There is a fundamental tenet held among most animal welfare and animal rights advocates that is accepted as incontrovertible. That precept was perhaps best articulated by Mahatma Gandhi when he said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress is best judged by how we treat our animals." This principle expresses the belief that when a community is compassionate enough to care about the needs of its animals, there can be a reasonable expectation that the bar is raised on how we care for and treat one another.
The reverse is also true. If we can dismiss the needs of our animals, it becomes easier to dismiss the needs of our infirmed, aged, and needy human populations. Caring about animals becomes a litmus test for determining a community's capacity for compassion.
This test is applied to Yavapai County every day, but never more so than from the end of March through October and sometimes November - a time we call kitten season.
Each year during kitten season, Yavapai Humane Society (YHS) takes in hundreds of neonate kittens. Neonate means too young to survive for more than an hour or two without a mother. Sadly, most of the neonate kittens we take in are orphans. People find these babies in their garage, barn, flowerbeds and many other places where the mother felt safe from predators and intruders while she gave birth. Property owners find them within hours or days of birth and bring them to YHS without the mother. Taken away from their mother, they have no chance at survival without significant human intervention.
On the upside, most of our healthy weaned kittens do get adopted. So anything we can do to help our neonates reach "kitten-hood" improves their odds for eventually finding a loving home.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines "foster" as providing parental care and nurture to children not related through legal or blood ties. While Arizona state law does not define what an "adoptable" animal is, we intrinsically understand that our moral progress depends on our providing adequate care and nurture to these living souls with whom we have no legal or blood ties.
The problem is that we can't save them all by ourselves. We need your help. During kitten season, YHS can take in many neonate orphans every day. Depending on their age, they may require four to eight weeks of intensive foster care. The majority will not survive without your help. If you are able and willing to help save these lives, YHS will provide the training, support and supplies you need to be a foster parent.
This is a big commitment and a true test of our compassion. Even with our best efforts, not all foster babies survive. But they can all be loved. These babies need to be bottle-fed every two hours around the clock for several weeks, making this a perfect family, club, or faith-based organizational project. Fostering helpless neonates is one way to help foster compassion and respect for the sanctity of all life in our community.
We also need fosters for ailing or behaviorally challenged dogs of all ages and sizes. For more information on how you can volunteer to foster or make a donation to help others willing to make this commitment, please contact YHS.
Ed Boks is the executive director of the Yavapai Humane Society. He can be reached at eboks@yavapaihumane.org or by calling 928-445-2666, ext. 21.
Monday, September 06, 2010
Sunday, September 05, 2010
Applying the No-Kill Ethic again...
More than a policy and statistical objective, "no-kill" is a principle, an ethic, and, once applied, the practical consequences begin to fall into place. The principle is that animal shelters should apply the same criteria for deciding an animal's fate that a loving pet guardian or conscientious veterinarian would apply. That is, healthy and treatable animals are not killed simply because we lack the room or resources to care for them.
Killing animals for lack of space may be the quick, convenient and, at least from afar, the easy thing to do. But I have never, in nearly 30 years in this field, heard anyone argue that it is the right thing to do. After all, the creatures who fill our shelters can hardly be faulted for bringing trouble upon themselves. People who seek to excuse euthanasia in shelters often say we have to be "realistic." But such realism is best directed at the sources of the problem and at the element of human responsibility.
There are the heartbreaking cruelty cases that bring so many animals to our doors. On top of that, over 50 percent of the 6,500-plus dogs and cats Yavapai Humane Society (YHS) takes in each year are actually relinquished - turned in - even after years living with a family, like old furniture donated to charity. And another third are orphaned, neonate puppies and kittens. No one bothered to spay or neuter the parents, and so the offspring are born into the world homeless or unwanted. The general attitude is, "Let someone else deal with the problem," and - hundreds of times a year - someone else does, with a lethal injection.
Along with such failures in personal responsibility is a breakdown in social responsibility. On the budget sheets, saving animals can seem to a certain mindset as being a lowly or trivial concern. That's an easy position to take, as long as you don't have to be there when the problem gets "solved." If the people who brush off animal-welfare as "trivial" had to see the product of their priorities carried out - to witness for themselves how trusting the dogs are even when being led to their death, or how as they drift away they lick the hand or face of the person with the needle - I suspect they would see matters in a very different light, and would enthusiastically support life-saving programs.
Here in Yavapai County there are rays of light. There is a renewed community commitment to helping lost and homeless animals and to swearing off euthanasia as a solution to pet overpopulation.
The "no-kill" ethic is a matter of taking responsibility, instead of excusing the problem or hiding its consequences.
No matter how you do the math, there are still too many creatures who have love and devotion to offer, but never get their chance. And calling the practice euthanasia (as some prefer), instead of killing (as others prefer), doesn't make it any kinder.
The practice of killing animals has never been anyone's idea of an ideal solution - let alone anyone's idea of giving "shelter" to creatures in need. And, up close, the willful elimination of healthy animals with good years left is a sight to move the hardest heart. It is time we as a community make this commitment: No animal that comes through YHS's doors will be killed out of convenience or a lack of space. For every one of them, there is somewhere a kind and loving person or family, and it is our mission to bring them together.
Ed Boks is the Executive Director of the Yavapai Humane Society. He can be reached at eboks@yavapaihumane.org or by calling 928.445-2666, ext. 21.
Killing animals for lack of space may be the quick, convenient and, at least from afar, the easy thing to do. But I have never, in nearly 30 years in this field, heard anyone argue that it is the right thing to do. After all, the creatures who fill our shelters can hardly be faulted for bringing trouble upon themselves. People who seek to excuse euthanasia in shelters often say we have to be "realistic." But such realism is best directed at the sources of the problem and at the element of human responsibility.
There are the heartbreaking cruelty cases that bring so many animals to our doors. On top of that, over 50 percent of the 6,500-plus dogs and cats Yavapai Humane Society (YHS) takes in each year are actually relinquished - turned in - even after years living with a family, like old furniture donated to charity. And another third are orphaned, neonate puppies and kittens. No one bothered to spay or neuter the parents, and so the offspring are born into the world homeless or unwanted. The general attitude is, "Let someone else deal with the problem," and - hundreds of times a year - someone else does, with a lethal injection.
Along with such failures in personal responsibility is a breakdown in social responsibility. On the budget sheets, saving animals can seem to a certain mindset as being a lowly or trivial concern. That's an easy position to take, as long as you don't have to be there when the problem gets "solved." If the people who brush off animal-welfare as "trivial" had to see the product of their priorities carried out - to witness for themselves how trusting the dogs are even when being led to their death, or how as they drift away they lick the hand or face of the person with the needle - I suspect they would see matters in a very different light, and would enthusiastically support life-saving programs.
Here in Yavapai County there are rays of light. There is a renewed community commitment to helping lost and homeless animals and to swearing off euthanasia as a solution to pet overpopulation.
The "no-kill" ethic is a matter of taking responsibility, instead of excusing the problem or hiding its consequences.
No matter how you do the math, there are still too many creatures who have love and devotion to offer, but never get their chance. And calling the practice euthanasia (as some prefer), instead of killing (as others prefer), doesn't make it any kinder.
The practice of killing animals has never been anyone's idea of an ideal solution - let alone anyone's idea of giving "shelter" to creatures in need. And, up close, the willful elimination of healthy animals with good years left is a sight to move the hardest heart. It is time we as a community make this commitment: No animal that comes through YHS's doors will be killed out of convenience or a lack of space. For every one of them, there is somewhere a kind and loving person or family, and it is our mission to bring them together.
Ed Boks is the Executive Director of the Yavapai Humane Society. He can be reached at eboks@yavapaihumane.org or by calling 928.445-2666, ext. 21.
Monday, June 07, 2010
Take a Walk...
Are you having trouble finding time for your daily 30-minute walk? Then make a date with your dog.
Studies have shown that dog ownership has some decided health benefits, not the least of which is that a furry friend helps get people into better shape -- even more so than a human walking partner!
See Spot Walk
Researchers at the University of Missouri wanted to see just how helpful it was to walk with a dog. So they assigned seniors to one of three walking programs: walking with a dog, walking with a friend, or walking alone. And they found that the people who hoofed it with a canine companion increased their walking speeds by an impressive 28 percent. People strolling alone or with a human companion only upped their speeds by about 5 percent.
The Canine Effect
Why did the dog walkers have so much more spring in their steps? The researchers posit that dog walking improved the seniors' balance and confidence, making them want to walk even more. Add to this the fact that pet owners tend to handle stress better, be more emotionally stable, and make fewer trips to the doctor than pet-free people, and you've got a lot of reasons to thank your pooch for his presence.
If you don't have a walking partner then visit your local shelter for help in selecting one. If walking your best friend is more of a drag, literally, stop prepping for the Iditarod, and check out Good Owners, Great Dogs, by Brian Killcommons. This book provides simple techniques taught in a straightforward way that will help you turn these lessons into everyday routines. Unconditional love from a well-mannered pooch -- and a healthier you? You can't go wrong with furry friendship.
Studies have shown that dog ownership has some decided health benefits, not the least of which is that a furry friend helps get people into better shape -- even more so than a human walking partner!
See Spot Walk
Researchers at the University of Missouri wanted to see just how helpful it was to walk with a dog. So they assigned seniors to one of three walking programs: walking with a dog, walking with a friend, or walking alone. And they found that the people who hoofed it with a canine companion increased their walking speeds by an impressive 28 percent. People strolling alone or with a human companion only upped their speeds by about 5 percent.
