How often have we heard the expression, “keep your eye on the ball”? This is a phrase we are probably all familiar with, but what does it really mean? According to the Cambridge International Dictionary of Idioms, it means “to give your complete attention to what you are doing or want to achieve.” That sounds simple enough, but how easy is it really?
According to the Journal of Recreational Mathematics, when playing baseball, keeping your eye on the ball is next to impossible. The human eye cannot track the path of a pitch thrown in excess of 90 miles per hour. To track a ball moving at 100 miles per hour as it crosses home plate, the body must respond at a rate in excess of 1000 degrees per second. And yet, studies show the human limit is on the order of 90 degrees per second. It turns out that batters lose track of the ball as it nears them and extrapolate the data to actually hit it. Amateur batters lose sight of the ball when it is about 9 feet away from them and professionals when it is about 5.5 feet away.
This seems a poignant metaphor for achieving “no-kill” in LA. The closer we get to achieving the goal, the more likely it is that we will lose sight of the goal. The City of LA is among the top five communities in the United States with the lowest, and fastest declining, euthanasia rate. Can we keep our eye on the ball now as it comes barreling towards us at 100 miles per hour, or will we be distracted by disingenuous criticisms leveled against the department about imaginary crises?
For instance, a particularly pernicious criticism that is re-circulated from time to time by people who should know better is that the department is experiencing a shortage of veterinarians. This is simply not true. Despite the fact that there is a national shortage of veterinarians, a shortage that is most severely felt in the LA area, the department has four outstanding veterinarians on staff, with a fifth veterinarian starting shortly. This is as many veterinarians as the department has ever had, and is a good deal more than most municipal shelter systems have or will ever have.
Although the department has seven vacant veterinary positions in the budget, five of these positions were budgeted with an expectation that our spay/neuter clinics would be operational this year. In fact, they are scheduled to open towards the end of the current fiscal year. Filling these five positions before the clinics are open was never contemplated. We expect to have two more veterinary vacancies filled within the next week to a month or two as interviews are now underway.
This is one of many rumors meant to obfuscate the facts concerning LA Animals Services’ progress towards achieving “no-kill”. This progress is demonstrated by the statistics below. As is always the case, LA Animal Services is willing to respond to any concern or criticism. We have nothing to hide and are the first to admit that we need the help and support of the entire community to keep our eye on the ball.
Other criticisms often re-cycled by local armchair activists can be found debunked at: http://www.laanimalservices.com/PDF/info/rumor/rumor4.pdf
August 07 Stats:
I want to congratulate all LA Animal Services employees, volunteers, and partners who have been able to keep their eye on the ball as evidenced by producing another solid month where adoptions continued to climb and euthanasia rates continued to decline. On behalf of our community’s lost and homeless animals, thank you to everyone who is a part of the solution!
August 07 dog and cat adoptions combined (1,602) are up 8.75% compared to August 06 (1,473). August 07 cat adoptions (653) are up 24% compared to August 06 (525). August 07 dog adoptions are stable at 949 compared to 948 in August 06.
August 07 dog and cat New Hope placements combined (558) are up nearly 11% compared to August 06 (503). August 07 cat New Hope placements (215) is stable compared to August 06 (219). August 07 dog New Hope placements (343) are up nearly 21% compared to August 06 (284).
August 07 dog and cat Euthanasia (2,072) combined is down nearly 29% compared to August 06 (2,912). August 07 cat Euthanasia (1,268) is down nearly 38% compared to August 06 (2,035). August 07 dog Euthanasia (804) is down 8.32% compared to August 06 (877).
Of the 1,268 cats euthanized in August 07, 29.5% (375) were orphaned neonate kittens. However, 375 represents a 61% decrease in orphaned neonate kitten euthanasia compared to August 06 (981). Of the 804 dogs euthanized in August 07, 34.5% (278) were pit bull/mixes. However, 278 represents a 22% decrease in pit bull/mix euthanasia compared to August 06 (356).
07 Calendar Year-to-Date Stats:
YTD 07 Adoptions are up 11.32% (10,509) compared to YTD 06 (9,602). YTD 07 New Hope placements (3,943) are down 2.59% compared to YTD 06 (4,048). YTD Euthanasia (9,659) is down 26.06% compared to YTD 06 (13,064).
All things being equal, 2007 is on track towards achieving one of the most dramatic euthanasia declines since the department started keeping statistics.
To compare all of LA Animal Services statistics for August, Year to Date, the last 12 months, etc. for dogs, cats, rabbits, others, and more visit http://www.laanimalservices.com/about_stats.htm
Friday, September 07, 2007
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Actors and Others Ignore the Obvious
A recent op-ed in the LA Daily News by Sue Taylor of Actors and Others for Animals is perplexing in its blanket criticisms of LA Animal Services.
Ms. Taylor calls adopting animals “irrelevant” to the City’s mission to end euthanasia as a means of controlling pet overpopulation. This is incomprehensible from any reasonable perspective. She then attempts to conjure up the image of the “Titanic” as a metaphor for the state of LA Animal Services, ignoring the fact that the City’s euthanasia rate for dogs and cats shows one of the sharpest declines of any major City in the US, 50% over the past six years! And in a recent comparison study of many US communities, LA City placed fifth in the nation, just behind the much praised San Francisco!
