boarding cows. Is this still Stacy?
All of these legal issues are interesting, enough so that the whole story was run before an attorney at the City Attorney's Office. We'll see what happens. I was told by this person I should ask Boks directly if he intends to run an investigation.
Well, Ed, are you?
.
The story is that Dancy, even while a student at Pierce, was running a for-profit farm business on the campus, involving her cows and may still continue.
Therefore, it appears that an Animal Services employee was moonlighting with her own private business on a community college campus, i.e., a state agency, and while so doing, gave Pierce faculty knowledge of animal neglect complaints against the College, and allegedly also informed them there was to be an inspection by the LA Animal Cruelty Task Force.
This sounds like a straightforward obstruction of justice problem as well as a tricky legal problem of an allegedly moonlighting employee using a state agency's premises to conduct a for-profit business called a "student animal project."
This letter was sent to me. It was written by Dick South, head of Pierce's Agricultural program and directed to Dean Rupert.
It states there was now a moratorium on "Student Animal Projects," which does appear to be a euphemism for private, for-profit animal businesses. Notice, the letter states that Stacy's and Sam's "projects" would not be affected by the moratorium.
That is, Dancy was allegedly running a for-profit business at Pierce even before 2003. Does this business arrangement continue even today? Has she been a "student" at a community collge for six or more years?
Click on letter to enlarge
Dick South cites the reason for the moratorium is complaints that the animals were being neglected; that is, no one was paying any attention to them, which is exactly what the http://www.piercefarmwatch.com/ website alleges continues today.
Has nothing changed? Can we expect the ACTF to bust another "hoarder" rather than conduct a surprise inspection at Pierce? Of course, it really wouldn't be a surprise, would it?
The story sent to me by commenters and included in several posts below, is that many, many LAAS and ACTF employees were aware of the complaints of neglect of the animals and of a planned ACTF that came 9 days late with the full knowledge of those employees.
Click to enlarge
The second document is an accounting statement dated May 31, 2005, two years and three months after South's moratorium letter, which states apparently $5,600 worth of cows were sold (although it does not say cow sales), and that the college received $1,980 during the first five months of 2005 for boarding cows. Is this still Stacy?
All of these legal issues are interesting, enough so that the whole story was run before an attorney at the City Attorney's Office. We'll see what happens. I was told by this person I should ask Boks directly if he intends to run an investigation.
Well, Ed, are you?
.
Boks Fails Animal Emergency Preparedness
.
Two years and five months ago, Council charged Ed Boks with establishing an emergency preparedness program and animal database to aid in rescue, fostering, owner reclamation or rehoming of displaced animals.
Yesterday, because Boks brought exactly nothing to Council or the AS Commission, it died.
The Motion was:
.
File Number
06-0351
Last Changed Date
07/16/2008
Title
DISASTER-RESCUE OPERATION FOR animal RESIDENTS
Initiated by
Cardenas Mover 2006 / Padilla / Parks
Motion - In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, many serious and tragic issues arose regarding the rescue, care, veterinary attention, evacuation, short- and long-term of fostering and/or re-homing of animals in the geographic areas affected by the disaster. Many owners were not able to take their pets with them because there was no preparation for evacuating them in the event of a catastrophic emergency. Louisiana city officials were criticized by both emergency response experts and the media for failing to have an effective evacuation plan in place. There are many issues involved in attempting to evacuate animals, including handling, transporting, sanitation, communicable and zoonotic diseases and other factors which can affect both animals and humans.
The City of Los Angeles could experience a major earthquake, terrorist or bio-chemical attack or numerous other unexpected and unpredictable disasters that would affect millions of humans and animals. Any of these situations could warrant immediate evacuation of City residents. It is necessary to have an animal Emergency Preparedness Plan which includes governmental agencies, surrounding shelters, and partnerships with volunteer humane/rescue groups. An integral part of such a plan would be data relating to the number and types of animals within City boundaries. The City of Los Angeles must take advantage of the opportunity to put preemptive measures in place to assure that we do not repeat the recent tragedies of other cities.
THEREFORE MOVE that the Department of animal Services report back to the Public Safety Committee within 30 days on the creation of a disaster-rescue operation for our animal residents. The department is also instructed to study methods developed by other jurisdictions throughout the state and country to determine what mutual-aid partnerships would be available to the City for emergency animal rescue during a disaster.
FURTHER MOVE that the Department of animal Services report on the feasibility and resources needed to complete an animal census for both companion and farm animals maintained in the City of Los Angeles, with such statistics to be updated at least biannually and maintained by LAAS and other emergency-response departments and/or agencies that would be involved in disaster-rescue operations of our human and animal residents.