The Canine Effect
Why did the dog walkers have so much more spring in their steps? The researchers posit that dog walking improved the seniors' balance and confidence, making them want to walk even more. Add to this the fact that pet owners tend to handle stress better, be more emotionally stable, and make fewer trips to the doctor than pet-free people, and you've got a lot of reasons to thank your pooch for his presence.
Monday, May 31, 2010
How to End a Vicious Life and Death Cycle in your Neighborhood
It is not unusual for LA Animal Services to take in 1,000 to 1,500 orphans a month in April, May and June and around 1,000 a month in July through September. This phenomenon occurs at thousands of shelters across the United States every year. While many shelters, like LA Animal Services, have a robust foster program for taking in and nursing many of these orphans, no shelter can take in and care for all of them. It is best to not take these animals to a shelter if it can be avoided.
But if we don't take them to a shelter, what can we do with them? Most people do not know what to do when they encounter a litter of orphaned kittens in their yard. Yet, this happens all the time.
1. First, make sure the kittens are in fact orphaned. No one can take better care of these babies than the mother. If mama is taking care of them, let her continue to do so until they are weaned. You can provide her with fresh water and food daily. After they are weaned, (at around 8 weeks of age) take them to your local shelter or cat rescue agency to be spayed or neutered, vaccinated and placed for adoption. Ideally, after the kittens are weaned, you should trap the mother and take her in to be spayed too.
If there is no sign of the mother and it is clear that the kittens are in distress, it is best to take them in.
2. Call your local cat welfare, animal shelters and humane societies to find out if they have a kitten foster program and what their policies are.
3. Ideally, consider taking the kittens in and foster them yourself. No community has enough volunteers to care for all the orphans found each year. If you have kids of your own, this is an exceptional humane family project for teaching your kids about compassion. But understand, this is a big commitment. There are certain things that kittens really need, like the proper food, shelter and general care. It is important to even clean a kitten's genital area every few hours to stimulate them to urinate and defecate. It is important that you know what to do. Many shelters, like LA Animal Services, have classes that will equip you for effectively caring for these babies.
4. Here is an additional site with valuable information on caring for Newborn Kittens - Go to: Feral Cat Caretakers' Coalition.
Please share this information with your family, friends and neighbors. Together we can end the vicious cycle of unwanted births and premature deaths in our neigborhoods by intervening directly to save these lives and ensure they are spayed or neutered and placed into loving homes.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Will Work for Food
Innovative programs give feral cats jobs and prove their value to society.
Brad Kollus wrote a great article about an innovative LA program in the current issue of Cat Fancy magazine. The article can also be found at Cat Channel.com. Here is an excerpt:
Feral cats are domestic cats that were born without human contact or handling. If these cats do not receive human contact within their first 8 weeks, humans will have a hard time taming them. According to the ASPCA, there are tens of millions of feral cats in the United States. For decades, these cats were seen as pests by some, and many were caught and killed.
But in the 1990s, a movement began. Advocates such as Alley Cat Allies, the Feral Cat Coalition and Alley Cat Rescue (who also feed feral cats) began using trap-neuter-return (TNR), which stops the growth of a colony’s size and allows the cats to live out their lives in dignity.
Feral Cats Go To Work
In 1999, Voice for the Animals Foundation (VFTA) in Venice, Calif., took another bold step. It realized that feral cats are part of our ecosystem and play an important role in controlling rodent populations and stopping the spread of diseases carried by rodents. If VFTA could find areas that needed rodent control, it could provide that area with feral cats, which would save the cats’ lives and protect humans from rodents.
VFTA’s first project was the Flower Market in Los Angeles, where it offered to provide feral cats as a way of taking care of the market’s rodent problem. It worked.
“A lot of people who worked at the flower market didn’t like cats,” says Melya Kaplan, founder and executive director of VFTA. “The flower market has a big aisle down the center leading into the loading dock. One day there was a huge cat which we had put in, and he was chasing a rat right down the center aisle. Everyone started applauding. It has actually changed peoples’ views of both ferals and cats in general.”
Click here to see CatChannel’s exclusive slideshow of working feral cats.
**Get the July 2010 issue of CAT FANCY to read the full article.**
Feral cats are domestic cats that were born without human contact or handling. If these cats do not receive human contact within their first 8 weeks, humans will have a hard time taming them. According to the ASPCA, there are tens of millions of feral cats in the United States. For decades, these cats were seen as pests by some, and many were caught and killed.
But in the 1990s, a movement began. Advocates such as Alley Cat Allies, the Feral Cat Coalition and Alley Cat Rescue (who also feed feral cats) began using trap-neuter-return (TNR), which stops the growth of a colony’s size and allows the cats to live out their lives in dignity.
Feral Cats Go To Work
In 1999, Voice for the Animals Foundation (VFTA) in Venice, Calif., took another bold step. It realized that feral cats are part of our ecosystem and play an important role in controlling rodent populations and stopping the spread of diseases carried by rodents. If VFTA could find areas that needed rodent control, it could provide that area with feral cats, which would save the cats’ lives and protect humans from rodents.
VFTA’s first project was the Flower Market in Los Angeles, where it offered to provide feral cats as a way of taking care of the market’s rodent problem. It worked.
“A lot of people who worked at the flower market didn’t like cats,” says Melya Kaplan, founder and executive director of VFTA. “The flower market has a big aisle down the center leading into the loading dock. One day there was a huge cat which we had put in, and he was chasing a rat right down the center aisle. Everyone started applauding. It has actually changed peoples’ views of both ferals and cats in general.”
Click here to see CatChannel’s exclusive slideshow of working feral cats.
**Get the July 2010 issue of CAT FANCY to read the full article.**
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Proposed Budget for LA Animal Services May Risk Public Safety and Increase Pet Euthanasia
The following letter is from the Department of LA Animal Services to the Budget and Finance Committee regarding impending budget cuts:
In the pre-dawn coolness of Friday morning, April 16, 2010, LAPD officers were waiting for help. Three 130-pound Cane Corso dogs, two males protecting a female, were boxed in by police cars near Slauson and Verdun in Council District 8. The police had to wait for the one person who had the knowledge, skill, and experience to handle the situation safely: an Animal Control Officer. Unfortunately, there was in fact only one Animal Control Officer on grave duty in the entire southern half of the City, and he was responding to a separate LAPD call for assistance to rescue an injured dog in Northeast Los Angeles. Soon after the Animal Control Officer arrived back in South LA to help the LAPD there, the two male dogs crawled out from between two squad cars and were heading home on the sidewalk. There, on the public sidewalk, in this neighborhood of businesses, homes, and churches, two los Angeles Police officers fired at least six rounds, killing one of the dogs. The other two dogs were safely impounded by LA Animal Services.
The reason LA Animal Services exists is to provide for public safety. The City's first obligation is the public's safety. Safe streets are those in which trained Animal Control Officers are available to respond to dangerous animals and handle situations without injury to the public, without wasting police resources, and without shots fired. A safe city is one in which an animal expert is on hand to evacuate animals in a disaster as mandated by Federal law so that people are willing to flee to safety. Safe neighborhoods are the foundation for a Humane LA.
Recognizing the precarious financial situation facing the City, we as a public safety agency nevertheless must be candid in our assessment that the deletion of $1.8 million in funding attributed to the 26-working days reduction compromises the Department's ability to deliver on our public safety responsibility. It compounds the impact of the shared sacrifice cuts we have already absorbed in the last two fiscal years and of the protracted hiring freeze by cutting another 10% of the work force through the 26-working days reduction. The Department believes this will obligate the Mayor and Council to choose closure of an operating animal care center and to sanction a likely resulting increase in pet euthanasia.
Closure of Animal Care Centers/26-Working Day Reduction
Consolidating pet intake into fewer facilities is regression to the conditions that the voters of Los Angeles chose to change in approving the Prop F Bond. Consolidation of the animals leads to more disease, over-crowding, incidences of aggression, and inevitably, increased euthanasia.
We acknowledge the financial imperatives behind the proposed temporary shuttering of the Northeast Animal Care Center in 2010-2001 to achieve short-term financial savings. While this facility is not used for the public now, it is generally filled to about 1/3 capacity with evidence and quarantined animals and for nursing mothers with puppies and kittens. It has proven an invaluable resource for temporary holding of animals evacuated in disasters.
Closing Northeast will require evidence and quarantined animals to be housed in kennels and cages at the other six animal care centers which are currently used to promote the adoption of healthy, available animals. This action will trigger the negative domino effect of: reducing Citywide kennel/cage holding capacity, reducing adoption revenue, reducing our live release rates, and increasing our euthanasia rates. The Department's overall holding capacity will drop by about 10%, and euthanasia will increase by about 2,500 to 4,000 animals, depending on intake trends. The reaction of the humane community to this downgrading of progress is unknown.
The $1.8 million (10%) additional cut of 26-working days is an effective cut of 8 Animal Control Officers, 14 Animal Care Technicians, 3 Registered Veterinary Technicians, 4 Clerical Staff, and 2 Supervisors, the equivalent of the staff of one of the six fully operational Animal Care Centers.' The only remaining option that allows for enough staffing to safely provide the necessary levels of animal care and service to the public is to close one Center. The Department will need direction from the Mayor and Council as to which additional Animal Care Center should be closed during the period of time this 26-working day reduction is in effect.
