During difficult economic times, many communities find the care of lost and homeless animals complicated by a host of competing priorities.
When evaluating competing priorities one’s focus often turns to the bottom line. When that happens, the real questions, the questions of conscience concerning animal care can be overlooked.
In urban communities it is easy to lose touch with nature and the intrinsic value of animals. If we’re not careful, we can forget that companion animals are beings with needs and wants and purpose.
When confronted with all of the issues and problems involved with creating a pleasant urban environment, it is not difficult to understand how decision makers can feel strongly that human need and wants are more important to a community than animal needs and wants.
When this happens, animal care can be reduced to a simple equation of what’s affordable, profitable or expedient. We can almost fool ourselves into thinking we are dealing with widgets instead of lives.
It is at this decision point that we as a community find ourselves engaged in a true test of our character.
Indian Prime Minister Mahatma Gandhi, whose image we honor in Union Park Square in New York City, taught that the true nature of a community’s character is revealed in the way that community treats their animals. In other words, animal care is a measure of a community’s capacity for human empathy, compassion, and kindness.
How a community treats lost and homeless companion animals defines what that community is teaching its next generation about love, compassion and mercy.
Matthew Scully, senior speech writer for President Bush and author of the book Dominion, put it this way: “We are called upon to treat animals with kindness, not because they have rights or power or some claim to equality, but because they don’t; because they all stand unequal and powerless before us.
Animals are so easily overlooked, their interests so easily brushed aside. Whenever we humans enter their world, from our farms to the local animal shelter to the African savanna, we enter as lords of the earth bearing strange powers of terror and mercy alike.”
In New York City, Los Angeles and many other communities across the nation we are on the brink of an exciting and historic accomplishment; ending the terror of pet euthanasia as a form of pet overpopulation control.
That is not to say there are no higher priorities or that we won’t be distracted by greater needs or injustices.
To this point, Scully points out there will always be enough injustices and human suffering in the world to make the wrongs done to animals seem small and secondary. But we err in thinking of justice as a finite commodity. It is not, nor is kindness and love.
It is dangerous to think a community has just enough compassion for its elderly but not its children, or just enough love for its children but not it’s poor.
Is it easy to think only of the value of human life? Albert Schweitzer warns that, “Anyone who has accustomed himself to regard the life of any living creature as worthless is in danger of arriving also at the idea of worthless human lives."
We compound the wrongs within our character when we excuse the wrongs done to animals by saying that more important wrongs are done to human beings and we must concentrate on those alone.
A wrong is a wrong, and when we shrug off these little wrongs we do grave harm to ourselves and others.
“When we wince at the suffering of animals, that feeling speaks well of us even when we ignore it, and those who dismiss love for our fellow creatures as mere sentimentality overlook a good and important part of our humanity.” (Scully: Dominion)
So, how do we balance all the competing priorities vying for our attention and resources?
The great philosopher Yogi Berra provided the answer when he said, “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.”
When we come to competing priorities such as summer youth programs or animal care, lets take it as an opportunity to implement a Teach Love and Compassion (TLC) program that meets the needs of both our kids and our pets.
TLC is just one example of how we as a community can walk and chew gum at the same time. Choosing priorities need not be either/or it can be both. One part of our community need not suffer because we feel we have to choose another to help.
Your local animal control can implement programs designed to address the needs of your community. Big Fix, FELIX, STAR, Safety Net are a few examples of the role animal care can play in displaying the type of character we would want to see replicated in our children.
What is exciting about these types of animal control programs is that they truly exemplify the character of our community. They exist because of the love and compassion of people who care about the entire circle of life in our communities, a circle that includes our pets.
Friday, April 09, 2010
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Ed Boks E-Mails Reveal Mandatory S/N Law Failures - The Truth
Recently Nathan Winograd mischaracterized a portion of an email from me as suggesting LA’s spay/neuter law is a failure. This is typical of the divisive sniping endemic in all of Nathan’s self-aggrandizing philosophy.
The email quotes a portion of an email that says, “we can’t hide from the fact that veterinarians are raising their prices to a point where people cannot afford the services regardless of vouchers or financial assistance. We need some innovative thinking in addition to more mobile vans.”
Identifying this problem and developing a response is appropriate, and I am thankful that the Coalition for Pets & Public Safety took this admonition to heart and recently added another spay/neuter vehicle to the several already serving Los Angeles. Yet Nathan attempts to malign these types of strategic initiatives by obfuscating the facts with this slanted narrative: “Ed Boks made headlines in his support of a California sterilization law, Assembly Bill 1634. During legislative hearings, Boks admitted that the legislation was more about expanding the bureaucratic power of animal control than saving animals when a Senator asked: ‘Mr. Boks, this bill doesn’t even pretend to be about saving animals, does it?’ To which Boks responded: ‘No Senator, this is not about saving dogs and cats.’
Nathan conveniently quotes only the first portion of my response. The entire quote was, “No Senator, this is not about saving dogs and cats ALREADY IN THE SHELTER, it is about saving untold lives in the future by ensuring they are never born.”
Nathan then transitions to attacking the results of a successful spay/neuter ordinance in the City of Los Angeles, claiming I “demanded more officers to enforce it, and was granted over $400,000 in enforcement money to do so, money that was taken away from truly lifesaving programs. The end result was predictable. Almost immediately, LAAS officers threatened poor people with citations if they did not turn over the pets to be killed at LAAS, and that is exactly what occurred. For the first time in a decade, impounds and killing increased – dog deaths increase 24%."
What a horrific lie! What is the reason for such sensational fiction? In fact, LA Animal Services’ budget was reduced after the passing of this ordinance, and the department was the only City department at risk of a layoff of officers. While the dog euthanasia rate did increase 6% over the past year (NOT 24%) the intake rate also rose from 31,082 to 31,953 as a result of the economic down turn NOT BECAUSE OF THE ORDINANCE. All across the United States shelters are experiencing an increase in intakes as a result of the economy, but it seems to serve Nathan’s business purpose to vilify LA’s spay/neuter law.
After much tortured reasoning, Nathan claims I fault the spay/neuter ordinance for his exaggerated claim regarding an increase in killing, quoting an email from me that said, “the failure of our programs… explains why no progress has been made in reducing cat intakes in recent years.” He deliberately misses the point - I was NOT criticizing the spay/neuter ordinance, I was pointing out the failure of LA’S spay/neuter voucher programs and I was suggesting restructuring the program to better target animals most in need. In fact, the number of cat deaths has actually decreased 5.6% since passage of the spay/neuter ordinance.
For a detailed explanation of my proposal to restructure the Voucher program, click here.
Nathan sadly continues: “…to defray blaming the spay/neuter law for increased impounds, Boks and his killing apologists in Los Angeles… blamed the economy. But the data did not bear out the claim. While the City of Los Angeles had one of the lowest foreclosure rates (1.79) at the time, it saw killing increase following the passage of its spay/neuter law.”
Nathan has the luxury to pick and choose the facts that support his presuppositions. He shoots his arrows and then paints a target around them. While the foreclosure rate for Los Angeles might have been 1.79%, the animals most at risk in Los Angeles come from the East Valley and South LA where foreclosures have seen rates as high as 2.23% compared to the national average of 2.04%.
It is truly pitiable that Nathan has chosen as his guiding business principal Oscar Wilde’s self-effacing precept that, “It is not enough that I succeed; my friends must also fail.” If he would spend as much time helping communities as he does sowing strife we would all be that much closer to achieving No-Kill.
The email quotes a portion of an email that says, “we can’t hide from the fact that veterinarians are raising their prices to a point where people cannot afford the services regardless of vouchers or financial assistance. We need some innovative thinking in addition to more mobile vans.”
Identifying this problem and developing a response is appropriate, and I am thankful that the Coalition for Pets & Public Safety took this admonition to heart and recently added another spay/neuter vehicle to the several already serving Los Angeles. Yet Nathan attempts to malign these types of strategic initiatives by obfuscating the facts with this slanted narrative: “Ed Boks made headlines in his support of a California sterilization law, Assembly Bill 1634. During legislative hearings, Boks admitted that the legislation was more about expanding the bureaucratic power of animal control than saving animals when a Senator asked: ‘Mr. Boks, this bill doesn’t even pretend to be about saving animals, does it?’ To which Boks responded: ‘No Senator, this is not about saving dogs and cats.’
Nathan conveniently quotes only the first portion of my response. The entire quote was, “No Senator, this is not about saving dogs and cats ALREADY IN THE SHELTER, it is about saving untold lives in the future by ensuring they are never born.”
Nathan then transitions to attacking the results of a successful spay/neuter ordinance in the City of Los Angeles, claiming I “demanded more officers to enforce it, and was granted over $400,000 in enforcement money to do so, money that was taken away from truly lifesaving programs. The end result was predictable. Almost immediately, LAAS officers threatened poor people with citations if they did not turn over the pets to be killed at LAAS, and that is exactly what occurred. For the first time in a decade, impounds and killing increased – dog deaths increase 24%."
What a horrific lie! What is the reason for such sensational fiction? In fact, LA Animal Services’ budget was reduced after the passing of this ordinance, and the department was the only City department at risk of a layoff of officers. While the dog euthanasia rate did increase 6% over the past year (NOT 24%) the intake rate also rose from 31,082 to 31,953 as a result of the economic down turn NOT BECAUSE OF THE ORDINANCE. All across the United States shelters are experiencing an increase in intakes as a result of the economy, but it seems to serve Nathan’s business purpose to vilify LA’s spay/neuter law.
After much tortured reasoning, Nathan claims I fault the spay/neuter ordinance for his exaggerated claim regarding an increase in killing, quoting an email from me that said, “the failure of our programs… explains why no progress has been made in reducing cat intakes in recent years.” He deliberately misses the point - I was NOT criticizing the spay/neuter ordinance, I was pointing out the failure of LA’S spay/neuter voucher programs and I was suggesting restructuring the program to better target animals most in need. In fact, the number of cat deaths has actually decreased 5.6% since passage of the spay/neuter ordinance.
For a detailed explanation of my proposal to restructure the Voucher program, click here.
Nathan sadly continues: “…to defray blaming the spay/neuter law for increased impounds, Boks and his killing apologists in Los Angeles… blamed the economy. But the data did not bear out the claim. While the City of Los Angeles had one of the lowest foreclosure rates (1.79) at the time, it saw killing increase following the passage of its spay/neuter law.”
Nathan has the luxury to pick and choose the facts that support his presuppositions. He shoots his arrows and then paints a target around them. While the foreclosure rate for Los Angeles might have been 1.79%, the animals most at risk in Los Angeles come from the East Valley and South LA where foreclosures have seen rates as high as 2.23% compared to the national average of 2.04%.