While Ms. Taylor admits the “increased adoption and reduced euthanasia numbers look encouraging” she then takes great pains to disparage these extraordinary results.
“Most days,” she says, “only one animal-control officer is in the field per shelter district, and not picking up strays and loose running dogs.”
Animal Control Officers do in fact pick up lost and homeless dogs, as well as investigate animal cruelty and neglect, and much more. In fact, rarely is a district found with only one officer on duty during the day. While it may happen on occasion due to illness or injuries, this is an anomaly that we are working diligently to remedy.
Ms. Taylor is exaggerating when she states “Shelters don't respond to the majority of calls for assistance” such as when “someone reports a dog that has clearly been abandoned in a park or other public place.” In fact, abandonment calls are a priority and we try to respond to them as we do to all calls. At some times we do better than at others, but we’re always striving to improve.
Ms. Taylor then finds fault with a department policy, originally authored by the Animal Services Commission, to “discourage” an owner attempting to turn in a pet. While “discourage” is a strong word, the department does believe in helping owners find alternative solutions to resolve pet problems in the hope of making pet relinquishment a last resort - as it should be. Most pet guardians appreciate the information we provide.
Incidentally, after criticizing the department for discouraging owner relinquishment, she then praises rescue organizations for doing the same thing, stating that their “efforts are a good thing… attempting to help direct owner-relinquished pets to never reach the shelters.” Commendable indeed; but why does Ms. Taylor find it less commendable when LA Animal Services attempts to offer alternative life-saving solutions to relinquishment?
Ms. Taylor then accuses Animal Services of deliberately putting aggressive dogs “in kennel runs with frightened, docile animals” She claims, “this happens so frequently that the department's medical expenditures have skyrocketed in recent years from sewing up helpless dogs.”
It is pure fiction to allege that “skyrocketing” medical expenditures can be attributed to a proliferation of kennel injuries. The department does have increased medical expenditures, but they actually reflect the department’s growing commitment to providing the best care possible to animals in our shelters.
Ms. Taylor goes on to say, “The biggest release valve for reducing shelter overpopulation - and the primary reason for the adoption increases and euthanasia-rate drops - are the rescue organizations that take hundreds of dogs and cats from shelters, then feed, house and attempt to place the animals.”
She is partly correct. LA Animal Services has always acknowledged the extraordinary efforts of our over 120 New Hope partners to save lives. Animal Services is so committed to their efforts that we provide them with 24 hour/seven-day-a-week access to our Centers so they can come in at any time to evaluate animals in need. We have New Hope Coordinators in each Center who serve as “personal shoppers” for our partners alerting them to animals they may be interested in. We provide all animals from our Green and Red Alert lists at no cost to our New Hope partners and we pay for the spay/neuter surgery, microchip, vaccinations, and medical care up until the time of release (another reason for increased medical expenditures).
What other shelter system works so hard to help their partner organizations save lives? We will even transport animals when necessary to assist our partners. These efforts result in nearly 6,000 dogs and cats placed by our New Hope partners each year. This is in addition to the over 15,000 adoptions LA Animal Services facilitates directly and the nearly 4,500 lost pets returned to their frantic owners by the department each year.
Ms. Taylor, in a desperate attempt to create her own reality, resorts to reverse psychology, stating, “In the parallel universe of public relations, where Boks and Villaraigosa apparently reside, everything is swell and getting better all the time. But the city of Los Angeles has in no way solved its pet overpopulation problem.”
True, we haven’t solved it, but here Ms. Taylor overlooks the biggest contribution the City of Los Angeles has made to help solve the pet overpopulation problem. That would be the $1.2 million annual commitment to provide spay/neuter services to the pets of our community’s needy pet guardians, the ongoing creation of seven spay/neuter clinics, the sponsoring of AB 1634 (Levine) and a local spay/neuter ordinance. No other city in the United States has done as much on as many fronts to address the pet overpopulation problem. Ms. Taylor herself has worked closely with us on this issue, and we thank her.
So, Ms. Taylor appears to ignore all the hard work that has been done over the past five years, instead encouraging the humane community and the department to continue to throw stones at each other. (Unfortunately that is something “humane” Angelenos have seemed more than ready to do over the years.) However, despite Ms. Taylor’s assertions, the real world facts are promising. Six years ago, LA was killing nearly 35,000 dogs and cats. (Ten years ago it was 50,000 or more.) The number over the past twelve months is 16,500. Despite the challenges we continue to face, is it really fair to say that things are not getting better?
Take a look at this website to see exactly how well the City of Los Angeles is doing compared to the rest of the nation: http://www.laanimalservices.com/PDF/reports/2007%20National%20Stats%20direct%20comparison.pdf
Ms. Taylor calls adopting animals “irrelevant” to the City’s mission to end euthanasia as a means of controlling pet overpopulation. This is incomprehensible from any reasonable perspective. She then attempts to conjure up the image of the “Titanic” as a metaphor for the state of LA Animal Services, ignoring the fact that the City’s euthanasia rate for dogs and cats shows one of the sharpest declines of any major City in the US, 50% over the past six years! And in a recent comparison study of many US communities, LA City placed fifth in the nation, just behind the much praised San Francisco!