Closing an operating Animal Care Center in addition to Northeast creates an unfortunate situation for the communities we serve. Net holding capacity will drop by at least another 15% and pet euthanasia will rise by 4,000 to 11,000 more pets, depending on intake and the number of animals held as evidence and quarantine, using kennels that would otherwise be available for adoptable animals. Again, we will also lose adoption revenue, and spend more on euthanasia, aggravating rather than alleviating our revenue situation.
The Department cannot reduce its workload by telling residents that services will be cut or by closing our doors. The pursuit of strays and biting animals, the impoundment and care of animals, and the adoption or euthanasia of impounded animals is not discretionary; it is not even a set of services for which residents can find temporary alternatives. We do not control animal intake, and by law we cannot shirk our duty and responsibility. We must accept animals found or brought to us, 24/7. Failing to do so directly and negatively impacts public safety and the City's compliance with State law.
In the event that the City's financial situation ultimately requires the temporary closure of any Animal Care Center, we recommend that the General Services Department be requested to submit an estimate of the cost for security services from at least dusk to dawn and to erect fences or other physical measures to safeguard the vacant facility and all remaining equipment.
Call Center Closure
The proposed Call Center cut will result in the elimination of the Department's dedicated 888 - toll-free number and will increase phone traffic to individual Animal Care Centers and to the City's 3-1-1 System. Since the 3-1-1 operators cannot have access to our dedicated Chameleon information database (animal, medical, and financial tracking system), operators will be limited in their ability to provide information on topics such as lost animal inquiries. Other than providing general information that is currently available through the City-wide Services Directory, operators will be required to transfer calls directly to Animal Care Centers for assistance which will impact the ability of Department staff to process revenue generating adoption/licensing transactions while servicing and assisting the visiting public. This will result in delays for both callers and on-site customers alike.
The Call Center's six (6) staff members currently handle approximately 400,000 telephonic inquires annually while the 3-1-1 Call Center handles 1.5 million. Dropping the toll free number in favor of having all calls go through 3-1-1 will result in an approximate 25% workload increase to ITA's 3-1-1 Call Center. However approximately $100,000 in toll and Integrated Voice Response (IVR) charges will be saved by ITA, a portion of which could be utilized to hire at least one additional 3-1-1 Call Center operator to assist with the increased workload. Beginning in May, the Department will start phasing out the advertisement of its 888 - number while promoting 3-1-1, in a pre-changeover exercise to see if 3-1-1 can handle the call increase without unexpected problems.
The proposed elimination of the License Canvassers will result in a decrease of approximately $300,000 in annual revenue attributed to them. However, they are not cost neutral and total burdened costs for all 8 staff is over $400,000, without considering the cost of supervision and clerical support. Other changes to the dog licensing program which are in process at this time including multi-year and on-line licensing, have a potential to cover the loss of canvassers while additional alternatives are explored."
The biggest drawback to our program's success has been that the position of Animal License Canvasser lacks the peace officer or public officer enforcement powers to issue citations, unlike the programs in other jurisdictions. Our Animal License Canvassers are able to request payment for licensing fees; however, other than acting as a "good will ambassador" requesting that payment be made, they lack the ability to enforce compliance of the law through the issuance of citations. For example, the lack of enforcement authority requires a Canvasser to make repeat visits while attempting to collect outstanding $15 license fees, rendering any attempt at full-cost recovery unachievable. Proper staffing of this program with classifications able to carry out the required program duties (i.e., Animal Control Officers or Animal License Inspectors) should be considered a key component to a successful in-house License Canvassing Program in the future.
Fill Remaining Vacant Mid-Management Positions
The proposed budget resolves overfilled supervisory and mid-management positions and makes other streamlining changes. The Department will develop an efficient and functional organization based on the proposed regular positions. However, the ability of the Department to achieve effective and efficient operations, particularly under the strain of reduced resources, requires the authority to appoint staff to the existing positions in that structure. Continued reliance on "acting" appointments compromises effectiveness and damages morale.
Early Retirement IP Payouts
The Department will have $170,000 payable in the coming fiscal year as payouts among the 12 employees who took the ERIP in the current fiscal year and for deferred sick leave. This cost apparently is to come from existing budgeted resources.
The Department does not recommend any budget reduction that would dilute public safety, close an Animal Care Center, or increase the euthanasia rate from its steady downward trend.
We stand ready, however, to support the ultimate decision of the policy-makers. On behalf of LA Animal Services, I look forward to further discussion of this proposed budget and any alternatives that may be possible.
Very Truly Yours,
Kathy Davis
Interim General Manager
LA Animal Services
In the pre-dawn coolness of Friday morning, April 16, 2010, LAPD officers were waiting for help. Three 130-pound Cane Corso dogs, two males protecting a female, were boxed in by police cars near Slauson and Verdun in Council District 8. The police had to wait for the one person who had the knowledge, skill, and experience to handle the situation safely: an Animal Control Officer. Unfortunately, there was in fact only one Animal Control Officer on grave duty in the entire southern half of the City, and he was responding to a separate LAPD call for assistance to rescue an injured dog in Northeast Los Angeles. Soon after the Animal Control Officer arrived back in South LA to help the LAPD there, the two male dogs crawled out from between two squad cars and were heading home on the sidewalk. There, on the public sidewalk, in this neighborhood of businesses, homes, and churches, two los Angeles Police officers fired at least six rounds, killing one of the dogs. The other two dogs were safely impounded by LA Animal Services.
The reason LA Animal Services exists is to provide for public safety. The City's first obligation is the public's safety. Safe streets are those in which trained Animal Control Officers are available to respond to dangerous animals and handle situations without injury to the public, without wasting police resources, and without shots fired. A safe city is one in which an animal expert is on hand to evacuate animals in a disaster as mandated by Federal law so that people are willing to flee to safety. Safe neighborhoods are the foundation for a Humane LA.
Recognizing the precarious financial situation facing the City, we as a public safety agency nevertheless must be candid in our assessment that the deletion of $1.8 million in funding attributed to the 26-working days reduction compromises the Department's ability to deliver on our public safety responsibility. It compounds the impact of the shared sacrifice cuts we have already absorbed in the last two fiscal years and of the protracted hiring freeze by cutting another 10% of the work force through the 26-working days reduction. The Department believes this will obligate the Mayor and Council to choose closure of an operating animal care center and to sanction a likely resulting increase in pet euthanasia.
Closure of Animal Care Centers/26-Working Day Reduction
Consolidating pet intake into fewer facilities is regression to the conditions that the voters of Los Angeles chose to change in approving the Prop F Bond. Consolidation of the animals leads to more disease, over-crowding, incidences of aggression, and inevitably, increased euthanasia.
We acknowledge the financial imperatives behind the proposed temporary shuttering of the Northeast Animal Care Center in 2010-2001 to achieve short-term financial savings. While this facility is not used for the public now, it is generally filled to about 1/3 capacity with evidence and quarantined animals and for nursing mothers with puppies and kittens. It has proven an invaluable resource for temporary holding of animals evacuated in disasters.
Closing Northeast will require evidence and quarantined animals to be housed in kennels and cages at the other six animal care centers which are currently used to promote the adoption of healthy, available animals. This action will trigger the negative domino effect of: reducing Citywide kennel/cage holding capacity, reducing adoption revenue, reducing our live release rates, and increasing our euthanasia rates. The Department's overall holding capacity will drop by about 10%, and euthanasia will increase by about 2,500 to 4,000 animals, depending on intake trends. The reaction of the humane community to this downgrading of progress is unknown.
The $1.8 million (10%) additional cut of 26-working days is an effective cut of 8 Animal Control Officers, 14 Animal Care Technicians, 3 Registered Veterinary Technicians, 4 Clerical Staff, and 2 Supervisors, the equivalent of the staff of one of the six fully operational Animal Care Centers.' The only remaining option that allows for enough staffing to safely provide the necessary levels of animal care and service to the public is to close one Center. The Department will need direction from the Mayor and Council as to which additional Animal Care Center should be closed during the period of time this 26-working day reduction is in effect.
Closing an operating Animal Care Center in addition to Northeast creates an unfortunate situation for the communities we serve. Net holding capacity will drop by at least another 15% and pet euthanasia will rise by 4,000 to 11,000 more pets, depending on intake and the number of animals held as evidence and quarantine, using kennels that would otherwise be available for adoptable animals. Again, we will also lose adoption revenue, and spend more on euthanasia, aggravating rather than alleviating our revenue situation.
The Department cannot reduce its workload by telling residents that services will be cut or by closing our doors. The pursuit of strays and biting animals, the impoundment and care of animals, and the adoption or euthanasia of impounded animals is not discretionary; it is not even a set of services for which residents can find temporary alternatives. We do not control animal intake, and by law we cannot shirk our duty and responsibility. We must accept animals found or brought to us, 24/7. Failing to do so directly and negatively impacts public safety and the City's compliance with State law.
In the event that the City's financial situation ultimately requires the temporary closure of any Animal Care Center, we recommend that the General Services Department be requested to submit an estimate of the cost for security services from at least dusk to dawn and to erect fences or other physical measures to safeguard the vacant facility and all remaining equipment.
Call Center Closure
The proposed Call Center cut will result in the elimination of the Department's dedicated 888 - toll-free number and will increase phone traffic to individual Animal Care Centers and to the City's 3-1-1 System. Since the 3-1-1 operators cannot have access to our dedicated Chameleon information database (animal, medical, and financial tracking system), operators will be limited in their ability to provide information on topics such as lost animal inquiries. Other than providing general information that is currently available through the City-wide Services Directory, operators will be required to transfer calls directly to Animal Care Centers for assistance which will impact the ability of Department staff to process revenue generating adoption/licensing transactions while servicing and assisting the visiting public. This will result in delays for both callers and on-site customers alike.