It is truly pitiable that Nathan has chosen as his guiding business principal Oscar Wilde’s self-effacing precept that, “It is not enough that I succeed; my friends must also fail.” If he would spend as much time helping communities as he does sowing strife we would all be that much closer to achieving No-Kill.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Ohio Effort to Ban Puppy Mills and Dog Auctions Disrupted by Opponents
A meeting at Millersburg, Ohio, aimed at training and educating supporters of a possible bill that would ban dog auctions in Ohio was canceled Saturday after opponents disrupted the meeting. Millersburg Police and Holmes County Sheriff's deputies were called to the Holmes County Library this past Saturday morning where a "town hall meeting" was being held by the Coalition to Ban Ohio Dog Auctions to talk about possible legislation.
Opponents of the proposed legislation gathered outside the front entrance of the library to hand out literature titled "The Animal Rights Agenda," with one section highlighted in blue, stating: "You are attending today's "Town Hall Meeting" to discuss plans for a ballot initiative to shut down dog auctions in Ohio. There is only one such auction in Ohio. This initiative is a direct attack on that private business which is operated in Holmes County; and literally hundreds of your fellow citizens depend on this auction to either purchase or market their dogs and to obtain new bloodlines or offer new bloodlines to other breeders."
Mary O' Connor-Shaver, treasurer for the Coalition to Ban Ohio Dog Auctions, said the group has organized meetings in more than 14 counties and never had it "disrupted" like it was Saturday. She said the information contained in the flier was "sensationalism."
"The auction is serving as a distribution channel for disreputable buyers and sellers, and we feel it's not been good for the state, whether it's Holmes County or any other county, Ohio suffers as a result of these auctions and it's not any good," she said.
The Ohio Dog Auctions Act would be similar to a Pennsylvania law and would establish a statute to the Ohio Dog Law making it illegal for anyone to auction or raffle a dog in Ohio. It also would prohibit bringing dogs into the state for sale or trade that were acquired by auction of raffle elsewhere. Supporters are hoping to get it on the November 2011 ballot.
O'Connor-Shaver said the Hamilton County - Coalition Meeting on Ohio Dog Auctions Act has been rescheduled for Saturday, April 3 at 10:00 a.m. at the SPCA Cincinnati, Sharonville.
For more information on the Ohio effort to ban puppy mills and dog auctions visit: http://www.banohiodogauctions.com/
http://www.edboks.com/
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Duluth animal shelter adopts no-kill goal
The Duluth Animal Shelter and Animal Allies Humane Society are announcing a joint goal of not euthanizing a single healthy animal starting this year.
When Duluth Animal Control Officer Carrier Lane took her job in the early ’90s, the conditions she found at the city animal shelter were nothing short of deplorable, she said.
Animals were rarely let out of their cages, weren’t being spayed and neutered, and a dozen — if not dozens of — healthy animals were euthanized each day.
“That was easily the hardest part of the job,” Lane said.
But things have improved so much that the shelter and Animal Allies Humane Society are announcing a joint goal of not euthanizing a single healthy animal starting this year.
“If we can make that part of our job go away,” Lane said, “that would really help us. And separate from us, it’ll be good for the animals.”
That may not seem like such a challenge, but nationally the rate of animals euthanized at shelters can be up to 40 percent for dogs and 70 percent for cats, according to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
Euthanizing healthy animals at one point was a major problem in Duluth, said Animal Allies executive director Jim Filby Williams, who said about 25 years ago that 1,500 were euthanized in a single year. Last year, the number was 59.
The total of euthanized animals last year, 344, is thought to be a record low for the city.
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/163836/
http://www.edboks.com/
When Duluth Animal Control Officer Carrier Lane took her job in the early ’90s, the conditions she found at the city animal shelter were nothing short of deplorable, she said.
Animals were rarely let out of their cages, weren’t being spayed and neutered, and a dozen — if not dozens of — healthy animals were euthanized each day.
“That was easily the hardest part of the job,” Lane said.
But things have improved so much that the shelter and Animal Allies Humane Society are announcing a joint goal of not euthanizing a single healthy animal starting this year.
“If we can make that part of our job go away,” Lane said, “that would really help us. And separate from us, it’ll be good for the animals.”
That may not seem like such a challenge, but nationally the rate of animals euthanized at shelters can be up to 40 percent for dogs and 70 percent for cats, according to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
Euthanizing healthy animals at one point was a major problem in Duluth, said Animal Allies executive director Jim Filby Williams, who said about 25 years ago that 1,500 were euthanized in a single year. Last year, the number was 59.
The total of euthanized animals last year, 344, is thought to be a record low for the city.
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/163836/
http://www.edboks.com/
Puppy Mills Don't Play in Peoria
The saying, "Will it play in Peoria?" is traditionally used as a metaphor to ask whether a given product, person, promotional theme, or event will appeal to mainstream America. The following article suggests “puppy mills” and related "puppy mill events" do not “play in Peoria”. Let's hope this is a good portent for the rest of the nation that this horrific industry will soon be a thing of the past:
Activists cheer cancellation of puppy expo
Missouri business denied license to sell dogs in Peoria
By CATHARINE SCHAIDLE (cschaidle@pjstar.com) OF THE JOURNAL STAR
PEORIA — Animal rights activists claimed victory this week when a puppy expo planned for this weekend at Exposition Gardens was canceled.
Lauren Malmberg, director of the Peoria Animal Welfare Shelter, said Wednesday the event was canceled after the organizers' application for a transient business license to sell puppies in Peoria was denied.
"We were notified on the 18th that application had been made and discovered they were out of state," Malmberg said.
Organizers Joy Thomas, Judy Hodge-Smith and Kae Sherrill, operating under the business K9 Kabin, are from Missouri.
"I called the ag department to confirm they did not have the appropriate license to operate in Illinois as a dog dealer, or kennel or pet shop operator, so I consulted with our legal department," Malmberg said. "We denied their application based on the fact they did not hold a state license."
K9 Kabin officials could not be reached to respond to comments by Malmberg and others. But even if K9 Kabin had been granted a license, the owners probably would have met a hostile atmosphere in Peoria. Dozens of animals rights activists had been e-mailing and calling each other to protest its operation as soon as the advertisement appeared Sunday in the classified section of the Journal Star, Malmberg said.
A group called The Puppy Mill Project that monitors puppy sales has been mobilizing members all across the state.
The K9 Kabin group is licensed through the U.S. Department of Agriculture as a commercial dog breeder.
Activists had planned to stage a protest at Expo Gardens in Peoria.
"This is not the first time we've stopped a puppy expo," said Cari Meyers, who runs The Puppy Mill Project, based in Chicago. "I have a group of 150 warriors as I call them, and with phone calls and e-mails, about 900."
One of the "warriors" is Doris Mueller of Peoria, who formed Peoria Area Voices for Animals three years ago.
"We were just going to be holding signs and getting people to be aware of the situation and not be impulsive buyers," Mueller said about the protest they had planned. "The public doesn't have a chance to see the parents. Puppy mill puppy problems don't manifest themselves until the dogs are much older."
Animal rights activists use the term puppy mill to refer to commercial breeders with USDA licenses.
"They have hundreds of dogs which live outside in cages with wire flooring, and they are all bred to be sold," Meyers said.
Meyers said her group, in conjunction with other advocates from Illinois, did some investigation and found the Missouri-based K9 Kabin's owners had several U.S. Department of Agriculture violations.
"This has got to stop," Meyers said. "They are running puppy mills."
A recent report by Missouri's Better Business Bureau found that 30 percent of federally licensed dog breeders are located there, four times the number of breeders in the next-highest state.
http://www.pjstar.com/news/x905411668/Activists-cheer-cancellation-of-puppy-expo
http://www.edboks.com/
Activists cheer cancellation of puppy expo
Missouri business denied license to sell dogs in Peoria
By CATHARINE SCHAIDLE (cschaidle@pjstar.com) OF THE JOURNAL STAR
PEORIA — Animal rights activists claimed victory this week when a puppy expo planned for this weekend at Exposition Gardens was canceled.
Lauren Malmberg, director of the Peoria Animal Welfare Shelter, said Wednesday the event was canceled after the organizers' application for a transient business license to sell puppies in Peoria was denied.
"We were notified on the 18th that application had been made and discovered they were out of state," Malmberg said.
Organizers Joy Thomas, Judy Hodge-Smith and Kae Sherrill, operating under the business K9 Kabin, are from Missouri.
"I called the ag department to confirm they did not have the appropriate license to operate in Illinois as a dog dealer, or kennel or pet shop operator, so I consulted with our legal department," Malmberg said. "We denied their application based on the fact they did not hold a state license."
K9 Kabin officials could not be reached to respond to comments by Malmberg and others. But even if K9 Kabin had been granted a license, the owners probably would have met a hostile atmosphere in Peoria. Dozens of animals rights activists had been e-mailing and calling each other to protest its operation as soon as the advertisement appeared Sunday in the classified section of the Journal Star, Malmberg said.
A group called The Puppy Mill Project that monitors puppy sales has been mobilizing members all across the state.
The K9 Kabin group is licensed through the U.S. Department of Agriculture as a commercial dog breeder.
Activists had planned to stage a protest at Expo Gardens in Peoria.
"This is not the first time we've stopped a puppy expo," said Cari Meyers, who runs The Puppy Mill Project, based in Chicago. "I have a group of 150 warriors as I call them, and with phone calls and e-mails, about 900."
One of the "warriors" is Doris Mueller of Peoria, who formed Peoria Area Voices for Animals three years ago.
"We were just going to be holding signs and getting people to be aware of the situation and not be impulsive buyers," Mueller said about the protest they had planned. "The public doesn't have a chance to see the parents. Puppy mill puppy problems don't manifest themselves until the dogs are much older."
Animal rights activists use the term puppy mill to refer to commercial breeders with USDA licenses.
"They have hundreds of dogs which live outside in cages with wire flooring, and they are all bred to be sold," Meyers said.
Meyers said her group, in conjunction with other advocates from Illinois, did some investigation and found the Missouri-based K9 Kabin's owners had several U.S. Department of Agriculture violations.
"This has got to stop," Meyers said. "They are running puppy mills."
A recent report by Missouri's Better Business Bureau found that 30 percent of federally licensed dog breeders are located there, four times the number of breeders in the next-highest state.
http://www.pjstar.com/news/x905411668/Activists-cheer-cancellation-of-puppy-expo
http://www.edboks.com/
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Volunteers Open Kitten Room at No-Kill Shelter
A fresh paint job, a new floor and custom-built furniture aren't among things that a cat generally holds in high regard.
However, volunteers at Jeffersonville's Animal Protection Association, are hoping it's something that potential pet owners will.