Date Received
02/15/2006
File History
2-15-06 - This day's Council session
2-15-06 - Ref to Public Safety Committee
2-15-06 - File to Public Safety Committee Clerk
7-16-08 - Communication from the City Clerk, dated July 11, 2008, relative to the expiration of Council File 06-0351, inasmuch as the file has not been placed on a Council or Committee agenda for consideration for a period of two years or more and, pursuant to Council policy, the file is deemed received and filed.
7-16-08 - File in files
Well, we do know that some Pierce students/LAAS employees may already have a farm animal preparedness plan worked out as part of a "student project." By the way, I do have more information on Pierce "Student Projects" that I'll post in a while, including boarding fees.
.
.
Two years and five months ago, Council charged Ed Boks with establishing an emergency preparedness program and animal database to aid in rescue, fostering, owner reclamation or rehoming of displaced animals.
Yesterday, because Boks brought exactly nothing to Council or the AS Commission, it died.
The Motion was:
.
File Number
06-0351
Last Changed Date
07/16/2008
Title
DISASTER-RESCUE OPERATION FOR animal RESIDENTS
Initiated by
Cardenas Mover 2006 / Padilla / Parks
Motion - In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, many serious and tragic issues arose regarding the rescue, care, veterinary attention, evacuation, short- and long-term of fostering and/or re-homing of animals in the geographic areas affected by the disaster. Many owners were not able to take their pets with them because there was no preparation for evacuating them in the event of a catastrophic emergency. Louisiana city officials were criticized by both emergency response experts and the media for failing to have an effective evacuation plan in place. There are many issues involved in attempting to evacuate animals, including handling, transporting, sanitation, communicable and zoonotic diseases and other factors which can affect both animals and humans.
The City of Los Angeles could experience a major earthquake, terrorist or bio-chemical attack or numerous other unexpected and unpredictable disasters that would affect millions of humans and animals. Any of these situations could warrant immediate evacuation of City residents. It is necessary to have an animal Emergency Preparedness Plan which includes governmental agencies, surrounding shelters, and partnerships with volunteer humane/rescue groups. An integral part of such a plan would be data relating to the number and types of animals within City boundaries. The City of Los Angeles must take advantage of the opportunity to put preemptive measures in place to assure that we do not repeat the recent tragedies of other cities.
THEREFORE MOVE that the Department of animal Services report back to the Public Safety Committee within 30 days on the creation of a disaster-rescue operation for our animal residents. The department is also instructed to study methods developed by other jurisdictions throughout the state and country to determine what mutual-aid partnerships would be available to the City for emergency animal rescue during a disaster.
FURTHER MOVE that the Department of animal Services report on the feasibility and resources needed to complete an animal census for both companion and farm animals maintained in the City of Los Angeles, with such statistics to be updated at least biannually and maintained by LAAS and other emergency-response departments and/or agencies that would be involved in disaster-rescue operations of our human and animal residents.
Date Received
02/15/2006
File History
2-15-06 - This day's Council session
2-15-06 - Ref to Public Safety Committee
2-15-06 - File to Public Safety Committee Clerk
7-16-08 - Communication from the City Clerk, dated July 11, 2008, relative to the expiration of Council File 06-0351, inasmuch as the file has not been placed on a Council or Committee agenda for consideration for a period of two years or more and, pursuant to Council policy, the file is deemed received and filed.
7-16-08 - File in files
Well, we do know that some Pierce students/LAAS employees may already have a farm animal preparedness plan worked out as part of a "student project." By the way, I do have more information on Pierce "Student Projects" that I'll post in a while, including boarding fees.
.
.
Shelter Refuses Dog Food Donations
.
A friend of mine tried to donate dog food to one of the shelters due to the 20% cut in the food budget--imaging that. I still can't get over it.
The reason given is that they feed only one type of food and mixing with another type will/might cause diarrhea.
Possibly, but they ought to ask their vets about that. I know Feldman had introduced special diets and added higher quality food.
In any event, ask the shelters what kinds of food do they feed the dogs and cats and donate that kind of food.
.
A friend of mine tried to donate dog food to one of the shelters due to the 20% cut in the food budget--imaging that. I still can't get over it.
The reason given is that they feed only one type of food and mixing with another type will/might cause diarrhea.
Possibly, but they ought to ask their vets about that. I know Feldman had introduced special diets and added higher quality food.
In any event, ask the shelters what kinds of food do they feed the dogs and cats and donate that kind of food.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)