While Ms. Taylor admits the “increased adoption and reduced euthanasia numbers look encouraging” she then takes great pains to disparage these extraordinary results.
“Most days,” she says, “only one animal-control officer is in the field per shelter district, and not picking up strays and loose running dogs.”
Animal Control Officers do in fact pick up lost and homeless dogs, as well as investigate animal cruelty and neglect, and much more. In fact, rarely is a district found with only one officer on duty during the day. While it may happen on occasion due to illness or injuries, this is an anomaly that we are working diligently to remedy.
Ms. Taylor is exaggerating when she states “Shelters don't respond to the majority of calls for assistance” such as when “someone reports a dog that has clearly been abandoned in a park or other public place.” In fact, abandonment calls are a priority and we try to respond to them as we do to all calls. At some times we do better than at others, but we’re always striving to improve.
Ms. Taylor then finds fault with a department policy, originally authored by the Animal Services Commission, to “discourage” an owner attempting to turn in a pet. While “discourage” is a strong word, the department does believe in helping owners find alternative solutions to resolve pet problems in the hope of making pet relinquishment a last resort - as it should be. Most pet guardians appreciate the information we provide.
Incidentally, after criticizing the department for discouraging owner relinquishment, she then praises rescue organizations for doing the same thing, stating that their “efforts are a good thing… attempting to help direct owner-relinquished pets to never reach the shelters.” Commendable indeed; but why does Ms. Taylor find it less commendable when LA Animal Services attempts to offer alternative life-saving solutions to relinquishment?
Ms. Taylor then accuses Animal Services of deliberately putting aggressive dogs “in kennel runs with frightened, docile animals” She claims, “this happens so frequently that the department's medical expenditures have skyrocketed in recent years from sewing up helpless dogs.”
It is pure fiction to allege that “skyrocketing” medical expenditures can be attributed to a proliferation of kennel injuries. The department does have increased medical expenditures, but they actually reflect the department’s growing commitment to providing the best care possible to animals in our shelters.
Ms. Taylor goes on to say, “The biggest release valve for reducing shelter overpopulation - and the primary reason for the adoption increases and euthanasia-rate drops - are the rescue organizations that take hundreds of dogs and cats from shelters, then feed, house and attempt to place the animals.”
She is partly correct. LA Animal Services has always acknowledged the extraordinary efforts of our over 120 New Hope partners to save lives. Animal Services is so committed to their efforts that we provide them with 24 hour/seven-day-a-week access to our Centers so they can come in at any time to evaluate animals in need. We have New Hope Coordinators in each Center who serve as “personal shoppers” for our partners alerting them to animals they may be interested in. We provide all animals from our Green and Red Alert lists at no cost to our New Hope partners and we pay for the spay/neuter surgery, microchip, vaccinations, and medical care up until the time of release (another reason for increased medical expenditures).
What other shelter system works so hard to help their partner organizations save lives? We will even transport animals when necessary to assist our partners. These efforts result in nearly 6,000 dogs and cats placed by our New Hope partners each year. This is in addition to the over 15,000 adoptions LA Animal Services facilitates directly and the nearly 4,500 lost pets returned to their frantic owners by the department each year.
Ms. Taylor, in a desperate attempt to create her own reality, resorts to reverse psychology, stating, “In the parallel universe of public relations, where Boks and Villaraigosa apparently reside, everything is swell and getting better all the time. But the city of Los Angeles has in no way solved its pet overpopulation problem.”
True, we haven’t solved it, but here Ms. Taylor overlooks the biggest contribution the City of Los Angeles has made to help solve the pet overpopulation problem. That would be the $1.2 million annual commitment to provide spay/neuter services to the pets of our community’s needy pet guardians, the ongoing creation of seven spay/neuter clinics, the sponsoring of AB 1634 (Levine) and a local spay/neuter ordinance. No other city in the United States has done as much on as many fronts to address the pet overpopulation problem. Ms. Taylor herself has worked closely with us on this issue, and we thank her.
So, Ms. Taylor appears to ignore all the hard work that has been done over the past five years, instead encouraging the humane community and the department to continue to throw stones at each other. (Unfortunately that is something “humane” Angelenos have seemed more than ready to do over the years.) However, despite Ms. Taylor’s assertions, the real world facts are promising. Six years ago, LA was killing nearly 35,000 dogs and cats. (Ten years ago it was 50,000 or more.) The number over the past twelve months is 16,500. Despite the challenges we continue to face, is it really fair to say that things are not getting better?
Take a look at this website to see exactly how well the City of Los Angeles is doing compared to the rest of the nation: http://www.laanimalservices.com/PDF/reports/2007%20National%20Stats%20direct%20comparison.pdf
Monday, August 27, 2007
The Search for Contentment...