The association – a non-profit and no-kill shelter on 11th Street in Jeffersonville – is putting the finishing touches on its kitten nursery with such improvements. The shelter is not like many others in that most of the cats roam free, climbing around cat trees and other furniture, instead of spending their hours behind bars.
“We wanted to make it cute and inviting for adopters and make it homelike for the cats,” said Susan Hammon, a volunteer who helped decorate the kitties' new digs. “The idea is that the cats are in this house, essentially running free.”
And it's not as though they have the full run of the building. There are rooms and some cages in which some of the cats are contained.
Andy Scott, of Louisville-based Candor Construction, volunteered to build the wooden boxes, beds and cage for the new kitten nursery.
“It was a lot of fun,” he said, noting that it became a project for he and his two sons. “I love to build stuff.”
Hammon said the room is being completed as spring time usually brings a lot of new tabby tenants and siamese squatters.
“Anytime now, we're expecting a flood of kittens,” she said.
Currently, according to association president Faye Hinton, the organization has about 40 cats, not all of which are at the shelter. In a given year it finds homes for about 200 cats, she said.
Those interested in adopting at cat can call (812) 283-6555 for an appointment. The shelter also has adoption hours between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays at 702 East Eleventh Street, Jeffersonville.
http://news-tribune.net/homepage/x769243227/Volunteers-open-kitten-room-at-no-kill-shelter-in-Jeffersonville
http://www.edboks.com/
However, volunteers at Jeffersonville's Animal Protection Association, are hoping it's something that potential pet owners will.
The association – a non-profit and no-kill shelter on 11th Street in Jeffersonville – is putting the finishing touches on its kitten nursery with such improvements. The shelter is not like many others in that most of the cats roam free, climbing around cat trees and other furniture, instead of spending their hours behind bars.
“We wanted to make it cute and inviting for adopters and make it homelike for the cats,” said Susan Hammon, a volunteer who helped decorate the kitties' new digs. “The idea is that the cats are in this house, essentially running free.”
And it's not as though they have the full run of the building. There are rooms and some cages in which some of the cats are contained.
Andy Scott, of Louisville-based Candor Construction, volunteered to build the wooden boxes, beds and cage for the new kitten nursery.
“It was a lot of fun,” he said, noting that it became a project for he and his two sons. “I love to build stuff.”
Hammon said the room is being completed as spring time usually brings a lot of new tabby tenants and siamese squatters.
“Anytime now, we're expecting a flood of kittens,” she said.
Currently, according to association president Faye Hinton, the organization has about 40 cats, not all of which are at the shelter. In a given year it finds homes for about 200 cats, she said.
Those interested in adopting at cat can call (812) 283-6555 for an appointment. The shelter also has adoption hours between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays at 702 East Eleventh Street, Jeffersonville.
http://news-tribune.net/homepage/x769243227/Volunteers-open-kitten-room-at-no-kill-shelter-in-Jeffersonville
http://www.edboks.com/
NASCAR Driver plans No-Kill shelter
The center will be in the planned $800 million Langtree at the Lake community off Interstate 77 Exit 31 in south Iredell, the Biffles announced this afternoon.
Friends of the Animals hopes the center will open within two years.
The animal sanctuary will house 150 animals -- 60 cats and 90 dogs -- that will be available for adoption.
The animal education and community center will also be available to churches, community groups and the public for birthday parties and meetings.
Langtree’s developers, including Rick Howard, CEO of The Langtree Group, are allowing Friends of the Animals to use green space fin the development or a community dog park and walking trails.
“Friends of the Animals searched for several years to find a location that would be easy for the public to access,” NIcole Biffle said in announcing the shelter plans. “ If the location is easy and friendly, we know it will increase adoptions and spay/ neuters for the animals.”
Nicole Biffle is president of the Friends of the Animals’ board or directors.
Langtree at the Lake will include lakeside condominiums, village-center lofts, specialty shops and boutiques, restaurants and small cafés and Class A office space. The development will also have 40 acres of green space, including : 2 1/2 miles of walking trails around a man-made lake and over a mile of Lake Norman shoreline.
Read more: http://www.thatsracin.com/2010/03/26/30487/nascar-driver-plans-no-kill-shelter.html#ixzz0jOhGXprY
http://www.edboks.com/
Austin City Council adopts "No-Kill" plan
The Austin City council voted unanimously March 11 in favor of a plan to reduce animal euthanizations, and also approved a $12 million contract to build a new animal shelter in east Austin.
The ‘no-kill’ plan aims to reduce euthanizations to 10 percent of the animal shelter population, down from about one-third now. City staff estimated the euthanization rate could be achieved within approximately two years. The city proposed moving toward a no-kill shelter program in 1997.
The reduced euthanization plan involves about 35 ideas, including more free sterilizations, expanded foster care programs and off-site adoption programs. If implemented the plan would cost about $1 million per year, tentatively. Many of the measures could be implemented at no cost, and council members did not commit to allocating any funding.
As part of the plan, council members approved a $12 million contract to build a new animal shelter at the Betty Dunkerley Campus of the city’s Health and Human Services Department, located at 7201 Levander Loop.
The new facility is scheduled to be finished by summer 2011, replacing he Town Lake Animal Center, 1156 W. Cesar Chavez St. Voters approved funding the new facility in a 2006 bond election.
City staff recommended keeping the Town Lake facility open for six months after the opening of the new facility.
http://www.edboks.com/
The ‘no-kill’ plan aims to reduce euthanizations to 10 percent of the animal shelter population, down from about one-third now. City staff estimated the euthanization rate could be achieved within approximately two years. The city proposed moving toward a no-kill shelter program in 1997.
The reduced euthanization plan involves about 35 ideas, including more free sterilizations, expanded foster care programs and off-site adoption programs. If implemented the plan would cost about $1 million per year, tentatively. Many of the measures could be implemented at no cost, and council members did not commit to allocating any funding.
As part of the plan, council members approved a $12 million contract to build a new animal shelter at the Betty Dunkerley Campus of the city’s Health and Human Services Department, located at 7201 Levander Loop.
The new facility is scheduled to be finished by summer 2011, replacing he Town Lake Animal Center, 1156 W. Cesar Chavez St. Voters approved funding the new facility in a 2006 bond election.
City staff recommended keeping the Town Lake facility open for six months after the opening of the new facility.
http://www.edboks.com/
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Ed Boks
You can contact Ed Boks at ed@edboks.com or visit http://www.edboks.com/
Background: Boks began his animal welfare career while serving as a Pastor with Grace Chapel of Phoenix (1976/1997) where he also served as principal and high school teacher at The Centers for Learning, a K-12 private school associated with Grace Chapel. From 1985 to 1995, Boks concurrently worked with Maricopa County Animal Care & Control where he worked his way up the organizational ladder to Chief of Staff. Retiring from the ministry in '95, Boks focused on establishing and enforcing unique life-saving animal care, control and anti-cruelty policies and programs in 24 cities and towns and the unincorparated Maricopa County (an area larger than 17 states).
Boks left animal welfare for several years when he was recruited to develop and manage the Maricopa County Management Institute (1995/1998), a program recognized by Governing Magazine as one reason for Maricopa County’s selection as the “best run municipality in the United States”. The Institute was accredited by Arizona State University and Boks received a National Association of Counties (NACo) Achievement Award for the program.
Boks’ blend of ministerial and management experience soon caught the eye of Maricopa County Chief Administration Officer, David Smith, who asked Boks to return to an ailing Animal Care & Control as executive director (1998/2003). During this time, the Department became known as the most innovative and progressive animal control program in the nation. Boks transformed the Department into the highest volume pet adoption agency in the United States, while achieving the lowest pet euthanasia rate in its recorded history. He led the Department through its first Strategic Planning process; built a coalition of nearly 100 Arizona based animal welfare organizations; negotiated cost-recovery contracts with 20 cities (which more than doubled revenue and ended decades of deficit-based budgeting); established the nation’s first municipal no-kill Pet Adoption Center; founded Maricopa County Friends of Animal Care & Control as a fund raising auxiliary; helped obtain $6 million in grants; managed an $8 million operational budget, two 24/7 animal care centers, and 150 employees.
Boks received the first ever Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Award for Outstanding Leadership for his “outstanding leadership as the director of Maricopa County Animal Care & Control”. He also received his first Life Time Achievement Award - presented by In Defense of Animals for his “extraordinary life of compassion, commitment and achievement dedicated to ending animal homelessness and providing compassionate care for homeless animals.”
Boks’ success in Maricopa County was noticed by the Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, who recruited Boks to New York (2003/2006) where he propelled a second struggling animal care and control agency into becoming the highest volume pet adoption program in the United States, with the lowest pet euthanasia rates in the Department’s recorded history. Boks built a coalition of over 160 northeastern based animal welfare organizations; helped obtain over $15 million in grants; led the Department through its first Strategic Planning process; enrolled unprecedented community support; and managed an $8 million operational budget, three 24/7 animal care centers, and 150 employees.
Boks actually served as Executive Director of Maricopa County and New York City Animal Care & Control simultaneously for six months in 2003, managing the two of the largest animal control programs in the nation at the same time. Permitting this unprecedented arrangement is evidence of both Maricopa County and New York City’s confidence in Boks. At the conclusion of his tenure with New York City, Boks received his second Lifetime Achievement Award presented by the Friends of Animal Care & Control in New York City “for a career of extraordinary life saving work”. While in New York, Boks also received Alley Cat Allies National Award for Excellence for “transforming the way communities care for feral cats.”
When leaving New York City, Boks' boss, Public Health Commissioner, Dr. Thomas Frieden, M.D., M.P.H., (recently appointed by President Obama to serve as the director of the Center for Disease Control) had this to say: “At the time Mr. Boks was brought on as executive director, Animal Care and Control was in need of major improvement. Faced with significant challenges, Mr. Boks brought a new vision and energy to the organization, especially in the pursuit of making New York a no-kill city. Under his leadership, Animal Care and Control has made progress in improving conditions in animal shelters, increasing adoption rates, improving public perception of the organization, and growing the volunteer program. Mr. Boks was a key player in setting Animal Care and Control in a new direction and served effectively as a turnaround CEO. Mr. Boks is energetic, intelligent, knowledgeable and deeply committed to the field of animal welfare.”
Boks’ left New York City at the request of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa who asked Boks to serve as general manager of LA Animal Services (2006/2009). Once again, Boks transformed yet another department into becoming the highest volume pet adoption program in the nation, with the lowest pet euthanasia rates in its recorded history. Boks opened and staffed six LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Certified animal care centers (a $160 million project); led the Department’s first Strategic Planning process; updated and standardized all policies and procedures; recruited and managed the most progressive shelter veterinary program in the nation; recruited a record number volunteers; helped establish the Animal Cruelty Task Force; built a coalition of over 140 Los Angeles based animal welfare organizations; played an instrumental role in the development of two animal welfare television programs; helped author the nation's most ambitious spay/neuter law, managed a $22 million budget, seven 24/7 animal care centers, and 450 employees.