The Call Center's six (6) staff members currently handle approximately 400,000 telephonic inquires annually while the 3-1-1 Call Center handles 1.5 million. Dropping the toll free number in favor of having all calls go through 3-1-1 will result in an approximate 25% workload increase to ITA's 3-1-1 Call Center. However approximately $100,000 in toll and Integrated Voice Response (IVR) charges will be saved by ITA, a portion of which could be utilized to hire at least one additional 3-1-1 Call Center operator to assist with the increased workload. Beginning in May, the Department will start phasing out the advertisement of its 888 - number while promoting 3-1-1, in a pre-changeover exercise to see if 3-1-1 can handle the call increase without unexpected problems.
The proposed elimination of the License Canvassers will result in a decrease of approximately $300,000 in annual revenue attributed to them. However, they are not cost neutral and total burdened costs for all 8 staff is over $400,000, without considering the cost of supervision and clerical support. Other changes to the dog licensing program which are in process at this time including multi-year and on-line licensing, have a potential to cover the loss of canvassers while additional alternatives are explored."
The biggest drawback to our program's success has been that the position of Animal License Canvasser lacks the peace officer or public officer enforcement powers to issue citations, unlike the programs in other jurisdictions. Our Animal License Canvassers are able to request payment for licensing fees; however, other than acting as a "good will ambassador" requesting that payment be made, they lack the ability to enforce compliance of the law through the issuance of citations. For example, the lack of enforcement authority requires a Canvasser to make repeat visits while attempting to collect outstanding $15 license fees, rendering any attempt at full-cost recovery unachievable. Proper staffing of this program with classifications able to carry out the required program duties (i.e., Animal Control Officers or Animal License Inspectors) should be considered a key component to a successful in-house License Canvassing Program in the future.
Fill Remaining Vacant Mid-Management Positions
The proposed budget resolves overfilled supervisory and mid-management positions and makes other streamlining changes. The Department will develop an efficient and functional organization based on the proposed regular positions. However, the ability of the Department to achieve effective and efficient operations, particularly under the strain of reduced resources, requires the authority to appoint staff to the existing positions in that structure. Continued reliance on "acting" appointments compromises effectiveness and damages morale.
Early Retirement IP Payouts
The Department will have $170,000 payable in the coming fiscal year as payouts among the 12 employees who took the ERIP in the current fiscal year and for deferred sick leave. This cost apparently is to come from existing budgeted resources.
The Department does not recommend any budget reduction that would dilute public safety, close an Animal Care Center, or increase the euthanasia rate from its steady downward trend.
We stand ready, however, to support the ultimate decision of the policy-makers. On behalf of LA Animal Services, I look forward to further discussion of this proposed budget and any alternatives that may be possible.
Very Truly Yours,
Kathy Davis
Interim General Manager
LA Animal Services
If you would like to weigh in on these important decisions
contact the
LOS ANGELES BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
Friday, April 16, 2010
Achieving and Sustaining No-Kill
The City of Los Angeles has come a long way towards achieving “No-Kill” over the past forty years. It is difficult to even imagine today that in 1971 Los Angeles killed 110,835 dogs and cats. That was the worst year of killing in LA history and it caused an awakening among civic leaders that led to the City of Los Angeles becoming the first municipality in the United States to fund spaying and neutering for resident pet owners.
City efforts culminated in the lowest euthanasia rate ever achieved in 2007 when 15,009 animals were euthanized. That represents an 86% decrease in killing.
However, the 2008 euthanasia rate for dogs and cats rose for a variety of reasons for the first time in many years, stalling a long-standing trend of impressive annual double digit decreases.
Even though the years 2006 through 2009 represent the four lowest euthanasia rates in the City’s history, the recent upward trend is troubling and suggests new thinking and new programs are needed.
In the drive to achieve No-Kill there are two commonly recognized hurdles to overcome. A community’s initial progress towards No-Kill usually stalls 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, continued significant reductions are often hindered until aggressive spay/neuter programs designed to achieve further euthanasia reduction goals are implemented. With effective, targeted spay/neuter programs progress can be resumed.
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. Los Angeles has substantially done this and the challenge today is to persuade the more difficult populations, which include:
1. The poor,
2. The elderly on fixed income,
3. Individuals with negative attitudes about spay/neuter,
4. People who speak languages other than English, and
5. People who live in relatively remote or underserved areas.
The hurdle before Los Angeles’ quest to achieve No-Kill is characterized as “the wall”. No major city has ever been able to break through "the wall" (with the possible exception of New York). 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. However, in 2009 it was up to 4.9. Clearly Los Angeles has hit the proverbial wall.
On the one hand, hitting “the wall” signifies the success of an earlier generation of programs. However, on the other hand, it is important not to miss the point that it also reveals the fact that a new generation of targeted programs that address the needs of residual populations not met by earlier or existing programs is now required.
While achieving and sustaining No-Kill may not be rocket science, it does require strategic thinking and targeted programs.
Broad indiscriminate spay/neuter efforts were the reason for LA’s successful life-saving efforts until now. However, only targeted spay/neuter programs will be responsible for breaking through the “wall” and achieving and sustaining “No-Kill” in Los Angeles. Targeted low and no cost, high-volume spay/neuter efforts will lead to fewer animals entering municipal shelters, allowing more resources to be allocated toward other life-saving programs.
No-Kill can be achieved and sustained; however, to do so will require targeted, affordable:
1. Spay/neuter programs,
2. Accessible wellness and other low cost veterinary services, and
3. Human/animal bonding programs designed to promote pet retention.
To learn more about how to help the City of Los Angeles (or any community) break through the wall to achieve No-Kill and ensure this new status is sustained click here.
City efforts culminated in the lowest euthanasia rate ever achieved in 2007 when 15,009 animals were euthanized. That represents an 86% decrease in killing.
However, the 2008 euthanasia rate for dogs and cats rose for a variety of reasons for the first time in many years, stalling a long-standing trend of impressive annual double digit decreases.
Even though the years 2006 through 2009 represent the four lowest euthanasia rates in the City’s history, the recent upward trend is troubling and suggests new thinking and new programs are needed.
In the drive to achieve No-Kill there are two commonly recognized hurdles to overcome. A community’s initial progress towards No-Kill usually stalls 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, continued significant reductions are often hindered until aggressive spay/neuter programs designed to achieve further euthanasia reduction goals are implemented. With effective, targeted spay/neuter programs progress can be resumed.
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. Los Angeles has substantially done this and the challenge today is to persuade the more difficult populations, which include:
1. The poor,
2. The elderly on fixed income,
3. Individuals with negative attitudes about spay/neuter,
4. People who speak languages other than English, and
5. People who live in relatively remote or underserved areas.
The hurdle before Los Angeles’ quest to achieve No-Kill is characterized as “the wall”. No major city has ever been able to break through "the wall" (with the possible exception of New York). 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. However, in 2009 it was up to 4.9. Clearly Los Angeles has hit the proverbial wall.
On the one hand, hitting “the wall” signifies the success of an earlier generation of programs. However, on the other hand, it is important not to miss the point that it also reveals the fact that a new generation of targeted programs that address the needs of residual populations not met by earlier or existing programs is now required.
While achieving and sustaining No-Kill may not be rocket science, it does require strategic thinking and targeted programs.
Broad indiscriminate spay/neuter efforts were the reason for LA’s successful life-saving efforts until now. However, only targeted spay/neuter programs will be responsible for breaking through the “wall” and achieving and sustaining “No-Kill” in Los Angeles. Targeted low and no cost, high-volume spay/neuter efforts will lead to fewer animals entering municipal shelters, allowing more resources to be allocated toward other life-saving programs.
No-Kill can be achieved and sustained; however, to do so will require targeted, affordable:
1. Spay/neuter programs,
2. Accessible wellness and other low cost veterinary services, and
3. Human/animal bonding programs designed to promote pet retention.
To learn more about how to help the City of Los Angeles (or any community) break through the wall to achieve No-Kill and ensure this new status is sustained click here.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Counting Down To No-Kill
Many contend it is impossible to accurately determine feral cat populations. In fact, the inability to determine a feral population would call for any humane effort to reduce that population to rely on guess work. All TNR programs should be required to produce measurable results to ensure continued support and funding; and the measure of success depends on knowing the baseline population.
In a study titled, The Birth and Death Rate Estimates of Cats and Dogs in U.S. Households and Related Factors, published in 2005 in volume 7.4 of the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science we find a responsible formula for calculating feral cat populations. This study was published by John C. New Jr. and William Kelch of the University of Tennessee, Jennifer Hutchison of the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mo Salman and Mike King of Colorado State University, Janet Scarlett of Cornell University, and Philip Kass of the University of California at Davis.
The formula evolved from a 1996 survey of 7,399 U.S. households. The survey found a crude birth rate of about 11.2 kittens per 100 cats in households and an attrition rate that included a death rate of 8.3 and a disappearance rate of 3%. That is, cat births in households equaled attrition. It was further found that the movement of feral/stray cats into homes and shelters was approximately equal to the net growth in the household population plus the number of cats killed in shelters.
In other words, the number of feral/stray cats can be estimated by adding net cat acquisition to the number of cats killed in the shelter(s) and multiplying by three (to account for the one queen, one tom, and at least one sibling not entering homes or shelters who must exist to produce the known feral/stray cats).