In an article by respected LA Daily News reporter Rick Orlov, in the August 27th edition, he stated there are "signs of discontent" with Animal Services. This "discontent" is demonstrated, he claims, by "the number of workers who have left Boks' department. The department has 69 vacancies among its budgeted staff of 300 - a significant gap usually not seen in government agencies."
Mr. Orlov is mistaken. The department actually has 434 budgeted positions. Yes, we currently have 69 vacancies. However, we are extending 20 job offers this week as scheduled to accommodate the opening of our new West Valley and West LA Animal Care Centers in September and October. It would not have made sense to fill these vacancies any sooner. This leaves 49 vacancies to accomodate the new North East Valley Center which is still under construction! It would not make sense to fill these positions at this time either. In fact, there is not a significant vacancy rate within Animal Services and we are on schedule to hire appropriate staffing during a time of unprecedented department growth.
It is curious that the same people who once critized the department for poor staff quality, demanding that certain "people should be fired!" are now using staff departures and turnover as a new way to critize the department. But as usual, they continue to get it wrong. In fact, LA Animal Services experienced a 7.5% turnover rate over the past fiscal year. Low by any standards.
Orlov goes on to cite a "snit" with LA county animal control as a further demonstration of "discontent". The "snit" was the result of LA County animal control providing the City four sets of ever increasing adoption numbers while we conducted our due diligence. Their latest number mysteriously claimed an increase in their adoption numbers by over 6,000. This number was not released until the day after the City’s announcement that LA Animal Services is the number one pet adoption agency in the nation. Lacking any credible documentation to substantiate the County's claim, it was quickly dismissed.
To avoid such confusion in the future, I challenge LA County to post and update their numbers every month as LA Animal Services does. LA Animal Services was recognized in 2006 by the Maddies’ Foundation for "Transparency", i.e., the ready availability of information to the public. Of the over 5200 animal control departments in the United States and the tens of thousands humane societies and animal welfare organizations, Maddie's identified only five organizations for their transparency. LA Animal Services was at the top of the list and was the only municipal program recognized.
One of the reasons for this recognition is LA Animal Services' willingness to post its statistics on-line. Animal Services shares Maddie's philosophy that transparency "will ultimately help save more lives," and that by our example "other organizations will see the true merit of moving in this direction, and that transparency will become commonplace in the very near future."
Lastly, Orlov refers to activists’ suspicions concerning adoption numbers. I can only speak for the numbers achieved by LA Animal Services that are posted and updated monthly. They are incontrovertible and can always be found at: ttp://www.laanimalservices.com/about_stats.htm.
Mr. Orlov is mistaken. The department actually has 434 budgeted positions. Yes, we currently have 69 vacancies. However, we are extending 20 job offers this week as scheduled to accommodate the opening of our new West Valley and West LA Animal Care Centers in September and October. It would not have made sense to fill these vacancies any sooner. This leaves 49 vacancies to accomodate the new North East Valley Center which is still under construction! It would not make sense to fill these positions at this time either. In fact, there is not a significant vacancy rate within Animal Services and we are on schedule to hire appropriate staffing during a time of unprecedented department growth.
It is curious that the same people who once critized the department for poor staff quality, demanding that certain "people should be fired!" are now using staff departures and turnover as a new way to critize the department. But as usual, they continue to get it wrong. In fact, LA Animal Services experienced a 7.5% turnover rate over the past fiscal year. Low by any standards.
Orlov goes on to cite a "snit" with LA county animal control as a further demonstration of "discontent". The "snit" was the result of LA County animal control providing the City four sets of ever increasing adoption numbers while we conducted our due diligence. Their latest number mysteriously claimed an increase in their adoption numbers by over 6,000. This number was not released until the day after the City’s announcement that LA Animal Services is the number one pet adoption agency in the nation. Lacking any credible documentation to substantiate the County's claim, it was quickly dismissed.
To avoid such confusion in the future, I challenge LA County to post and update their numbers every month as LA Animal Services does. LA Animal Services was recognized in 2006 by the Maddies’ Foundation for "Transparency", i.e., the ready availability of information to the public. Of the over 5200 animal control departments in the United States and the tens of thousands humane societies and animal welfare organizations, Maddie's identified only five organizations for their transparency. LA Animal Services was at the top of the list and was the only municipal program recognized.
One of the reasons for this recognition is LA Animal Services' willingness to post its statistics on-line. Animal Services shares Maddie's philosophy that transparency "will ultimately help save more lives," and that by our example "other organizations will see the true merit of moving in this direction, and that transparency will become commonplace in the very near future."
Lastly, Orlov refers to activists’ suspicions concerning adoption numbers. I can only speak for the numbers achieved by LA Animal Services that are posted and updated monthly. They are incontrovertible and can always be found at: ttp://www.laanimalservices.com/about_stats.htm.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
U.S. shelter killing toll drops to 3.7 million dogs & cats: An analyis by Merritt Clifton
U.S. animal shelters as of mid-2007 are killing fewer dogs and cats than at any time in at least the past 37 years, according to the 15th annual ANIMAL PEOPLE evaluation of the most recent available shelter data.