While with LA Animal Services, Boks was honored by Voice For The Animals for “his commitment to protecting the welfare of animals in Los Angeles” and by The Pet Place Television Show for “his coming to the aid of animals and displaying selfless acts of courage, heroism and compassion.”
Concerning Boks’ tenure with LA Animal Services, Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa said, "Under Boks’ leadership this City revamped the way we treat and care for our pets and animals. The ‘no kill’ policy became a central component of our animal services strategy. Pet adoptions are up, shelters expanded at a rapid rate, and ‘spay and neuter’ has become more than just a call to action; it is the law in Los Angeles. We look forward to building on his legacy and continuing to make [Los Angeles] the gold standard for pet protection.”
Boks' approach incorporates strategic planning with organizational development. His strengths include Visioning; Strategic Planning; Public Relations; Communication (Oral and Written); Team Building; Recruitment; High Performance and Transparent Management; Contract Negotiation; Public Speaking; Consulting; Teaching and Training; Curriculum Development; Lobbying; Multi-Million Dollar Capital Project Management; and large scale Animal Welfare Program Management.
Since July 2009, Boks has served as a consultant to both Foundations and municipalities; facilitating strategic planning processes, Board development, crafting business plans, and lobbying. If you would like to contact Mr. Boks, he can be reached at ed@edboks.com.
Background: Boks began his animal welfare career while serving as a Pastor with Grace Chapel of Phoenix (1976/1997) where he also served as principal and high school teacher at The Centers for Learning, a K-12 private school associated with Grace Chapel. From 1985 to 1995, Boks concurrently worked with Maricopa County Animal Care & Control where he worked his way up the organizational ladder to Chief of Staff. Retiring from the ministry in '95, Boks focused on establishing and enforcing unique life-saving animal care, control and anti-cruelty policies and programs in 24 cities and towns and the unincorparated Maricopa County (an area larger than 17 states).
Boks left animal welfare for several years when he was recruited to develop and manage the Maricopa County Management Institute (1995/1998), a program recognized by Governing Magazine as one reason for Maricopa County’s selection as the “best run municipality in the United States”. The Institute was accredited by Arizona State University and Boks received a National Association of Counties (NACo) Achievement Award for the program.
Boks’ blend of ministerial and management experience soon caught the eye of Maricopa County Chief Administration Officer, David Smith, who asked Boks to return to an ailing Animal Care & Control as executive director (1998/2003). During this time, the Department became known as the most innovative and progressive animal control program in the nation. Boks transformed the Department into the highest volume pet adoption agency in the United States, while achieving the lowest pet euthanasia rate in its recorded history. He led the Department through its first Strategic Planning process; built a coalition of nearly 100 Arizona based animal welfare organizations; negotiated cost-recovery contracts with 20 cities (which more than doubled revenue and ended decades of deficit-based budgeting); established the nation’s first municipal no-kill Pet Adoption Center; founded Maricopa County Friends of Animal Care & Control as a fund raising auxiliary; helped obtain $6 million in grants; managed an $8 million operational budget, two 24/7 animal care centers, and 150 employees.
Boks received the first ever Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Award for Outstanding Leadership for his “outstanding leadership as the director of Maricopa County Animal Care & Control”. He also received his first Life Time Achievement Award - presented by In Defense of Animals for his “extraordinary life of compassion, commitment and achievement dedicated to ending animal homelessness and providing compassionate care for homeless animals.”
Boks’ success in Maricopa County was noticed by the Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, who recruited Boks to New York (2003/2006) where he propelled a second struggling animal care and control agency into becoming the highest volume pet adoption program in the United States, with the lowest pet euthanasia rates in the Department’s recorded history. Boks built a coalition of over 160 northeastern based animal welfare organizations; helped obtain over $15 million in grants; led the Department through its first Strategic Planning process; enrolled unprecedented community support; and managed an $8 million operational budget, three 24/7 animal care centers, and 150 employees.
Boks actually served as Executive Director of Maricopa County and New York City Animal Care & Control simultaneously for six months in 2003, managing the two of the largest animal control programs in the nation at the same time. Permitting this unprecedented arrangement is evidence of both Maricopa County and New York City’s confidence in Boks. At the conclusion of his tenure with New York City, Boks received his second Lifetime Achievement Award presented by the Friends of Animal Care & Control in New York City “for a career of extraordinary life saving work”. While in New York, Boks also received Alley Cat Allies National Award for Excellence for “transforming the way communities care for feral cats.”
When leaving New York City, Boks' boss, Public Health Commissioner, Dr. Thomas Frieden, M.D., M.P.H., (recently appointed by President Obama to serve as the director of the Center for Disease Control) had this to say: “At the time Mr. Boks was brought on as executive director, Animal Care and Control was in need of major improvement. Faced with significant challenges, Mr. Boks brought a new vision and energy to the organization, especially in the pursuit of making New York a no-kill city. Under his leadership, Animal Care and Control has made progress in improving conditions in animal shelters, increasing adoption rates, improving public perception of the organization, and growing the volunteer program. Mr. Boks was a key player in setting Animal Care and Control in a new direction and served effectively as a turnaround CEO. Mr. Boks is energetic, intelligent, knowledgeable and deeply committed to the field of animal welfare.”
Boks’ left New York City at the request of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa who asked Boks to serve as general manager of LA Animal Services (2006/2009). Once again, Boks transformed yet another department into becoming the highest volume pet adoption program in the nation, with the lowest pet euthanasia rates in its recorded history. Boks opened and staffed six LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Certified animal care centers (a $160 million project); led the Department’s first Strategic Planning process; updated and standardized all policies and procedures; recruited and managed the most progressive shelter veterinary program in the nation; recruited a record number volunteers; helped establish the Animal Cruelty Task Force; built a coalition of over 140 Los Angeles based animal welfare organizations; played an instrumental role in the development of two animal welfare television programs; helped author the nation's most ambitious spay/neuter law, managed a $22 million budget, seven 24/7 animal care centers, and 450 employees.
While with LA Animal Services, Boks was honored by Voice For The Animals for “his commitment to protecting the welfare of animals in Los Angeles” and by The Pet Place Television Show for “his coming to the aid of animals and displaying selfless acts of courage, heroism and compassion.”
Concerning Boks’ tenure with LA Animal Services, Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa said, "Under Boks’ leadership this City revamped the way we treat and care for our pets and animals. The ‘no kill’ policy became a central component of our animal services strategy. Pet adoptions are up, shelters expanded at a rapid rate, and ‘spay and neuter’ has become more than just a call to action; it is the law in Los Angeles. We look forward to building on his legacy and continuing to make [Los Angeles] the gold standard for pet protection.”
Boks' approach incorporates strategic planning with organizational development. His strengths include Visioning; Strategic Planning; Public Relations; Communication (Oral and Written); Team Building; Recruitment; High Performance and Transparent Management; Contract Negotiation; Public Speaking; Consulting; Teaching and Training; Curriculum Development; Lobbying; Multi-Million Dollar Capital Project Management; and large scale Animal Welfare Program Management.
Since July 2009, Boks has served as a consultant to both Foundations and municipalities; facilitating strategic planning processes, Board development, crafting business plans, and lobbying. If you would like to contact Mr. Boks, he can be reached at ed@edboks.com.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
To Declaw or Not to Declaw
I have been asked to explain my comments at a recent Santa Monica City Council meeting. The Council was deliberating over whether or not to enact a Ban against Cat Declawing within the city limits of Santa Monica. A similar measure was defeated in Malibu two weeks earlier.
My position is a difficult one, but an honest one and I think my comments speak for themselves. I don't stand alone in my position, it is shared by the San Francisco SPCA who released the following statement, "Our mission is to save animals’ lives and we understand that, in some instances, [declawing] may be the only way to prevent abandonment, relinquishment, or euthanasia."
The San Francisco SPCA issued the above statement denouncing San Francisco's move to ban declaws even though the group advocates against the procedure. Being against a Ban is NOT being for declawing. I share the SF SPCA's concern that frustrated owners with no option to declaw cats will be forced to decide to abandon or relinquish their pet.
“Keep it legal, keep it rare” is the position of virtually every national animal welfare and veterinary association. It is also the position of most shelters committed to reducing the number of animals killed in their communities. The suggestion that most European countries have already enacted a ban is disingenuous.
Click on this link to read the Los Angeles Chief Legislative Analyst Report to the LA City Council. The CLA busted three myths propagated by Ban Proponents. He found that declawing is "not cruel" (a position I am not prepared to take). He found that declawed cats relinquished to LA shelters are "a rarity". And he called into question the City's authority to oversee the practice of veterinary medicine, and said that even if the City has this authority, it does not have the resources or staff to do so.
To further clarify my "last resort", and I do mean LAST RESORT position, I am sharing my comments from the recent Santa Monica City Council meeting with links to documents that help explain and support my position. Again, I do NOT support declawing, however, I don't support a Ban either because of the unintended consequences that are sure to follow:
"Good evening. My name is Ed Boks and I am here as an animal welfare advocate with nearly 30 years experience in animal care and control and over 12 years experience managing three of the largest animal shelter systems in the United States, including New York City and Los Angeles. As an experienced shelter manager, I can tell you that an uncompromising ban on cat declawing in the City of Santa Monica will result in more cats abandoned on your streets and more cats relinquished and killed in your shelter.
Like Ban Proponents, I abhor the practice of Declawing, but I abhor the abandoning, relinquishing and killing of cats even more, and I’m here to tell you that is what a Ban will lead to.
It is interesting that you are told that Declawing is mutilation by the same people who embrace other forms of mutilation! Some Ban Proponents approve cutting the tip off the ear of otherwise healthy feral cats for the convenience of being able to identify them in a colony.
Other Ban Proponents promote invasive surgery for the convenience of reducing dog and cat populations; another form of mutilation in the minds of some.
And probably everyone in this room, on both sides of this debate will agree that these forms of “mutilation” are acceptable. Why? Because we know they save lives!
In the same way, when a veterinarian performs a declaw surgery as a last resort she is saving a life! You take that life-saving option away from a cat guardian and you will force them to relinquish their pets to a shelter, who, at a cost to the City, will try to re-home them, and if they can’t - these cats will be killed. Why, when we are all trying so hard to end the killing in our shelters, would we want to create another reason to kill?
In Malibu, Mayor Stern voted against a Ban explaining that he would have taken his cat to the Pound if he couldn’t have her declawed because his wife’s health is at serious risk to a cat scratch. Thank God he had this option!
Please don’t limit the life-saving tools available to licensed veterinarians or second guess their professional judgment.