More to the point, the feral cat population equals three times the number of cats killed in the shelters serving that area, plus the net cat acquisition (number of cats added to households) minus pet cat mortality.
Let me give you an example of how this formula would work. In a Los Angeles No-Kill plan that I submitted to Mayor Villaraigosa, I identified an area in South LA where spay/neuter efforts should be targeted. In this area 3,917 cats were impounded and 2,212 cats died or were euthanized in the SLA shelter in 2008. This targeted area has an estimated 1.25 million people living in 397,433 households according to the Los Angeles Planning and Demographic Research Unit. According to an AVMA formula this area has 128,768 cat-keeping households, with a total of 283,290 cats among them.
The combined mortality (8% or 22,663 cats) and disappearance (3% or 8,500 cats) rate of 11% per year is equal to the estimated number of births annually. This means there is a net self-replacement of an estimated 32,000 cats per year.
According to the U.S. norm for pet cat population increase over the past 20 years, the Los Angeles pet cat population is increasing at about 1% per year. Thus net acquisitions in this South Los Angeles area exceed attrition by about 2,850 additional cats per year, beyond births.
Of these 2,850 acquired cats, 1,705 come from LA Animal Services (3,917 impounds minus 2,212 killed). Another 1,114 (2,850 minus 1,705) come from other sources. Based on national averages, no more than 290 come from breeders, leaving 824 acquired from other sources like pet stores.
LA cat acquisitions include LA shelter adoptions including feral-born kittens and impounded stray cats, both kittens and tamed strays. The annual adjustment to the feral/stray population is 2,529 (1705 placed by shelters + 824 placed by other sources + the 2,103 who were killed). This totals 4,632 cats. Assuming that each cat had a mother, a father, and at least one surviving sibling, a crude estimate for the feral/stray cat population in the targeted area is 13,896.
Leonardo Fibonacci is considered the greatest European mathematician of the middle ages, born in Pisa, Italy about 1175 AD. Fibonacci developed a formula relating to agriculture productivity. His formula was later used by Pasteur to predict 70% of a susceptible population has to be vaccinated to prevent an epidemic. Fibonacci’s 70% Rule is recognized by World Health Organization and Center for Disease Control.
If you think of spay/neuter as inoculating feral cats to prevent pregnancy, then according to the Fibonacci Rule, 70% of all feral cats must be sterilized before the successful breeding encounters of the remaining 30% are reduced to a rate sufficient only to replace normal attrition. This means 9,927 (or rounding up for good measure, 10,000) feral/stray cats must be spayed or neutered just to stabilize the feral/stray cat population in the targeted area. Meaningful and sustained reductions will occur only when this rate is exceeded.
It is only with this knowledge that local animal control and/or local foundations can make a meaningful and measurable impact on local feral cat populations.
In a study titled, The Birth and Death Rate Estimates of Cats and Dogs in U.S. Households and Related Factors, published in 2005 in volume 7.4 of the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science we find a responsible formula for calculating feral cat populations. This study was published by John C. New Jr. and William Kelch of the University of Tennessee, Jennifer Hutchison of the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mo Salman and Mike King of Colorado State University, Janet Scarlett of Cornell University, and Philip Kass of the University of California at Davis.
The formula evolved from a 1996 survey of 7,399 U.S. households. The survey found a crude birth rate of about 11.2 kittens per 100 cats in households and an attrition rate that included a death rate of 8.3 and a disappearance rate of 3%. That is, cat births in households equaled attrition. It was further found that the movement of feral/stray cats into homes and shelters was approximately equal to the net growth in the household population plus the number of cats killed in shelters.
In other words, the number of feral/stray cats can be estimated by adding net cat acquisition to the number of cats killed in the shelter(s) and multiplying by three (to account for the one queen, one tom, and at least one sibling not entering homes or shelters who must exist to produce the known feral/stray cats).
More to the point, the feral cat population equals three times the number of cats killed in the shelters serving that area, plus the net cat acquisition (number of cats added to households) minus pet cat mortality.
Let me give you an example of how this formula would work. In a Los Angeles No-Kill plan that I submitted to Mayor Villaraigosa, I identified an area in South LA where spay/neuter efforts should be targeted. In this area 3,917 cats were impounded and 2,212 cats died or were euthanized in the SLA shelter in 2008. This targeted area has an estimated 1.25 million people living in 397,433 households according to the Los Angeles Planning and Demographic Research Unit. According to an AVMA formula this area has 128,768 cat-keeping households, with a total of 283,290 cats among them.
The combined mortality (8% or 22,663 cats) and disappearance (3% or 8,500 cats) rate of 11% per year is equal to the estimated number of births annually. This means there is a net self-replacement of an estimated 32,000 cats per year.
According to the U.S. norm for pet cat population increase over the past 20 years, the Los Angeles pet cat population is increasing at about 1% per year. Thus net acquisitions in this South Los Angeles area exceed attrition by about 2,850 additional cats per year, beyond births.
Of these 2,850 acquired cats, 1,705 come from LA Animal Services (3,917 impounds minus 2,212 killed). Another 1,114 (2,850 minus 1,705) come from other sources. Based on national averages, no more than 290 come from breeders, leaving 824 acquired from other sources like pet stores.
LA cat acquisitions include LA shelter adoptions including feral-born kittens and impounded stray cats, both kittens and tamed strays. The annual adjustment to the feral/stray population is 2,529 (1705 placed by shelters + 824 placed by other sources + the 2,103 who were killed). This totals 4,632 cats. Assuming that each cat had a mother, a father, and at least one surviving sibling, a crude estimate for the feral/stray cat population in the targeted area is 13,896.
Leonardo Fibonacci is considered the greatest European mathematician of the middle ages, born in Pisa, Italy about 1175 AD. Fibonacci developed a formula relating to agriculture productivity. His formula was later used by Pasteur to predict 70% of a susceptible population has to be vaccinated to prevent an epidemic. Fibonacci’s 70% Rule is recognized by World Health Organization and Center for Disease Control.
If you think of spay/neuter as inoculating feral cats to prevent pregnancy, then according to the Fibonacci Rule, 70% of all feral cats must be sterilized before the successful breeding encounters of the remaining 30% are reduced to a rate sufficient only to replace normal attrition. This means 9,927 (or rounding up for good measure, 10,000) feral/stray cats must be spayed or neutered just to stabilize the feral/stray cat population in the targeted area. Meaningful and sustained reductions will occur only when this rate is exceeded.
It is only with this knowledge that local animal control and/or local foundations can make a meaningful and measurable impact on local feral cat populations.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
TNR as a Public Health response to achieving No-Kill
A substantial number of animals euthanized in animal shelters each year are feral cats and their neonate offspring. A program to control the homeless cat population by neutering instead of culling cats in shelters is critical to achieving No-Kill.
Overpopulation must be curtailed at its source; sterilization is the only humane, non-lethal solution to unchecked reproduction. TNR (Trap/Neuter/Return) is designed to achieve this goal by reducing the stray and feral cat population through attrition by trapping, sterilizing, and inoculating feral and stray cats against distemper and rabies, and then returning them to their already established territory, where they are monitored by feral cat colony managers. The sterilization prevents the cats from reproducing while inoculations prevent disease. Ear-notching provides an easy way to identify cats in a TNR program.
TNR has a history in Denmark, England, Israel, and the United States, is endorsed by the American Veterinary Medical Association and is currently being implemented with local governments’ approval in many communities. Humane organizations have endorsed TNR, including the Humane Society of the United States, Friends of Animals, Alley Cat Allies, Best Friends Animal Society in Utah, Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy, the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR) and the Cat Fanciers’ Association. A national opinion poll conducted by Alley Cat Allies in May 2003 found that out of 24,599 respondents, 94% supported TNR as an effective tool in addressing feral and stray cat population. Since March 2002, the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association has published four articles in favor of TNR.
TNR has proven to be an effective and workable program for long-term population control and is increasingly being utilized by public and private entities to address feral cat populations and the concomitant problems of protecting the public health from rabies and cat nuisance complaints. It has been demonstrated to reduce overpopulation, complaints about roaming and the number of cats in shelters in communities in the United States and abroad. It reduces euthanasia rates, and costs less than half of the cost of traditional trap and kill programs. Dr. Julie Levy, DVM, Ph.D., monitored an eleven-year TNR project that involved eleven feral cat colonies on a central Florida campus. Dr. Levy concluded that “a comprehensive long-term program of neutering followed by adoption or return to the resident colony can result in reduction of the free roaming cat population in urban areas.”
TNR is working successfully in New Jersey in model TNR programs in Cape May, Atlantic City (at the Boardwalk), Phillipsburg and Bloomfield. In addition, support for TNR was one of the top three recommendations of New Jerseyans in comments received at public hearings on the topic.
Elsewhere in the country, the Orange County, Florida, Animal Services Department, the San Francisco SPCA, and statewide programs in California and Utah have successfully implemented TNR programs. Maricopa County, Arizona and correctional institutions in Ohio, Montana and New York State have also officially approved TNR as a means to feline population control. These programs are additionally beneficial to local governments, as volunteers can often be found to assist governments in managing feral cat colonies but are generally not willing to assist in trapping and removing cats for euthanasia.
Examples of successful TNR programs include:
Alachua County, Florida: A program called Catnip was implemented in 1998 and is responsible for sterilizing more than 22,000 cats since then. The program decreased shelter intake of cats by 61% since 2000.