The rate of shelter killing per 1,000 Americans, now at 12.5, is the lowest since data collected by John Marbanks in 1947-1950 suggested a rate of about 135--at a time when animal control in much of the U.S. was still handled by private contractors, who often simply killed strays or sold them to laboratories instead of taking them to shelters, and unwanted puppies and kittens were frequently drowned.
The ANIMAL PEOPLE projection each year is based on compilations of the tolls from every open admission shelter handling significant numbers of animals in specific cities, counties, or states. The sample base each year is proportionately weighted to ensure regional balance. Only data from the preceding three fiscal years is included.
Using a three-year rolling projection tends to level out flukes that might result from including different cities, counties, and states each year, but has the disadvantage of sometimes not showing significant changes in trends until a year or two after they start. Thus the effects of the post-2001 slump in funding for dog and cat sterilization programs only became evident in 2004. Comparably, trends involving Internet-assisted adoption, adoption transport, feral cats and pit bull terriers that were just gathering momentum in 2004 are major influences on the 2007 findings.
As of 2004, about a third of all U.S. dog and cat adoptions were believed to be Internet-assisted, via web sites where animals' photographs and descriptions are posted. Anecdotally, at least two thirds of adoptions are Internet-assisted today, with dogs benefitting most, since dog adopters are more likely to be seeking a specific breed or mix, who may be readily found only through web-searching. Adoption transport also chiefly benefits dogs, since cats are still abundant in all parts of the U.S., but small dogs, puppies, and purebreds are relatively scarce in shelters along both coasts and in the northern Midwest.
Soaring shelter receipts of pit bull terriers in 2001-2004 outpaced progress in sterilizing feral cats, causing total shelter killing to soar by the end of 2004 to the highest level since 1997. For the first and only time since ANIMAL PEOPLE began quantifying shelter killing, more dogs were killed in 2004 than cats. The 1997 toll was 53% cats, 47% dogs, about the same balance as had prevailed since the mid-1980s, but the 2004 toll was reversed, at 47% cats, 53% dogs. [Boks: In LA it is 65% cats and 35% dogs.]
About half of the dogs who were killed in 2004 were pit bull terriers, ANIMAL PEOPLE confirmed by surveying shelter directors in 23 representative metropolitan areas.
Salathia Bryant of the Houston Chronicle was shocked in February 2007 to discover that local shelter intakes of pit bulls had increased from 5% of all dogs in 2000 to 15% in 2002 and 27% in 2006. Actually this was right on the national norms found by ANIMAL PEOPLE nearly two years earlier.
Los Angeles residents were shocked in June 2007 when Department of Animal Regulation chief Ed Boks lamented that 40% of the dogs who were killed in the city shelters during the preceding year were pit bulls. Yet as many as 70% of the dogs killed in some other major cities are pit bulls--who are reportedly 65% of the animal control dog intake in Milwaukee, and may account for more than two-thirds of the dog intake in Detroit and Philadelphia.
While pit bull intake has not slowed down since 2004, and appears to be still rising, the total canine death toll in U.S. shelters has fallen by more than 750,000 since 2004, with pit bulls the main beneficiaries.
Increasing use of standardized temperament tests to determine whether dogs are safe for adoption appears to be driving the change. Traditionally, behavioral suitability for adoption tended to be judged from anecdotal assessments by animal control officers, kennel workers, and people who surrendered animals to shelters. Relatively few shelters ever categorically refused to adopt out pit bulls and other breeds of dog who are considered high-risk, though some did and still do, but the breeds of dogs tended to weigh heavily, if not always consciously, in the judgments.
When most shelters were killing a relatively high percentage of the dogs received, and no one breed predominated, this was not an issue. As pit bulls came to disproportionately fill shelters, however, concern about "breed discrimination" on the one hand and soaring liability insurance costs on the other caused shelter directors to seek ways to support their decisions. Standardized temperament tests offer shelters a way to explain in relatively objective terms why a particular dog may be unsuitable for adoption, and to adopt out some pit bulls with confidence that the adoptions will succeed.
Whether temperament tests really prevent dog attacks and liability is still a matter of debate, with several relevant court cases pending. ANIMAL PEOPLE in January/February 2002 published data suggesting that the breed-specific patterns of fatal and disfiguring attacks among dogs who have cleared behavioral screening are the same as among all dogs.
However, though pit bulls tend to flunk the most popular standardized behavioral tests more often than any other breed, enough pit bulls pass that they have become the breed most often adopted in New York City and Los Angeles. Despite several high-profile failures of pit bull adoption programs in the 1990s, many other cities are now trying similar approaches, based on checklists of behavior that can be taken into a courtroom more persuasively than the intuitive and subjective opinions of animal handlers. [Boks: please visit http://www.laanimalservices.com/aboutani_pitbulls.htm for more information on pit bull temperament that varies from ANIMAL PEOPLES’ analysis.]
Currently, U.S. shelters kill about 1.4 million dogs per year, including about 750,000 pit bulls and close mixes of pit bull. [Boks: In the City of LA we kill about 6000 dogs annually of which about 2,300 are pit bull/mixes.]