When performed as a last resort, declawing is a life saving remedy that keeps cats and people together, cats who might otherwise be subject to abuse, abandonment, or death.
Please vote NO to a Ban. A No Vote is a life saving vote. Thank you."
For more information on this difficult issue, visit: http://www.advocatesforfacts.org/Cat_Declawing.html
My position is a difficult one, but an honest one and I think my comments speak for themselves. I don't stand alone in my position, it is shared by the San Francisco SPCA who released the following statement, "Our mission is to save animals’ lives and we understand that, in some instances, [declawing] may be the only way to prevent abandonment, relinquishment, or euthanasia."
The San Francisco SPCA issued the above statement denouncing San Francisco's move to ban declaws even though the group advocates against the procedure. Being against a Ban is NOT being for declawing. I share the SF SPCA's concern that frustrated owners with no option to declaw cats will be forced to decide to abandon or relinquish their pet.
“Keep it legal, keep it rare” is the position of virtually every national animal welfare and veterinary association. It is also the position of most shelters committed to reducing the number of animals killed in their communities. The suggestion that most European countries have already enacted a ban is disingenuous.
Click on this link to read the Los Angeles Chief Legislative Analyst Report to the LA City Council. The CLA busted three myths propagated by Ban Proponents. He found that declawing is "not cruel" (a position I am not prepared to take). He found that declawed cats relinquished to LA shelters are "a rarity". And he called into question the City's authority to oversee the practice of veterinary medicine, and said that even if the City has this authority, it does not have the resources or staff to do so.
To further clarify my "last resort", and I do mean LAST RESORT position, I am sharing my comments from the recent Santa Monica City Council meeting with links to documents that help explain and support my position. Again, I do NOT support declawing, however, I don't support a Ban either because of the unintended consequences that are sure to follow:
"Good evening. My name is Ed Boks and I am here as an animal welfare advocate with nearly 30 years experience in animal care and control and over 12 years experience managing three of the largest animal shelter systems in the United States, including New York City and Los Angeles. As an experienced shelter manager, I can tell you that an uncompromising ban on cat declawing in the City of Santa Monica will result in more cats abandoned on your streets and more cats relinquished and killed in your shelter.
Like Ban Proponents, I abhor the practice of Declawing, but I abhor the abandoning, relinquishing and killing of cats even more, and I’m here to tell you that is what a Ban will lead to.
It is interesting that you are told that Declawing is mutilation by the same people who embrace other forms of mutilation! Some Ban Proponents approve cutting the tip off the ear of otherwise healthy feral cats for the convenience of being able to identify them in a colony.
Other Ban Proponents promote invasive surgery for the convenience of reducing dog and cat populations; another form of mutilation in the minds of some.
And probably everyone in this room, on both sides of this debate will agree that these forms of “mutilation” are acceptable. Why? Because we know they save lives!
In the same way, when a veterinarian performs a declaw surgery as a last resort she is saving a life! You take that life-saving option away from a cat guardian and you will force them to relinquish their pets to a shelter, who, at a cost to the City, will try to re-home them, and if they can’t - these cats will be killed. Why, when we are all trying so hard to end the killing in our shelters, would we want to create another reason to kill?
In Malibu, Mayor Stern voted against a Ban explaining that he would have taken his cat to the Pound if he couldn’t have her declawed because his wife’s health is at serious risk to a cat scratch. Thank God he had this option!
Please don’t limit the life-saving tools available to licensed veterinarians or second guess their professional judgment.
When performed as a last resort, declawing is a life saving remedy that keeps cats and people together, cats who might otherwise be subject to abuse, abandonment, or death.
Please vote NO to a Ban. A No Vote is a life saving vote. Thank you."
For more information on this difficult issue, visit: http://www.advocatesforfacts.org/Cat_Declawing.html
Monday, October 12, 2009
The Truth About Black Cats and Holloween
Black cats are awaiting adoption from local shelters this Halloween. Yet some shelters do not adopt out black or white cats in October for fear they will be tortured or used as a Halloween decoration or part of a costume.Each year animal shelters are faced with either holding the cats until after the holiday or euthanizing them. Because there is little documentation of animal tortures and a growing number of cats, animal shelters should adopt them out.
In the entire history of humane work, no one has ever documented or demonstrated any relationship between adopting out either black or white cats, or cats of any other color, and cats being killed or injured. There are no studies of the matter, and no relevant data. According to ANIMAL PEOPLE the belief that adopting out black or white cats to "witches" will result in ill consequences for the cat may be traced to three sources:
"1) Ignorance of the actual beliefs and practices of paganism. Witches do not harm their ‘familiars,’ who are supposed to be their eyes and ears in the spirit world. To harm a familiar would be to blind and deafen oneself, regardless of whether one is a ‘white’ witch, a ‘black’ witch, a purple witch, or any other kind of witch.
2) Misunderstanding predator behavior. Alleged sadists and Satanists were sought for purportedly stealing, killing and dismembering cats and dogs in at least nine states as Halloween 1998 approached. The supposed crimes drew sensational media coverage, lent emphasis to humane society warnings against letting pets run at large, and rewards of up to $10,000 were posted in some cases for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the killers.An accurate description of the suspects, however, in all but a handful of the animal deaths and disappearances, would include either four legs and a tail or wings, and none would be either werewolves or griffons.
Similar panics have developed each summer since. They coincide with the emergence of young foxes and coyotes from their mothers' dens and with the first hunting by newly fledged raptors. The panics gain momentum approaching Halloween as public attention to witches, ghouls, goblins, and other things that go bump in the night rises toward a crescendo. The panics virtually stop each year after Halloween distinctly unlike cases involving actual human sadism.
Trained to investigate human-inflicted cruelty, police detectives and humane officers typically have little background in predator behavior. Veterinarians tend to expect --wrongly--that injuries done by coyotes, the most frequent wild predator of pets will resemble those done by domestic dogs. Forensic evidence is thus misread by sincere people, acting in good faith, who incite witch-hunts at possible expense to professional credibility.
Predators, in contrast to human sadists, are astonishingly quick and efficient. Except in instances when predators take disabled but still living prey back to a den or nest to teach young how to kill their own food, predation victims tend to make little sound, if any, rarely even having time to know what hit them.
Predators try to avoid wasting time and energy inflicting unnecessary injuries.Their teeth and claws usually cut more cleanly than any knife. Predators don't leave much blood behind: that's food. If interrupted in mid-attack, they run or take flight with the parts they most want to eat. If able to eat at their leisure, they consume the richest organs, such as the heart, and leave what they don't want.
Coyotes and foxes typically attack small prey such as cats and rabbits from behind and to one side, with a scissors-like jaw snap to the backbone and midsection that frequently cuts the victim in half. If startled, they tend to flee with the larger back half and whatever internal organs come along, leaving the head and forepaws. These are among the cases most often misread by investigators, who mistake the discovery of the head as an indication of ritualistic crime.
Coyotes have an entirely different attack pattern against prey larger than themselves, such as sheep and deer. Against these animals, they go for the throat and belly. They then consume the viscera first.Cats, both wild and domestic, tend to leave inedible organs in a neat pile.
Cats also have the habit of depositing carcasses, or parts thereof, at the doorsteps of other cats or humans they are courting. When cats kill much smaller animals, such as mice, they consume the whole remains, but when they kill animals of almost their own size, such as rabbits, they may leave behind heads, ears, limbs, and even much of the fur.
Tomcats, especially interlopers in another tom's territory, often kill kittens. Instead of eating them, however, kitten-killing toms sometimes play with the carcasses as they would with a mouse, and then abandon the remains in an obvious place, possibly as a sign to both the mother and the dominant tom.
Coyotes, foxes, and both wild and domestic felines often dispatch prey who survives a first strike with a quick skull-crunching bite to the head. ANIMAL PEOPLE actually resolved several panics over alleged sadists supposedly drilling mysterious parallel holes in the skulls of pets by suggesting that the investigators borrow some skulls of wild predators from a museum, to see how the mystery holes align with incisors.
Any common predator, but especially coyotes and raptors, may be involved in alleged ‘skinned alive’ cases. The usual victims are dogs who--perhaps because parts of their bodies were hidden in tall grass--are mistaken for smaller prey. The predator holds on with teeth and/or claws while the wounded victim runs. The result is a set of sharp, typically straight cuts that investigators often describe as "filets." The editor of ANIMAL PEOPLE once witnessed a cat pounce and nearly skin a rabbit in such a case, and unable to intervene in time to prevent the incident, euthanized the victim. The attack occurred and ended within less than 30 seconds.
Raptors tend to be involved in cases where viscera are draped over cars, porches, trees, signs, and mailboxes: they take flight with their prey, or with a road kill they find, and parts fall out. They return to retrieve what they lose only if it seems safe to do so.
Birds, especially crows, account for many cases in which eyes, lips, anuses, and female genitals are removed from fallen livestock. Sometimes the animals have been killed and partially butchered by rustlers. Others are victims of coyotes or eagles. The combined effects of predation and scavenging produce ‘mutilations’ which may be attributed to Satanists or visitors from outer space, but except where rustlers are involved, there is rarely anything more sinister going on than natural predators making a living in their normal way.
3) Fan behavior during some of the first World Series games ever played. Early 20th century New York Giants manager John McGraw was notoriously superstitious, so fans (especially gamblers) would sometimes pitch black cats in front of the Giants' dugout to jinx him. In response to this, some early humane societies suspended adopting out black cats during the World Series, which was and is played just before Halloween.
An informal baseball rule was adopted during this time against continuing a game if an animal is on the field. Major League Baseball, Inc., made this rule official in 1984, after then-Yankees outfielder Dave Winfield threw a ball that killed a seagull during a game in Toronto. The rule has multiple purposes, one of them being to keep expensive ballplayers from getting hurt.”
THE MORE YOU KNOW... HAPPY HALLOWEEN! Keep your pets safe, indoors, and for Heaven’s sake, don’t dress them up or feed them candy.
In the entire history of humane work, no one has ever documented or demonstrated any relationship between adopting out either black or white cats, or cats of any other color, and cats being killed or injured. There are no studies of the matter, and no relevant data. According to ANIMAL PEOPLE the belief that adopting out black or white cats to "witches" will result in ill consequences for the cat may be traced to three sources:
"1) Ignorance of the actual beliefs and practices of paganism. Witches do not harm their ‘familiars,’ who are supposed to be their eyes and ears in the spirit world. To harm a familiar would be to blind and deafen oneself, regardless of whether one is a ‘white’ witch, a ‘black’ witch, a purple witch, or any other kind of witch.