Maricopa County, Arizona: Ed Boks, former Director of Animal Care and Control, Maricopa County, Arizona, studied conventional methods of feral cat control for over 20 years. He determined that these methods do not properly regulate the population and, consequently, initiated a TNR program that is operated by the county animal control department. Within eight years the euthanasia rate dropped from 23 cats per 1,000 county residents to only eight cats per 1,000 county residents.
Orange County, Florida: Orange County, Florida has a population of 700,000 people. Its animal control department incurs costs of approximately $105 per animal when it must respond to a complaint and impound and euthanize the animal. Before its TNR program was introduced, there were approximately two hundred complaints per year, resulting in as many animals being captured, with a cost of $21,000 to the county. Within six years after the introduction of TNR by animal control services in 1995, complaints decreased by approximately 10% as did the number of impoundments, with a total savings to animal services of over $100,000. Within the six years of the start of the program, euthanasia decreased by 18%.
San Diego, California: Founded in 1992 by Dr. Rochelle Brinton, the Feral Cat Coalition (FCC) introduced TNR to San Diego on a countywide basis. FCC is an all volunteer organization that provides free sterilization procedures for feral and stray cats. In addition to sterilization procedures, the cats are vaccinated for rabies and treated for fleas and any immediate medical problems. FCC volunteers monitor the feral cats after they are returned to the outdoors. The local animal control departments support the program as it has had a positive impact in reducing the feral population, thus reducing the number of cases to which they would have otherwise been required to respond. By 1994, two years after the start of the TNR program, the total number of cats brought into San Diego shelters dropped over 34% and the euthanasia rates in county shelters for all cats dropped 40% (instead of the usual 10% increase). San Diego euthanized 8.0 shelter animals per 1,000 people in 1997; 4.9 in 2002. The reduction in the euthanasia rate translated to an estimated tax savings of $795,976.
San Francisco, California: The San Francisco SPCA initiated a citywide TNR program in 1993. The SPCA has been working with feral cat caregivers to control the feral cat population, provide some medical care, keep the cats adequately fed and, when possible, adopt them into homes. There are three aspects to the program. The first is “feral fix,” a program through which the SF/SPCA provides vaccinations and spay/neuter surgery for San Francisco feral cats, all at no charge to their caregivers. Since the program began they report altering over 10,000 cats. The second aspect of the program is “Cat Assistance Teams.” In neighborhoods throughout the City, CAT members work together to humanely trap feral cats, transport them to Feral Fix, provide post-surgery recovery care, and socialize feral kittens before placing them in homes. CAT members also provide expert advice and assistance to novice caregivers in their neighborhoods. Finally, there is 9 Lives™ Humane Feral Cat Management Video Series including nine comprehensive videos that cover all aspects of caring for feral cats. Within six years of commencing the TNR program, euthanasia rates dropped 70%.
New York City, NY: The New York City Feral Cat Council (“NYCFCC”) is a coalition of NYC animal groups working to humanely reduce the City’s feral cat population through the use of TNR. They established a TNR program on the Upper West Side of Manhattan in 1999. Based on statistics compiled by New York City’s Animal Care and Control, the number of stray cat intakes from the Upper West Side was reduced 73% in the first three years of the program. During the first year of the program, there was a 59% reduction in the number of cats arriving in shelters.
Cape May, New Jersey: In 1995, John Queenan, with the Cape May City Animal Control, proposed an ordinance to facilitate TNR and the feeding of feral cat colonies. Queenan based his proposal on similar regulations in Santa Cruz County, California. Because pick-up and euthanasia had not resolved the city’s overpopulation problem, the ordinance focused on preventing reproduction. As a result of Cape May’s ordinance change, 200 cats were altered in 1997. Based on the number of nuisance complaints, litters of kittens and visual sightings of the colonies, it is estimated that the feral cat population, which was between 500 and 800 cats in 1994, has been reduced by 50%.
Atlantic City, New Jersey: The Humane Society of Atlantic County, in conjunction with the Health Department of Atlantic City and local volunteers, has used TNR successfully and with municipal approval. Through kitten adoptions and natural attrition (since these cats no longer reproduce), the feral cat population under the Atlantic City boardwalk was reduced by more than 70% within three years. Cat related nuisance complaints, common before enactment of the TNR ordinance, are now rare.
Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Phillipsburg, Warren County also authorized TNR. Dr. Robert Blease, a veterinarian and founder of Common Sense for Animals (“CSA”), a non-profit organization that receives no public funding, initiated the municipality’s TNR ordinance in 2001. All feral cats that are brought to CSA are vaccinated, sterilized, and identified by way if ear notching. Cats that are infected with FIV/FEHV, unhealthy or vicious, are humanely euthanized. Since Phillipsburg authorized TNR the stray cat population has reportedly dropped an estimated 350 cats in the first year alone, and citizen complaints about stray cats have dropped to zero.
Bloomfield, New Jersey: The Friends of the Bloomfield/Bukowski Animal Shelter (FOBAS) initiated a TNR program September 2003 with two colonies. The program has been endorsed and supported by the mayor, the town council and the Bloomfield Department of Health. Neighborhood Cats, a New York City-based volunteer non-profit organization, provides advice and assistance to the town, which adopted TNR as its official feral cat program.
For information on the sources for the above information as well as how to calculate the feral cat population in your community refer to page 24 (Analysis of Feral Cat Solutions) and page 28 (Feral Population Formula).
Overpopulation must be curtailed at its source; sterilization is the only humane, non-lethal solution to unchecked reproduction. TNR (Trap/Neuter/Return) is designed to achieve this goal by reducing the stray and feral cat population through attrition by trapping, sterilizing, and inoculating feral and stray cats against distemper and rabies, and then returning them to their already established territory, where they are monitored by feral cat colony managers. The sterilization prevents the cats from reproducing while inoculations prevent disease. Ear-notching provides an easy way to identify cats in a TNR program.
TNR has a history in Denmark, England, Israel, and the United States, is endorsed by the American Veterinary Medical Association and is currently being implemented with local governments’ approval in many communities. Humane organizations have endorsed TNR, including the Humane Society of the United States, Friends of Animals, Alley Cat Allies, Best Friends Animal Society in Utah, Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy, the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR) and the Cat Fanciers’ Association. A national opinion poll conducted by Alley Cat Allies in May 2003 found that out of 24,599 respondents, 94% supported TNR as an effective tool in addressing feral and stray cat population. Since March 2002, the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association has published four articles in favor of TNR.
TNR has proven to be an effective and workable program for long-term population control and is increasingly being utilized by public and private entities to address feral cat populations and the concomitant problems of protecting the public health from rabies and cat nuisance complaints. It has been demonstrated to reduce overpopulation, complaints about roaming and the number of cats in shelters in communities in the United States and abroad. It reduces euthanasia rates, and costs less than half of the cost of traditional trap and kill programs. Dr. Julie Levy, DVM, Ph.D., monitored an eleven-year TNR project that involved eleven feral cat colonies on a central Florida campus. Dr. Levy concluded that “a comprehensive long-term program of neutering followed by adoption or return to the resident colony can result in reduction of the free roaming cat population in urban areas.”
TNR is working successfully in New Jersey in model TNR programs in Cape May, Atlantic City (at the Boardwalk), Phillipsburg and Bloomfield. In addition, support for TNR was one of the top three recommendations of New Jerseyans in comments received at public hearings on the topic.
Elsewhere in the country, the Orange County, Florida, Animal Services Department, the San Francisco SPCA, and statewide programs in California and Utah have successfully implemented TNR programs. Maricopa County, Arizona and correctional institutions in Ohio, Montana and New York State have also officially approved TNR as a means to feline population control. These programs are additionally beneficial to local governments, as volunteers can often be found to assist governments in managing feral cat colonies but are generally not willing to assist in trapping and removing cats for euthanasia.
Examples of successful TNR programs include:
Alachua County, Florida: A program called Catnip was implemented in 1998 and is responsible for sterilizing more than 22,000 cats since then. The program decreased shelter intake of cats by 61% since 2000.
Maricopa County, Arizona: Ed Boks, former Director of Animal Care and Control, Maricopa County, Arizona, studied conventional methods of feral cat control for over 20 years. He determined that these methods do not properly regulate the population and, consequently, initiated a TNR program that is operated by the county animal control department. Within eight years the euthanasia rate dropped from 23 cats per 1,000 county residents to only eight cats per 1,000 county residents.
Orange County, Florida: Orange County, Florida has a population of 700,000 people. Its animal control department incurs costs of approximately $105 per animal when it must respond to a complaint and impound and euthanize the animal. Before its TNR program was introduced, there were approximately two hundred complaints per year, resulting in as many animals being captured, with a cost of $21,000 to the county. Within six years after the introduction of TNR by animal control services in 1995, complaints decreased by approximately 10% as did the number of impoundments, with a total savings to animal services of over $100,000. Within the six years of the start of the program, euthanasia decreased by 18%.
San Diego, California: Founded in 1992 by Dr. Rochelle Brinton, the Feral Cat Coalition (FCC) introduced TNR to San Diego on a countywide basis. FCC is an all volunteer organization that provides free sterilization procedures for feral and stray cats. In addition to sterilization procedures, the cats are vaccinated for rabies and treated for fleas and any immediate medical problems. FCC volunteers monitor the feral cats after they are returned to the outdoors. The local animal control departments support the program as it has had a positive impact in reducing the feral population, thus reducing the number of cases to which they would have otherwise been required to respond. By 1994, two years after the start of the TNR program, the total number of cats brought into San Diego shelters dropped over 34% and the euthanasia rates in county shelters for all cats dropped 40% (instead of the usual 10% increase). San Diego euthanized 8.0 shelter animals per 1,000 people in 1997; 4.9 in 2002. The reduction in the euthanasia rate translated to an estimated tax savings of $795,976.