While fewer pit bulls are dying in U.S. shelters, the cat toll is rising again for the first time since neuter/return feral cat control caught on in 1991-1992. Across the U.S., the shelter toll is now 63% cats, 37% dogs--the most lopsided that it has ever been. [Boks: In the City of LA our cat intake is 45% and dog intake is 55%.]
Tweety and Sylvester
The 2006 projected total of 2.3 million cats killed in shelters represents an increase of about 300,000 from the level of the preceding several years. [Boks: In the City of LA we decreased cat euthanasia every year for the past six years. 28% decrease in cat deaths over the past six years with a 13% decrease over just the past twelve months.]
Yet this is not because there are more cats at large. Repeatedly applying various different yardsticks to measure the U.S. feral cat population, including shelter data, road-kill counts, and surveys of cat feeders, ANIMAL PEOPLE has found since 2003 that the projections consistently converge on estimates of about six million feral cats at large in the dead of winter, with about twice that many after the early summer peak of "kitten season." This is down by more than 75% from the feral cat population of circa 1990, which was up by about a third from the total indicated in the studies done by John Marbanks in 1947-1950.
Data collected for the National Council on Pet Population Study indicates that the U.S. pet cat population has not reproduced in excess of self-replacement since approximately 1994. The marked increase in the U.S. pet cat population over this time, from just over 60 million to about 90 million, has been driven by adoptions of feral cats--mostly feral-born kittens. Kitten removals from the feral population, together with neuter/return, has reduced feral cat reproductive capacity to substantially less than replacement. Taking feral cats' places are other mid-sized predators including growing populations of urban and suburban coyotes, foxes, bobcats, hawks, owls, and eagles.
But intolerance of free-roaming cats, especially feral cats, is the longtime official policy of all U.S. federal government agencies, as well as many state agencies responsible for managing property where feral cats formerly dwelled. Under intense pressure from birders and conservationists trying to save endangered species of birds and small mammals, federal and state agencies have intensified efforts to extirpate feral cats.
Organized opposition to neuter/return feral cat management before 2003 came chiefly from the Humane Society of the U.S. and PETA, which held that feral cats were suffering and should therefore be killed to end their misery, and the American Bird Conservancy, a relatively small organization that originated as a project of the World Wildlife Fund. Soon thereafter, HSUS adopted policies favoring carefully managed neuter/return--but in April 2003 the National Wildlife Federation membership magazine National Wildlife came out strongly against neuter/return. Only The Nature Conservancy, whose policy is to extirpate all nonnative species from their land holdings if possible, has more influence among U.S. wildlife policymakers.
Feral cat colony caretakers have often not helped their cause by maintaining colonies near sensitive wildlife habitats, and by not sterilizing enough cats, fast enough, to reduce the visible population to none within the three-to-five-year average lifespan of a feral cat who survives kittenhood.
Cape May, New Jersey, for example, has had an active neuter/return network since 1992, encouraged by animal control chief John Queenan. ANIMAL PEOPLE mentioned the Cape May project as a model for other communities in 1993. But Cape May is perhaps the most frequented resting and feeding area for migratory birds along the entire Atlantic flyway. Many visiting species are in decline, including the tiny red knot, which flies each year all the way from the Antarctic to the Arctic and back. Cape May is also among the nesting habitats of the endangered piping plover.
The Cape May economy is driven by birders' visits. When Cape May still had an estimated 500 feral cats in 2003, ten years into the neuter/return program, the city allowed neuter/return advocates to maintain 10 cat feeding stations and weather shelters, but the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service began demanding that feral cat feeding be ended.
Many cats were removed from sensitive areas and housed in two trailers, one belonging to Cape May Animal Control and the other to Animal Outreach of Cape May County, the primary local cat rescue group since 1995. On May 19, 2007, however, the trailers caught fire, killing 37 cats. Cape May is currently considering withdrawing support for neuter/return and prohibiting feeding cats outdoors.
A similar situation may have a happier outcome on Big Pine Key, Florida, home of the endangered Hefner rabbit, Sylivilagus palustris hefneri. The rabbit was named for Playboy magazine founder Hugh Hefner after he funded the study that put it on the U.S. endangered species list more than 20 years ago. Blaming feral cats for a catastrophic collapse in rabbit numbers at the National Key Deer Refuge, refuge manager Anne Morkill in June 2007 announced that the cats would be trapped and taken to animal control shelters, where they would probably be killed. Hefner then donated $5,000 to Stand Up For Animals, whose founder, Linda Gottwald, told Stephanie Garry of the St. Petersburg Times that she would use the funding to sterilize and relocate as many of the cats as possible.
Among the regional variations of note in the 2007 ANIMAL PEOPLE roundup of shelter killing data are that the dog/cat balance is 72/28 in the Northeast, 65/35 in the Midwest, 63/35 in the Mid-Atlantic region, and 60/40 along the West Coast, but is 54/46 in the South, where intakes and killing of both dogs and cats are highest. Among the possible explanations are that Southern animal control agencies may put more emphasis on picking up dogs, and that communities with more dogs at large tend to have fewer feral cats.
Virginia and Florida data, however, more resembles the data from the rest of the U.S., reflecting the demographic influences of Washington D.C. and migration to Florida from other parts of the country.