2) Misunderstanding predator behavior. Alleged sadists and Satanists were sought for purportedly stealing, killing and dismembering cats and dogs in at least nine states as Halloween 1998 approached. The supposed crimes drew sensational media coverage, lent emphasis to humane society warnings against letting pets run at large, and rewards of up to $10,000 were posted in some cases for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the killers.An accurate description of the suspects, however, in all but a handful of the animal deaths and disappearances, would include either four legs and a tail or wings, and none would be either werewolves or griffons.
Similar panics have developed each summer since. They coincide with the emergence of young foxes and coyotes from their mothers' dens and with the first hunting by newly fledged raptors. The panics gain momentum approaching Halloween as public attention to witches, ghouls, goblins, and other things that go bump in the night rises toward a crescendo. The panics virtually stop each year after Halloween distinctly unlike cases involving actual human sadism.
Trained to investigate human-inflicted cruelty, police detectives and humane officers typically have little background in predator behavior. Veterinarians tend to expect --wrongly--that injuries done by coyotes, the most frequent wild predator of pets will resemble those done by domestic dogs. Forensic evidence is thus misread by sincere people, acting in good faith, who incite witch-hunts at possible expense to professional credibility.
Predators, in contrast to human sadists, are astonishingly quick and efficient. Except in instances when predators take disabled but still living prey back to a den or nest to teach young how to kill their own food, predation victims tend to make little sound, if any, rarely even having time to know what hit them.
Predators try to avoid wasting time and energy inflicting unnecessary injuries.Their teeth and claws usually cut more cleanly than any knife. Predators don't leave much blood behind: that's food. If interrupted in mid-attack, they run or take flight with the parts they most want to eat. If able to eat at their leisure, they consume the richest organs, such as the heart, and leave what they don't want.
Coyotes and foxes typically attack small prey such as cats and rabbits from behind and to one side, with a scissors-like jaw snap to the backbone and midsection that frequently cuts the victim in half. If startled, they tend to flee with the larger back half and whatever internal organs come along, leaving the head and forepaws. These are among the cases most often misread by investigators, who mistake the discovery of the head as an indication of ritualistic crime.
Coyotes have an entirely different attack pattern against prey larger than themselves, such as sheep and deer. Against these animals, they go for the throat and belly. They then consume the viscera first.Cats, both wild and domestic, tend to leave inedible organs in a neat pile.
Cats also have the habit of depositing carcasses, or parts thereof, at the doorsteps of other cats or humans they are courting. When cats kill much smaller animals, such as mice, they consume the whole remains, but when they kill animals of almost their own size, such as rabbits, they may leave behind heads, ears, limbs, and even much of the fur.
Tomcats, especially interlopers in another tom's territory, often kill kittens. Instead of eating them, however, kitten-killing toms sometimes play with the carcasses as they would with a mouse, and then abandon the remains in an obvious place, possibly as a sign to both the mother and the dominant tom.
Coyotes, foxes, and both wild and domestic felines often dispatch prey who survives a first strike with a quick skull-crunching bite to the head. ANIMAL PEOPLE actually resolved several panics over alleged sadists supposedly drilling mysterious parallel holes in the skulls of pets by suggesting that the investigators borrow some skulls of wild predators from a museum, to see how the mystery holes align with incisors.
Any common predator, but especially coyotes and raptors, may be involved in alleged ‘skinned alive’ cases. The usual victims are dogs who--perhaps because parts of their bodies were hidden in tall grass--are mistaken for smaller prey. The predator holds on with teeth and/or claws while the wounded victim runs. The result is a set of sharp, typically straight cuts that investigators often describe as "filets." The editor of ANIMAL PEOPLE once witnessed a cat pounce and nearly skin a rabbit in such a case, and unable to intervene in time to prevent the incident, euthanized the victim. The attack occurred and ended within less than 30 seconds.
Raptors tend to be involved in cases where viscera are draped over cars, porches, trees, signs, and mailboxes: they take flight with their prey, or with a road kill they find, and parts fall out. They return to retrieve what they lose only if it seems safe to do so.
Birds, especially crows, account for many cases in which eyes, lips, anuses, and female genitals are removed from fallen livestock. Sometimes the animals have been killed and partially butchered by rustlers. Others are victims of coyotes or eagles. The combined effects of predation and scavenging produce ‘mutilations’ which may be attributed to Satanists or visitors from outer space, but except where rustlers are involved, there is rarely anything more sinister going on than natural predators making a living in their normal way.
3) Fan behavior during some of the first World Series games ever played. Early 20th century New York Giants manager John McGraw was notoriously superstitious, so fans (especially gamblers) would sometimes pitch black cats in front of the Giants' dugout to jinx him. In response to this, some early humane societies suspended adopting out black cats during the World Series, which was and is played just before Halloween.
An informal baseball rule was adopted during this time against continuing a game if an animal is on the field. Major League Baseball, Inc., made this rule official in 1984, after then-Yankees outfielder Dave Winfield threw a ball that killed a seagull during a game in Toronto. The rule has multiple purposes, one of them being to keep expensive ballplayers from getting hurt.”
THE MORE YOU KNOW... HAPPY HALLOWEEN! Keep your pets safe, indoors, and for Heaven’s sake, don’t dress them up or feed them candy.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Cruel Oil
How Palm Oil Harms Health, Rainforest and Wildlife
What can you do to improve your health while helping to save the environment and wildlife? According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest you can start looking at the ingredients in your food and pass on products containing palm oil. You will be surprised how many products contain palm oil.
According to the Center, Keebler, Oreo, Mrs. Fields, Pepperidge Farm and other companies use palm oil in some of their cookies. Further, they claim it is found increasingly in crackers, pastries, cereals, and microwave popcorn and all Trader Joe’s products...
Not only does palm oil promote heart disease, but the vast plantations that grow oil palm trees contribute to the destruction of the rainforest and wildlife of Southeast Asia. Those side effects are not broadly recognized--and avoided--by governments, food manufacturers, and consumers.
Check out this website for more info: http://www.cspinet.org/palm/
What can you do to improve your health while helping to save the environment and wildlife? According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest you can start looking at the ingredients in your food and pass on products containing palm oil. You will be surprised how many products contain palm oil.
According to the Center, Keebler, Oreo, Mrs. Fields, Pepperidge Farm and other companies use palm oil in some of their cookies. Further, they claim it is found increasingly in crackers, pastries, cereals, and microwave popcorn and all Trader Joe’s products...
Not only does palm oil promote heart disease, but the vast plantations that grow oil palm trees contribute to the destruction of the rainforest and wildlife of Southeast Asia. Those side effects are not broadly recognized--and avoided--by governments, food manufacturers, and consumers.
Check out this website for more info: http://www.cspinet.org/palm/
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Join the Pet Health Consortium
The Pet Health Consortium, is a new group forming to educate Congress and the public on the importance and benefits of pet health insurance. Aside from educating the public, among the Consortium’s primary goals is to include pet health insurance as an optional pre-tax benefit provided to employees through Section 125 cafeteria plans. Cafeteria plans commonly include a number of options such as cash/credits, health insurance, medical and flexible spending accounts, adoption and childcare assistance, life insurance, automobile insurance, business travel accident insurance, and 401(k) contributions, etc.
There is no cost to join the Pet Health Consortium. You and your organization may become as actively involved as it chooses to be. It is hoped that organizations would agree to inform their members about the benefits of pet health insurance and the initiative to include the benefit in Section 125. There will be opportunities to become engaged in an advocacy campaign. Those desiring to meet with lawmakers and their staffs are optional. At the very least, Consortium members are asked to demonstrate their support by lending their name to the cause. It is up to each organization to decide how actively engaged it chooses to be.
There is no cost to join the Pet Health Consortium. You and your organization may become as actively involved as it chooses to be. It is hoped that organizations would agree to inform their members about the benefits of pet health insurance and the initiative to include the benefit in Section 125. There will be opportunities to become engaged in an advocacy campaign. Those desiring to meet with lawmakers and their staffs are optional. At the very least, Consortium members are asked to demonstrate their support by lending their name to the cause. It is up to each organization to decide how actively engaged it chooses to be.
Once the Consortium has heard from a requisite number of organizations a planning meeting will be scheduled with the individual designated by each group. If your group opts to join the Pet Health Consortium you will need to designate a primary point of contact and email their full name, title, contact information including mailing address, email and phone number to gluke@avma.org. Please respond no later than July 2.
The Pet Health Consortium believes adding pet insurance to cafeteria plans will appeal to the public. Given the opportunity, it is believed pet owners would avail themselves of pet insurance if it were offered as part of a cafeteria plan. Many pets are beloved by their owners and care is of great concern. Their guardians want what’s best for their animals, including access to high quality and affordable veterinary care. Cafeteria plans that include pet insurance will enjoy support among employers who will likely view it as a value-added benefit for their employees.
The Pet Health Consortium believes adding pet insurance to cafeteria plans will appeal to the public. Given the opportunity, it is believed pet owners would avail themselves of pet insurance if it were offered as part of a cafeteria plan. Many pets are beloved by their owners and care is of great concern. Their guardians want what’s best for their animals, including access to high quality and affordable veterinary care. Cafeteria plans that include pet insurance will enjoy support among employers who will likely view it as a value-added benefit for their employees.
It is believed this issue will gain traction in Congress as a viable addition to Section 125 as the health care reform debate advances. In addition, there are physiological benefits of pet ownership that positively influence human health including reduced blood pressure, decreased stress hormones and enhanced weight loss for those who walk a dog.
It is hoped that the membership of the Pet Health Consortium is both diverse and inclusive of a broad range of strategic partners who, like NAPHIA and the AVMA are interested in improving pet health and providing affordable options for pet owners.
If you have questions about the Consortium, please contact Gina Luke at AVMA Governmental Relations Division, 202-289-3204, gluke@avma.org.
It is hoped that the membership of the Pet Health Consortium is both diverse and inclusive of a broad range of strategic partners who, like NAPHIA and the AVMA are interested in improving pet health and providing affordable options for pet owners.
If you have questions about the Consortium, please contact Gina Luke at AVMA Governmental Relations Division, 202-289-3204, gluke@avma.org.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Possible Solution to Horse-Drawn Carriages in New York City
Following the traffic-related death of a horse named Spotty in 2006, New York League of Humane Voters (NYLHV) became one of the leading organizations advocating for a ban on horse-drawn carriages. NYLHV strongly believes that horses and traffic cannot co-exist and that the only humane solution is to retire the horses to sanctuaries.The main argument against a ban on horse-drawn carriages has always been job loss. However, a new organization called New Yorkers for Clean, Livable & Safe Streets (NY-CLASS) proposes replacing horse-drawn carriages with eco-friendly replicas of vintage cars. NY-CLASS claims this 21st century version of the" horseless carriage" is a humane and safe alternative to the horse-drawn carriage and will serve as a model of eco-tourism for cities throughout the world. It will also preserve and create "green" jobs.