San Francisco, California: The San Francisco SPCA initiated a citywide TNR program in 1993. The SPCA has been working with feral cat caregivers to control the feral cat population, provide some medical care, keep the cats adequately fed and, when possible, adopt them into homes. There are three aspects to the program. The first is “feral fix,” a program through which the SF/SPCA provides vaccinations and spay/neuter surgery for San Francisco feral cats, all at no charge to their caregivers. Since the program began they report altering over 10,000 cats. The second aspect of the program is “Cat Assistance Teams.” In neighborhoods throughout the City, CAT members work together to humanely trap feral cats, transport them to Feral Fix, provide post-surgery recovery care, and socialize feral kittens before placing them in homes. CAT members also provide expert advice and assistance to novice caregivers in their neighborhoods. Finally, there is 9 Lives™ Humane Feral Cat Management Video Series including nine comprehensive videos that cover all aspects of caring for feral cats. Within six years of commencing the TNR program, euthanasia rates dropped 70%.
New York City, NY: The New York City Feral Cat Council (“NYCFCC”) is a coalition of NYC animal groups working to humanely reduce the City’s feral cat population through the use of TNR. They established a TNR program on the Upper West Side of Manhattan in 1999. Based on statistics compiled by New York City’s Animal Care and Control, the number of stray cat intakes from the Upper West Side was reduced 73% in the first three years of the program. During the first year of the program, there was a 59% reduction in the number of cats arriving in shelters.
Cape May, New Jersey: In 1995, John Queenan, with the Cape May City Animal Control, proposed an ordinance to facilitate TNR and the feeding of feral cat colonies. Queenan based his proposal on similar regulations in Santa Cruz County, California. Because pick-up and euthanasia had not resolved the city’s overpopulation problem, the ordinance focused on preventing reproduction. As a result of Cape May’s ordinance change, 200 cats were altered in 1997. Based on the number of nuisance complaints, litters of kittens and visual sightings of the colonies, it is estimated that the feral cat population, which was between 500 and 800 cats in 1994, has been reduced by 50%.
Atlantic City, New Jersey: The Humane Society of Atlantic County, in conjunction with the Health Department of Atlantic City and local volunteers, has used TNR successfully and with municipal approval. Through kitten adoptions and natural attrition (since these cats no longer reproduce), the feral cat population under the Atlantic City boardwalk was reduced by more than 70% within three years. Cat related nuisance complaints, common before enactment of the TNR ordinance, are now rare.
Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Phillipsburg, Warren County also authorized TNR. Dr. Robert Blease, a veterinarian and founder of Common Sense for Animals (“CSA”), a non-profit organization that receives no public funding, initiated the municipality’s TNR ordinance in 2001. All feral cats that are brought to CSA are vaccinated, sterilized, and identified by way if ear notching. Cats that are infected with FIV/FEHV, unhealthy or vicious, are humanely euthanized. Since Phillipsburg authorized TNR the stray cat population has reportedly dropped an estimated 350 cats in the first year alone, and citizen complaints about stray cats have dropped to zero.
Bloomfield, New Jersey: The Friends of the Bloomfield/Bukowski Animal Shelter (FOBAS) initiated a TNR program September 2003 with two colonies. The program has been endorsed and supported by the mayor, the town council and the Bloomfield Department of Health. Neighborhood Cats, a New York City-based volunteer non-profit organization, provides advice and assistance to the town, which adopted TNR as its official feral cat program.
For information on the sources for the above information as well as how to calculate the feral cat population in your community refer to page 24 (Analysis of Feral Cat Solutions) and page 28 (Feral Population Formula).
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Applying The No-Kill Ethic
More than a policy and statistical objective, “no-kill” is a principle, an ethic, and once applied the practical consequences begin to fall into place. The principle is that your local animal control should apply the same criteria for deciding an animal’s fate that a loving pet guardian or conscientious veterinarian would apply. That is, healthy and treatable animals are not killed simply because we lack the room or resources to care for them.
Killing animals for lack of space may be the quick, convenient and, at least from afar, the easy thing to do. But I have never, in nearly 30 years in this field, heard anyone argue that it is the right thing to do. After all, the creatures who fill our shelters can hardly be faulted for bringing trouble upon themselves. People who seek to excuse euthanasia in shelters often say we have to be “realistic.” But ultimately such realism would be better directed at the sources of the problem and, above all, at the element of human responsibility.
There are the heart-breaking cruelty cases that bring so many animals to our doors, and the added wrong of killing animals already victimized by callous or vicious behavior. On top of that, over 30 percent of the 54,000-plus dogs and cats LA takes in each year are actually relinquished – turned in – even after years of living with a family, like old furniture donated to charity. And another third of the creatures LA euthanizes each year are orphaned, neonate puppies and kittens. No one bothered to spay or neuter the parents, and so the offspring are born into the world homeless or unwanted. The general attitude is, “Let someone else deal with the problem,” and – thousands of times a year – someone else does with a lethal injection.
Along with such failures in personal responsibility is a breakdown in social responsibility in the care of animals. On the budget sheets of government, saving animals can seem to a certain mindset as being a lowly or trivial concern. That’s an easy position to take, just as long as you don’t have to be there when the problem gets “solved” by euthanasia. If the public officials in most locales who brush off animal-welfare as “trivial” had to see the product of their priorities carried out – to witness for themselves how trusting the dogs are even when being led to their death, or how as they drift away they lick the hand or face of the person with the needle – I suspect they would see matters in a very different light, and would enthusiastically vote to support local or state spay/neuter programs.
Here in Los Angeles there are rays of light. The City has opened six new animal care centers, a decisive step forward in its commitment to helping lost and homeless animals, and to swearing off euthanasia as a solution to pet overpopulation.
The new Centers provide four times the shelter space to accommodate the average of 150 lost, sick, injured, neglected, abused or unwanted animals entrusted to LA Animal Services every day. The Centers have wide aisles, solar and radiant heating, cooling misters, veterinary and spay/neuter clinics, park benches for visitors, fountains and lush landscaping – a world away from the grim conditions of typical shelters, where animals can become so agitated or depressed that they seem ill-tempered and, thus, “unadoptable” by old school animal control reckoning. By transforming our animal shelters into places of hope and life, instead of despair and doom, odds are we can measurably increase adoption rates.
The “no-kill” ethic is a matter of taking responsibility, instead of excusing the problem or hiding its consequences. More and more communities are moving steadily in this direction.
But no matter how you do the math, still too many creatures who have love and devotion to offer, are never given the chance. And calling the practice euthanasia (as some prefer), instead of killing (as others prefer), doesn’t make it any kinder.
The good news is we are making significant progress, and we have many fine allies in the cause. There are hundreds of groups across the United States dedicated to finding homes for needy animals and to helping sterilize those animals who otherwise might contribute to the pet overpopulation problem. These compassionate, idealistic people show us the way forward.
The practice of killing animals for lack of shelter space has never been anyone’s idea of an ideal solution – let alone anyone’s idea of giving “shelter” to creatures in need. And, up close, the willful elimination of healthy animals with good years left is a sight to move the hardest heart. It is time for every local animal control program to make this commitment: No animal that comes through those doors will be killed out of convenience or a lack of space. For every one of them, there is somewhere a kind and loving person or family, and it is our mission to bring them together.
Killing animals for lack of space may be the quick, convenient and, at least from afar, the easy thing to do. But I have never, in nearly 30 years in this field, heard anyone argue that it is the right thing to do. After all, the creatures who fill our shelters can hardly be faulted for bringing trouble upon themselves. People who seek to excuse euthanasia in shelters often say we have to be “realistic.” But ultimately such realism would be better directed at the sources of the problem and, above all, at the element of human responsibility.
There are the heart-breaking cruelty cases that bring so many animals to our doors, and the added wrong of killing animals already victimized by callous or vicious behavior. On top of that, over 30 percent of the 54,000-plus dogs and cats LA takes in each year are actually relinquished – turned in – even after years of living with a family, like old furniture donated to charity. And another third of the creatures LA euthanizes each year are orphaned, neonate puppies and kittens. No one bothered to spay or neuter the parents, and so the offspring are born into the world homeless or unwanted. The general attitude is, “Let someone else deal with the problem,” and – thousands of times a year – someone else does with a lethal injection.
Along with such failures in personal responsibility is a breakdown in social responsibility in the care of animals. On the budget sheets of government, saving animals can seem to a certain mindset as being a lowly or trivial concern. That’s an easy position to take, just as long as you don’t have to be there when the problem gets “solved” by euthanasia. If the public officials in most locales who brush off animal-welfare as “trivial” had to see the product of their priorities carried out – to witness for themselves how trusting the dogs are even when being led to their death, or how as they drift away they lick the hand or face of the person with the needle – I suspect they would see matters in a very different light, and would enthusiastically vote to support local or state spay/neuter programs.
Here in Los Angeles there are rays of light. The City has opened six new animal care centers, a decisive step forward in its commitment to helping lost and homeless animals, and to swearing off euthanasia as a solution to pet overpopulation.
The new Centers provide four times the shelter space to accommodate the average of 150 lost, sick, injured, neglected, abused or unwanted animals entrusted to LA Animal Services every day. The Centers have wide aisles, solar and radiant heating, cooling misters, veterinary and spay/neuter clinics, park benches for visitors, fountains and lush landscaping – a world away from the grim conditions of typical shelters, where animals can become so agitated or depressed that they seem ill-tempered and, thus, “unadoptable” by old school animal control reckoning. By transforming our animal shelters into places of hope and life, instead of despair and doom, odds are we can measurably increase adoption rates.