Midwest progress
The Midwest has made the most impressive recent gains, almost catching up to the West Coast in reduction of dog and cat overpopulation through high-volume low-cost sterilization. Many of the most ambitious dog-and-cat sterilization projects started within the past decade are in the Midwest, including Pets Are Worth Saving, founded by Paula Fasseas in Chicago, and the Foundation Against Companion Animal Euthanasia, founded by Scott Robinson, M.D., in Indianapolis.
A global veterinary shortage is especially acute in the Midwest, where organizations including the Michigan Humane Society, based in Detroit, and M'Shoogy's Animal Rescue, near Kansas City, have at times had to cut back services simply because they could not find vets to fill their open positions. [Boks: LA critics find fault with local veterinary shortages not recognizing this is a national crisis. Not withstanding, Animal Services has significantly rebuilt its medical program and has four outstanding veterinarians on staff and more applying all the time.]
The same problem afflicts the Appalachian states, where progress achieved in the 1990s has largely been lost, most markedly in Knoxville. Handling both city and county animal control sheltering out of a World War II-vintage Quonset hut, and operating a major local dog and cat sterilization program, the Humane Society of the Tennessee Valley had reduced shelter killing to 24.5 dogs and cats per 1,000 humans by 1999--well above the then-national average of 16.6, but among the best records in the South.
A coalition of local no-kill rescue groups then convinced Knoxville officials that a city-and-county-run shelter working cooperatively with them could operate on less money and save more animals. ANIMAL PEOPLE warned at the time that Knoxville could not realistically try to achieve no-kill sheltering until the animal control intake volume fell by at least half. Instead of lowering the shelter toll, the first five years of animal control under the new agency saw shelter killing increase by 22%.
Regions quit counting
A frustrating aspect of the 2007 ANIMAL PEOPLE shelter toll analysis is that while we received enough data from both the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions to project reliable totals and trends by comparison to past data, including the dog/cat balance, no individual or agency relayed complete enough new data from cities other than New York City and Philadelphia--the biggest cities in those regions--for us to list totals for any others.
This is markedly different from the first years of our annual updates, when the most complete counts we received were from the New England states, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland.
As shelter killing rates in those states have stabilized at very low levels, many of the agencies that formerly collected shelter tolls appear to have refocused on collecting information about adoption transport programs, a very small part of shelter activity 15 years ago, but now the source of half or more of the animals many shelters offer for adoption.
--Merritt Clifton
[Boks: Visit http://www.laanimalservices.com/about_stats.htm for two comparisons of national shelter killing stats. Click on 2007 National Stats or 2007 National Stats Direct Comparison.]
[ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide, founded in 1992. Their readership of 30,000-plus includes the decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations. They have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. E-mail: anmlpepl@whidbey.com Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org $24/year; for free sample, send address.]
The rate of shelter killing per 1,000 Americans, now at 12.5, is the lowest since data collected by John Marbanks in 1947-1950 suggested a rate of about 135--at a time when animal control in much of the U.S. was still handled by private contractors, who often simply killed strays or sold them to laboratories instead of taking them to shelters, and unwanted puppies and kittens were frequently drowned.
The ANIMAL PEOPLE projection each year is based on compilations of the tolls from every open admission shelter handling significant numbers of animals in specific cities, counties, or states. The sample base each year is proportionately weighted to ensure regional balance. Only data from the preceding three fiscal years is included.
Using a three-year rolling projection tends to level out flukes that might result from including different cities, counties, and states each year, but has the disadvantage of sometimes not showing significant changes in trends until a year or two after they start. Thus the effects of the post-2001 slump in funding for dog and cat sterilization programs only became evident in 2004. Comparably, trends involving Internet-assisted adoption, adoption transport, feral cats and pit bull terriers that were just gathering momentum in 2004 are major influences on the 2007 findings.
As of 2004, about a third of all U.S. dog and cat adoptions were believed to be Internet-assisted, via web sites where animals' photographs and descriptions are posted. Anecdotally, at least two thirds of adoptions are Internet-assisted today, with dogs benefitting most, since dog adopters are more likely to be seeking a specific breed or mix, who may be readily found only through web-searching. Adoption transport also chiefly benefits dogs, since cats are still abundant in all parts of the U.S., but small dogs, puppies, and purebreds are relatively scarce in shelters along both coasts and in the northern Midwest.
Soaring shelter receipts of pit bull terriers in 2001-2004 outpaced progress in sterilizing feral cats, causing total shelter killing to soar by the end of 2004 to the highest level since 1997. For the first and only time since ANIMAL PEOPLE began quantifying shelter killing, more dogs were killed in 2004 than cats. The 1997 toll was 53% cats, 47% dogs, about the same balance as had prevailed since the mid-1980s, but the 2004 toll was reversed, at 47% cats, 53% dogs. [Boks: In LA it is 65% cats and 35% dogs.]
About half of the dogs who were killed in 2004 were pit bull terriers, ANIMAL PEOPLE confirmed by surveying shelter directors in 23 representative metropolitan areas.