This "horseless carriage" solution is viewed as an unprecedented opportunity to help horses while promoting a fun, exciting alternative. You can weigh in by asking the New York City Council to support this innovative proposal by going to http://editor.ne16.com/etapestry/rd.asp?desturl=http://www.ny-class.org&name=Link%202&tapMemberId=6010&tapMailingId=54901 and clicking on the “Take Action” link. By doing so you can help support a safe and humane alternative to the horse carriage industry!
Friday, July 03, 2009
Should Compassion be Outlawed?
That is the question being debated in
Surely this commitment and this case present a unique opportunity for the City of
Wild animals tend to have strong biological survival mechanisms. Feral cats, which are wild animals, typically live in colonies of six to twenty cats. You often never see all the cats in a colony and it is easy to underestimate the number of feral cats in a neighborhood. When individuals or authorities try to catch cats for extermination this heightens the biological stress on the colony.
Even if a community was successful in catching and removing all the feral cats from a neighborhood, a phenomenon called "the vacuum effect" would be created.
Ms. Varjian is a Certified Feral Cat Colony Manager; trained and certified by Dona Cosgrove Baker, President and Founder of the nationally recognized Feral Cat Caretakers' Coalition.
The next Beverly Hills City Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 4th at 7 p.m. at the Beverly Hills City Council, Rm. 400 (Council Chambers) located at 455 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210.
If you cannot attend you can voice your opinion by contacting your
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Setting the Record Straight
Over the past few days the LA Daily News misrepresented LA Animal Services on two occasions. The first instance I’ll mention was an article by Rick Orlav entitled, "Valley's horse-rescue plan needs work".
While I’ll agree that all emergency response plans need to be subject to constant review and improvement, the article suggests LA Animal Services’ role in the Sayres Fire is not clearly understood. LA Animal Services was there. LA Animal Services rescued over 400 horses. However, no mention was made of the fact that LA County Animal Care & Control was a no show until the rescue effort was nearly complete.
The only confusion during this entire episode resulted from whether LA Animal Services should go into the County to rescue horses outside of our jurisdiction or wait until County Animal Care & Control arrived. When it was clear horses would be lost if we didn’t act quickly, we of course went in - and as a result no horses were lost.
I made the recommendation to include a representative from Animal Services in the Emergency Operations Center to Councilman Zine nearly two years ago but to date he has taken no action and seems unaware of LA Animal Services critical role in these matters.
LA Animal Services performed exceptionally well and effectively saved hundreds of horses. They should be recognized for this heroic achievement - not criticized for the shortcomings of another department that couldn’t even get there on time.
The next article was an op-ed piece that appeared a few days earlier. I understand editors apply less scrutiny to want-a-be reporters, but LA Animal Services is such an open book that at any time the Daily News could simply have made a phone call to verify the facts before propagating the malicious myths manufactured by a chronic critic.
I refer to the piece entitled, “Finally, the end of an Ed Boks era.” A Department critic attempts to revive an old rumor claiming that I was fired in NYC. I was not fired from Animal Care & Control of New York City. I left that agency voluntarily and at the request of Mayor Villaraigossa to come to LA.
Then the author suggests LA Animal Services is somehow broken and “spiraling out of control” and the only remedy is to follow his inexperienced advice. So, is LA Animal Services broken? Let’s look at the facts.
Keep in mind this partial list of accomplishments was achieved while the Department experienced its most historic growth and most severe budget cuts and staffing shortages simultaneously; a significant challenge for any manager.
Still, we built the highest volume pet adoption program in the nation; achieved the lowest euthanasia rates in the Department’s history; opened six LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Certified animal care centers; increased staff size 100%; and recruited a record number of volunteers.
We firmly established the Animal Cruelty Task Force; improved Pet Shop and Circus Animal Regulations raising the standards for humane care; formed a coalition of over 100 animal welfare organizations to enhance our adoption efforts; produced two animal welfare television programs, and established an exceptional veterinary medical program and executive team.
Not only is LA Animal Services not broken, it is better positioned than ever to help establish LA as the most humane city in the nation.
If you would like to be part of a winning team please consider volunteering with LA Animal Services by clicking here and/or by making a donation to one of LA Animal Services life-saving programs by clicking here.
While I’ll agree that all emergency response plans need to be subject to constant review and improvement, the article suggests LA Animal Services’ role in the Sayres Fire is not clearly understood. LA Animal Services was there. LA Animal Services rescued over 400 horses. However, no mention was made of the fact that LA County Animal Care & Control was a no show until the rescue effort was nearly complete.
The only confusion during this entire episode resulted from whether LA Animal Services should go into the County to rescue horses outside of our jurisdiction or wait until County Animal Care & Control arrived. When it was clear horses would be lost if we didn’t act quickly, we of course went in - and as a result no horses were lost.
I made the recommendation to include a representative from Animal Services in the Emergency Operations Center to Councilman Zine nearly two years ago but to date he has taken no action and seems unaware of LA Animal Services critical role in these matters.
LA Animal Services performed exceptionally well and effectively saved hundreds of horses. They should be recognized for this heroic achievement - not criticized for the shortcomings of another department that couldn’t even get there on time.
The next article was an op-ed piece that appeared a few days earlier. I understand editors apply less scrutiny to want-a-be reporters, but LA Animal Services is such an open book that at any time the Daily News could simply have made a phone call to verify the facts before propagating the malicious myths manufactured by a chronic critic.
I refer to the piece entitled, “Finally, the end of an Ed Boks era.” A Department critic attempts to revive an old rumor claiming that I was fired in NYC. I was not fired from Animal Care & Control of New York City. I left that agency voluntarily and at the request of Mayor Villaraigossa to come to LA.
Then the author suggests LA Animal Services is somehow broken and “spiraling out of control” and the only remedy is to follow his inexperienced advice. So, is LA Animal Services broken? Let’s look at the facts.
Keep in mind this partial list of accomplishments was achieved while the Department experienced its most historic growth and most severe budget cuts and staffing shortages simultaneously; a significant challenge for any manager.
Still, we built the highest volume pet adoption program in the nation; achieved the lowest euthanasia rates in the Department’s history; opened six LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Certified animal care centers; increased staff size 100%; and recruited a record number of volunteers.
We firmly established the Animal Cruelty Task Force; improved Pet Shop and Circus Animal Regulations raising the standards for humane care; formed a coalition of over 100 animal welfare organizations to enhance our adoption efforts; produced two animal welfare television programs, and established an exceptional veterinary medical program and executive team.
Not only is LA Animal Services not broken, it is better positioned than ever to help establish LA as the most humane city in the nation.
If you would like to be part of a winning team please consider volunteering with LA Animal Services by clicking here and/or by making a donation to one of LA Animal Services life-saving programs by clicking here.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
All Creatures Great and Small
There is no denying the fact that we have vast power over animals, and with such power comes great responsibility. We can choose to be kind and merciful or cruel and abusive. Kindness and mercy exemplify the best of the human spirit.
Our Moral Duty to Protect Animals
Religious values call upon us to show kindness and mercy to animals. The HSUS Animals and Religion program works with people and institutions of faith to act on these beliefs and advocate for compassionate treatment of animals.
“Animals are more than ever a test of our character, of mankind’s capacity for empathy and for decent, honorable conduct and faithful stewardship. We are called to treat them with kindness, not because they have rights or power or some claim to equality, but in a sense because they don’t, because they all stand unequal and powerless before us.”
Matthew Scully, Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy.
You can learn what the largest religious denominations in the U.S. say about animal protection issues at http://www.humanesociety.org/religion/.
HSUS has produced a compelling 26-minute documentary entitled, "Eating Mercifully". This film examines U.S. industrial animal agriculture from several Christian viewpoints. The film is narrated by Robert P. Marin, Executive Director of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production and features commentaries from:
Elaine and Dale West, Founders Rooterville, A Sanctuary, Inc. Florida
Greg Boyd, Ph.D, President Christus Victor Ministries, Minnesota
Rev. Laura Hobgood-Oster, Ph.D., Southwestern University, Texas
Peter McDonald, owner McDonald Farm, New York
Sister Rosemarie Greco, D.W. Connecticut
You can order a free copy of Eating Mercifully on DVD, or view the film and download adult and teen study guides at www.humanesociety.org/religion.
Our Moral Duty to Protect Animals
Religious values call upon us to show kindness and mercy to animals. The HSUS Animals and Religion program works with people and institutions of faith to act on these beliefs and advocate for compassionate treatment of animals.
“Animals are more than ever a test of our character, of mankind’s capacity for empathy and for decent, honorable conduct and faithful stewardship. We are called to treat them with kindness, not because they have rights or power or some claim to equality, but in a sense because they don’t, because they all stand unequal and powerless before us.”
Matthew Scully, Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy.
You can learn what the largest religious denominations in the U.S. say about animal protection issues at http://www.humanesociety.org/religion/.
HSUS has produced a compelling 26-minute documentary entitled, "Eating Mercifully". This film examines U.S. industrial animal agriculture from several Christian viewpoints. The film is narrated by Robert P. Marin, Executive Director of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production and features commentaries from:
Elaine and Dale West, Founders Rooterville, A Sanctuary, Inc. Florida
Greg Boyd, Ph.D, President Christus Victor Ministries, Minnesota
Rev. Laura Hobgood-Oster, Ph.D., Southwestern University, Texas
Peter McDonald, owner McDonald Farm, New York
Sister Rosemarie Greco, D.W. Connecticut
You can order a free copy of Eating Mercifully on DVD, or view the film and download adult and teen study guides at www.humanesociety.org/religion.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
The Parrots and People Paradox
The CBS News Sunday Morning show aired an informative segment entitled, Bye, Bye Birdie. This important story describes the perils of parrot ownership.Should you find this report interesting, you can click on "Share" and email it to your friends and family. (Just wave your cursor over video.) Not only do you share an important story with the ones you love, but you also let CBS know that this is an important story because they count the number of “Shares” forwarded to determine public interest in a story.
You can also let reporter Bill Whitaker and the CBS Sunday Morning news team know you appreciate the story at http://tinyurl.com/mjwkub by selecting “CBS News Sunday Morning" from the drop down menu and expressing your appreciation in the space provided.
For more information on exotic bird exploitation go to: http://www.parrotpress.net/. Mira Tweety, featured in the report welcomes comments or queries about the piece, or parrots as pets. She can be reached at Tweti@ParrotPress.net. You can also purchase an autographed copy of her books, Of Parrots and People and Here, There and Everywhere. Proceeds will help fund a parrot welfare feature documentary already in production.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Food, Inc.
This past weekend I saw an important film entitled "Food, Inc."
In Food, Inc., filmmaker Robert Kenner lifts the veil on our nation's food industry, exposing the highly mechanized underbelly that's been hidden from the American consumer with the consent of our government's regulatory agencies, USDA and FDA.