The “no-kill” ethic is a matter of taking responsibility, instead of excusing the problem or hiding its consequences. More and more communities are moving steadily in this direction.
But no matter how you do the math, still too many creatures who have love and devotion to offer, are never given the chance. And calling the practice euthanasia (as some prefer), instead of killing (as others prefer), doesn’t make it any kinder.
The good news is we are making significant progress, and we have many fine allies in the cause. There are hundreds of groups across the United States dedicated to finding homes for needy animals and to helping sterilize those animals who otherwise might contribute to the pet overpopulation problem. These compassionate, idealistic people show us the way forward.
The practice of killing animals for lack of shelter space has never been anyone’s idea of an ideal solution – let alone anyone’s idea of giving “shelter” to creatures in need. And, up close, the willful elimination of healthy animals with good years left is a sight to move the hardest heart. It is time for every local animal control program to make this commitment: No animal that comes through those doors will be killed out of convenience or a lack of space. For every one of them, there is somewhere a kind and loving person or family, and it is our mission to bring them together.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
What did Mayor Villaraigosa learn?
The challenge before the Mayor now is finding a person willing to risk his/her career to come to a community where performance expectations is driven by outside forces making narrow and extreme demands.
A wise man once admonished us to “Beware when all men speak well of you.” Well, the good news is that there is little chance of that ever happening in Los Angeles. In LA we have an ample supply of critics, (arm chair activists), who in the words of Teddy Roosevelt, ever live to “point out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better,” while they themselves never lift a finger to help in any meaningful way.
However, Roosevelt goes on to say, and I paraphrase, that the real “credit belongs to LA Animal Services’ employees, volunteers and rescue partners who are actually in the arena, whose faces are marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strive valiantly, who err and come up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but they know the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, because they spend themselves for a worthy cause; who, at the best, know, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if they fail, at least they fail while daring greatly, so that their place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
Such a cold and timid soul recently opined in a pusillanimous letter to the editor of the LA Daily News that, “As we approach the one year anniversary of the resignation of Animal Services General Manager Ed Boks, it doesn't appear that Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has learned much… He hired a high profile animal shelter general manager without consulting the stakeholders, namely [me, Daniel Guss]…”
As Mr. Shayne Micklich from Studio City pointed out in a follow up letter to the editor, the general tenor of Guss’ letter sounded “like a veiled threat by the radical animal groups that have terrorized elected officials and employees throughout the tenure of a number of past general managers, not just Ed Boks. The argument that [Guss et al] have sufficient technical knowledge to select the person to run this major multi-shelter city agency is like saying that security guards have the expertise to select the police chief.”
Many wonder why Guss is so hateful in his criticisms of the department; it seems so personal, I am often told. In fact, it is. Guss started attacking the City the day after I explained to him that there was no budget for a public information position that he had been trying to carve out for himself for the past several years; upon learning that he went from supporter to nemesis overnight.
Nevertheless, putting Guss’ irresponsible threats and antics aside, the question, did the mayor learn anything from my tenure? deserves an answer. And it can be answered by the Mayor himself, “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 LA Animal Services the gold standard for pet protection.”
Despite Guss’ allegations to the contrary, a great deal was accomplished over the past four years, not the least of which was transforming the department into the most successful municipal pet adoption program in the nation (nearly 27,000 adoptions annually); successfully opening six new state-of-the-art animal care centers; establishing the Department’s first ever Strategic Plan; updating and standardizing policies and procedures to ensure a well-run Department; assembling the finest animal care and control medical and executive teams in the nation (who even now continue to identify and correct long-term organizational empowerment and accountability issues); and most gratifying to me, achieving the lowest euthanasia rates in the Department’s recorded history with every reason to expect continued improvement.
Amazingly, this was all accomplished during a time when the Department experienced its largest, fastest, and most historic growth in service demand; increasing shelter capacity over 250% and staffing 100%. This is comparable to recruiting, hiring, training and building a brand new department while running the existing one; no easy feat in the best of times. Over the past four years, LA Animal Services found its balance in an environment of severe budget cuts, an unprecedented demand for expansion of services, and a severe staffing shortage.
The only challenge before the Mayor now is finding a person willing to risk his/her career to come to a community where performance expectations for LA Animal Services is driven by outside forces making narrow and extreme demands. Although small in number, these people are media savvy and love the attention. They use intimidation, false accusations, and violence to forcibly divert attention from the broad causes of the pet overpopulation crisis in the City. They refuse to acknowledge the real challenges the City faces or the progress the City is making in modernizing the department and saving animals in a sincere and committed effort to make Los Angeles the first major metropolitan “no-kill” city in the United States.
While Guss seems to foolishly think the rancorous environment he creates will improve his City job aspirations, he is actually putting at risk the recruitment of talented individuals. It is time he put the animals in need in Los Angeles above his personal ambitions. It is time to stop wasting the time and energy of staff, volunteers, law enforcement, and elected officials and focus on the real work of understanding and solving pet guardianship issues in Los Angeles.
No-Kill is achievable in LA - but not as a house divided. Division is a tool of those who want to conquer and subjugate. We can and should be working together. Three local foundations have already incorporated the attached No-Kill Plan into their strategic initiatives. Click here to learn how we all can all better align our best efforts to achieve No-Kill in LA!
A wise man once admonished us to “Beware when all men speak well of you.” Well, the good news is that there is little chance of that ever happening in Los Angeles. In LA we have an ample supply of critics, (arm chair activists), who in the words of Teddy Roosevelt, ever live to “point out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better,” while they themselves never lift a finger to help in any meaningful way.
However, Roosevelt goes on to say, and I paraphrase, that the real “credit belongs to LA Animal Services’ employees, volunteers and rescue partners who are actually in the arena, whose faces are marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strive valiantly, who err and come up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but they know the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, because they spend themselves for a worthy cause; who, at the best, know, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if they fail, at least they fail while daring greatly, so that their place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
Such a cold and timid soul recently opined in a pusillanimous letter to the editor of the LA Daily News that, “As we approach the one year anniversary of the resignation of Animal Services General Manager Ed Boks, it doesn't appear that Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has learned much… He hired a high profile animal shelter general manager without consulting the stakeholders, namely [me, Daniel Guss]…”
As Mr. Shayne Micklich from Studio City pointed out in a follow up letter to the editor, the general tenor of Guss’ letter sounded “like a veiled threat by the radical animal groups that have terrorized elected officials and employees throughout the tenure of a number of past general managers, not just Ed Boks. The argument that [Guss et al] have sufficient technical knowledge to select the person to run this major multi-shelter city agency is like saying that security guards have the expertise to select the police chief.”
Many wonder why Guss is so hateful in his criticisms of the department; it seems so personal, I am often told. In fact, it is. Guss started attacking the City the day after I explained to him that there was no budget for a public information position that he had been trying to carve out for himself for the past several years; upon learning that he went from supporter to nemesis overnight.
Nevertheless, putting Guss’ irresponsible threats and antics aside, the question, did the mayor learn anything from my tenure? deserves an answer. And it can be answered by the Mayor himself, “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 LA Animal Services the gold standard for pet protection.”
Despite Guss’ allegations to the contrary, a great deal was accomplished over the past four years, not the least of which was transforming the department into the most successful municipal pet adoption program in the nation (nearly 27,000 adoptions annually); successfully opening six new state-of-the-art animal care centers; establishing the Department’s first ever Strategic Plan; updating and standardizing policies and procedures to ensure a well-run Department; assembling the finest animal care and control medical and executive teams in the nation (who even now continue to identify and correct long-term organizational empowerment and accountability issues); and most gratifying to me, achieving the lowest euthanasia rates in the Department’s recorded history with every reason to expect continued improvement.
Amazingly, this was all accomplished during a time when the Department experienced its largest, fastest, and most historic growth in service demand; increasing shelter capacity over 250% and staffing 100%. This is comparable to recruiting, hiring, training and building a brand new department while running the existing one; no easy feat in the best of times. Over the past four years, LA Animal Services found its balance in an environment of severe budget cuts, an unprecedented demand for expansion of services, and a severe staffing shortage.
The only challenge before the Mayor now is finding a person willing to risk his/her career to come to a community where performance expectations for LA Animal Services is driven by outside forces making narrow and extreme demands. Although small in number, these people are media savvy and love the attention. They use intimidation, false accusations, and violence to forcibly divert attention from the broad causes of the pet overpopulation crisis in the City. They refuse to acknowledge the real challenges the City faces or the progress the City is making in modernizing the department and saving animals in a sincere and committed effort to make Los Angeles the first major metropolitan “no-kill” city in the United States.
While Guss seems to foolishly think the rancorous environment he creates will improve his City job aspirations, he is actually putting at risk the recruitment of talented individuals. It is time he put the animals in need in Los Angeles above his personal ambitions. It is time to stop wasting the time and energy of staff, volunteers, law enforcement, and elected officials and focus on the real work of understanding and solving pet guardianship issues in Los Angeles.
No-Kill is achievable in LA - but not as a house divided. Division is a tool of those who want to conquer and subjugate. We can and should be working together. Three local foundations have already incorporated the attached No-Kill Plan into their strategic initiatives. Click here to learn how we all can all better align our best efforts to achieve No-Kill in LA!
Friday, April 09, 2010
Competing Priorities
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