Our nation's food supply is now controlled by a handful of corporations that often put profit ahead of consumer health, the livelihood of the American farmer, the safety of workers and our own environment. We have bigger-breasted chickens, the perfect pork chop, insecticide-resistant soybean seeds, even tomatoes that won't go bad, but we also have new strains of e coli--the harmful bacteria that causes illness for an estimated 73,000 Americans annually. We are riddled with widespread obesity, particularly among children, and an epidemic level of diabetes among adults.
Featuring interviews with such experts as Eric Schlosser (Fast Food Nation), Michael Pollan (The Omnivore's Dilemma) along with forward thinking social entrepreneurs like Stonyfield Farm's Gary Hirshberg and Polyface Farms' Joe Salatin, Food, Inc. reveals surprising -- and often shocking truths -- about what we eat, how it's produced, who we have become as a nation and where we are going from here.
Here is what others are saying about this film:
“See it. Bring your kids if you have them. Bring Someone else’s kids if you don’t.
- David Edelstein, NY Magazine
“More than a terrific movie – it’s an important movie.”
- Owen Gleibeman, Entertainment Weekly
“Does for the supermarket what ‘Jaws’ did for the beach.”
- Variety
Food, Inc. opened in these locations June 12:
San Francisco, CA:
Embarcadero Center Cinema 5
West Los Angeles, CA:
Nuart Theatre
New York, NY:
Film Forum
Coming Soon to a Theatre Near You. See it!
In Food, Inc., filmmaker Robert Kenner lifts the veil on our nation's food industry, exposing the highly mechanized underbelly that's been hidden from the American consumer with the consent of our government's regulatory agencies, USDA and FDA.
Our nation's food supply is now controlled by a handful of corporations that often put profit ahead of consumer health, the livelihood of the American farmer, the safety of workers and our own environment. We have bigger-breasted chickens, the perfect pork chop, insecticide-resistant soybean seeds, even tomatoes that won't go bad, but we also have new strains of e coli--the harmful bacteria that causes illness for an estimated 73,000 Americans annually. We are riddled with widespread obesity, particularly among children, and an epidemic level of diabetes among adults.
Featuring interviews with such experts as Eric Schlosser (Fast Food Nation), Michael Pollan (The Omnivore's Dilemma) along with forward thinking social entrepreneurs like Stonyfield Farm's Gary Hirshberg and Polyface Farms' Joe Salatin, Food, Inc. reveals surprising -- and often shocking truths -- about what we eat, how it's produced, who we have become as a nation and where we are going from here.
Here is what others are saying about this film:
“See it. Bring your kids if you have them. Bring Someone else’s kids if you don’t.
- David Edelstein, NY Magazine
“More than a terrific movie – it’s an important movie.”
- Owen Gleibeman, Entertainment Weekly
“Does for the supermarket what ‘Jaws’ did for the beach.”
- Variety
Food, Inc. opened in these locations June 12:
San Francisco, CA:
Embarcadero Center Cinema 5
West Los Angeles, CA:
Nuart Theatre
New York, NY:
Film Forum
Coming Soon to a Theatre Near You. See it!
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Thinking Outside the Boks...
Since announcing my resignation (effective June 30th) as general manager of LA Animal Services, I have received a tremendous response from the community and I thank all of you who took the time to contact me with your comments and support.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Should LA Abandon Its No-Kill Goal?
A recent editorial in a local newspaper initiated debate about whether the City of Los Angeles can achieve a No-Kill status and should even be trying to. Instead, the editorial advocated a retreat to focusing on “core functions” such as humane sheltering, law enforcement activities and pet adoption.
No reasonable observer would dispute the importance of accomplishing core functions, but the author of the editorial clearly did not understand the concept of No-Kill as it has been defined in Los Angeles the last few years, and as it is more widely defined in the animal welfare community across the country. No-Kill means ending the use of euthanasia as a means to control pet overpopulation; terminally ill, terminally injured animals and dangerously aggressive dogs are not included in this goal and these animals will, of course, always be humanely euthanized if and when they must be euthanized.
Although the terminally ill, terminally injured and dangerously aggressive animals are not included in achieving the No-Kill goal, these deaths are included in the City’s euthanasia statistics. This skews the discernment of the City’s policymakers and the Department’s constituency of our progress towards achieving this goal.
Can the City of Los Angeles achieve No-Kill? I contend we can, and further, I suggest we are closer than many realize (and that some have been willing to admit). But to be totally successful will take the whole community working together and must include targeted, affordable spay/neuter programs for needy pet owners.
In the drive to achieve No-Kill there are two commonly recognized hurdles to clear. A community’s progress towards No-Kill usually stalls at the first hurdle which is typically found when its pet euthanasia rate is reduced to between 12 and 10 shelter killings per 1,000 human residents annually (13.8 is the current national average).
Once a community achieves this rate, further significant reductions are stalled until the community decides to implement aggressive spay/neuter programs to achieve further euthanasia reduction goals. With effective, targeted spay/neuter programs progress toward the second hurdle can be steady. Clearing the first hurdle becomes apparent after a community has successfully persuaded all the people who are likely to fix their pets to do so.
The challenge then is to persuade the more difficult populations, which include the poor, the elderly on fixed income, individuals with negative attitudes about spay/neuter, people who speak languages other than English, and those who live in relatively remote areas.
The second hurdle in the drive to achieve No-Kill has been characterized as “the wall”. Few communities have been able to break through "the wall". A community hits “the wall” when it reduces its pet euthanasia rate to between 5 and 2.5 shelter killings per 1,000 human residents annually (in 2007, Los Angeles reduced its euthanasia rate to 3.7).
Hitting “the wall” signifies the success of an earlier generation of effectively targeted programs. To break through “the wall” requires a new generation of programs to address the needs of special populations not met by earlier programs, which typically includes bully dog breeds, and feral, domestic and neonate cats.
Breaking through the wall requires comprehensive data collection, assessment, and implementation of programs targeted to meet the special needs of residual populations. Finding more creative and effective ways to reach out to the public and market the adoption of hard-to-place pets becomes an even greater priority, and implementing and maintaining targeted spay/neuter programs remains paramount.
LA has been doing this, and has been doing this successfully for many years, despite the protests of a small group of misinformed, vocal and media savvy critics.
To abandon the No-Kill goal now would be nothing less than criminal. LA is close to becoming the first major metropolitan community to achieve this goal and the eyes of the nation are on us. Once this goal is achieved we will have stripped away from every other community any excuse for continuing to employ killing as a methodology for controlling dog and cat populations. Even in an era of tight budgets and big challenges, LA Animal Services should remain dedicated not only to its so-called core functions, but also to striving toward No-Kill. In fact, this is a city that has made No-Kill a core function. We have no choice but to succeed.
Before deciding to abandon the No-Kill goal please review these reports:
The 2008 LA Animal Services Annual Report:
http://www.laanimalservices.com/PDF/reports/annual/2008%20Statistical%20Report%20LA%20Animal%20Services.pdf
The 2008 National Comparison Report Issued by ANIMAL PEOPLE:
http://www.laanimalservices.com/PDF/reports/annual/ANIMAL%20PEOPLE%20National%202008%20Stats.pdf
No reasonable observer would dispute the importance of accomplishing core functions, but the author of the editorial clearly did not understand the concept of No-Kill as it has been defined in Los Angeles the last few years, and as it is more widely defined in the animal welfare community across the country. No-Kill means ending the use of euthanasia as a means to control pet overpopulation; terminally ill, terminally injured animals and dangerously aggressive dogs are not included in this goal and these animals will, of course, always be humanely euthanized if and when they must be euthanized.
Although the terminally ill, terminally injured and dangerously aggressive animals are not included in achieving the No-Kill goal, these deaths are included in the City’s euthanasia statistics. This skews the discernment of the City’s policymakers and the Department’s constituency of our progress towards achieving this goal.
Can the City of Los Angeles achieve No-Kill? I contend we can, and further, I suggest we are closer than many realize (and that some have been willing to admit). But to be totally successful will take the whole community working together and must include targeted, affordable spay/neuter programs for needy pet owners.
In the drive to achieve No-Kill there are two commonly recognized hurdles to clear. A community’s progress towards No-Kill usually stalls at the first hurdle which is typically found when its pet euthanasia rate is reduced to between 12 and 10 shelter killings per 1,000 human residents annually (13.8 is the current national average).
Once a community achieves this rate, further significant reductions are stalled until the community decides to implement aggressive spay/neuter programs to achieve further euthanasia reduction goals. With effective, targeted spay/neuter programs progress toward the second hurdle can be steady. Clearing the first hurdle becomes apparent after a community has successfully persuaded all the people who are likely to fix their pets to do so.
The challenge then is to persuade the more difficult populations, which include the poor, the elderly on fixed income, individuals with negative attitudes about spay/neuter, people who speak languages other than English, and those who live in relatively remote areas.
The second hurdle in the drive to achieve No-Kill has been characterized as “the wall”. Few communities have been able to break through "the wall". A community hits “the wall” when it reduces its pet euthanasia rate to between 5 and 2.5 shelter killings per 1,000 human residents annually (in 2007, Los Angeles reduced its euthanasia rate to 3.7).
Hitting “the wall” signifies the success of an earlier generation of effectively targeted programs. To break through “the wall” requires a new generation of programs to address the needs of special populations not met by earlier programs, which typically includes bully dog breeds, and feral, domestic and neonate cats.
Breaking through the wall requires comprehensive data collection, assessment, and implementation of programs targeted to meet the special needs of residual populations. Finding more creative and effective ways to reach out to the public and market the adoption of hard-to-place pets becomes an even greater priority, and implementing and maintaining targeted spay/neuter programs remains paramount.
LA has been doing this, and has been doing this successfully for many years, despite the protests of a small group of misinformed, vocal and media savvy critics.
To abandon the No-Kill goal now would be nothing less than criminal. LA is close to becoming the first major metropolitan community to achieve this goal and the eyes of the nation are on us. Once this goal is achieved we will have stripped away from every other community any excuse for continuing to employ killing as a methodology for controlling dog and cat populations. Even in an era of tight budgets and big challenges, LA Animal Services should remain dedicated not only to its so-called core functions, but also to striving toward No-Kill. In fact, this is a city that has made No-Kill a core function. We have no choice but to succeed.
Before deciding to abandon the No-Kill goal please review these reports:
The 2008 LA Animal Services Annual Report:
http://www.laanimalservices.com/PDF/reports/annual/2008%20Statistical%20Report%20LA%20Animal%20Services.pdf
The 2008 National Comparison Report Issued by ANIMAL PEOPLE:
http://www.laanimalservices.com/PDF/reports/annual/ANIMAL%20PEOPLE%20National%202008%20Stats.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