Salathia Bryant of the Houston Chronicle was shocked in February 2007 to discover that local shelter intakes of pit bulls had increased from 5% of all dogs in 2000 to 15% in 2002 and 27% in 2006. Actually this was right on the national norms found by ANIMAL PEOPLE nearly two years earlier.
Los Angeles residents were shocked in June 2007 when Department of Animal Regulation chief Ed Boks lamented that 40% of the dogs who were killed in the city shelters during the preceding year were pit bulls. Yet as many as 70% of the dogs killed in some other major cities are pit bulls--who are reportedly 65% of the animal control dog intake in Milwaukee, and may account for more than two-thirds of the dog intake in Detroit and Philadelphia.
While pit bull intake has not slowed down since 2004, and appears to be still rising, the total canine death toll in U.S. shelters has fallen by more than 750,000 since 2004, with pit bulls the main beneficiaries.
Increasing use of standardized temperament tests to determine whether dogs are safe for adoption appears to be driving the change. Traditionally, behavioral suitability for adoption tended to be judged from anecdotal assessments by animal control officers, kennel workers, and people who surrendered animals to shelters. Relatively few shelters ever categorically refused to adopt out pit bulls and other breeds of dog who are considered high-risk, though some did and still do, but the breeds of dogs tended to weigh heavily, if not always consciously, in the judgments.
When most shelters were killing a relatively high percentage of the dogs received, and no one breed predominated, this was not an issue. As pit bulls came to disproportionately fill shelters, however, concern about "breed discrimination" on the one hand and soaring liability insurance costs on the other caused shelter directors to seek ways to support their decisions. Standardized temperament tests offer shelters a way to explain in relatively objective terms why a particular dog may be unsuitable for adoption, and to adopt out some pit bulls with confidence that the adoptions will succeed.
Whether temperament tests really prevent dog attacks and liability is still a matter of debate, with several relevant court cases pending. ANIMAL PEOPLE in January/February 2002 published data suggesting that the breed-specific patterns of fatal and disfiguring attacks among dogs who have cleared behavioral screening are the same as among all dogs.
However, though pit bulls tend to flunk the most popular standardized behavioral tests more often than any other breed, enough pit bulls pass that they have become the breed most often adopted in New York City and Los Angeles. Despite several high-profile failures of pit bull adoption programs in the 1990s, many other cities are now trying similar approaches, based on checklists of behavior that can be taken into a courtroom more persuasively than the intuitive and subjective opinions of animal handlers. [Boks: please visit http://www.laanimalservices.com/aboutani_pitbulls.htm for more information on pit bull temperament that varies from ANIMAL PEOPLES’ analysis.]
Currently, U.S. shelters kill about 1.4 million dogs per year, including about 750,000 pit bulls and close mixes of pit bull. [Boks: In the City of LA we kill about 6000 dogs annually of which about 2,300 are pit bull/mixes.]
While fewer pit bulls are dying in U.S. shelters, the cat toll is rising again for the first time since neuter/return feral cat control caught on in 1991-1992. Across the U.S., the shelter toll is now 63% cats, 37% dogs--the most lopsided that it has ever been. [Boks: In the City of LA our cat intake is 45% and dog intake is 55%.]
Tweety and Sylvester
The 2006 projected total of 2.3 million cats killed in shelters represents an increase of about 300,000 from the level of the preceding several years. [Boks: In the City of LA we decreased cat euthanasia every year for the past six years. 28% decrease in cat deaths over the past six years with a 13% decrease over just the past twelve months.]
Yet this is not because there are more cats at large. Repeatedly applying various different yardsticks to measure the U.S. feral cat population, including shelter data, road-kill counts, and surveys of cat feeders, ANIMAL PEOPLE has found since 2003 that the projections consistently converge on estimates of about six million feral cats at large in the dead of winter, with about twice that many after the early summer peak of "kitten season." This is down by more than 75% from the feral cat population of circa 1990, which was up by about a third from the total indicated in the studies done by John Marbanks in 1947-1950.
Data collected for the National Council on Pet Population Study indicates that the U.S. pet cat population has not reproduced in excess of self-replacement since approximately 1994. The marked increase in the U.S. pet cat population over this time, from just over 60 million to about 90 million, has been driven by adoptions of feral cats--mostly feral-born kittens. Kitten removals from the feral population, together with neuter/return, has reduced feral cat reproductive capacity to substantially less than replacement. Taking feral cats' places are other mid-sized predators including growing populations of urban and suburban coyotes, foxes, bobcats, hawks, owls, and eagles.
But intolerance of free-roaming cats, especially feral cats, is the longtime official policy of all U.S. federal government agencies, as well as many state agencies responsible for managing property where feral cats formerly dwelled. Under intense pressure from birders and conservationists trying to save endangered species of birds and small mammals, federal and state agencies have intensified efforts to extirpate feral cats.
Organized opposition to neuter/return feral cat management before 2003 came chiefly from the Humane Society of the U.S. and PETA, which held that feral cats were suffering and should therefore be killed to end their misery, and the American Bird Conservancy, a relatively small organization that originated as a project of the World Wildlife Fund. Soon thereafter, HSUS adopted policies favoring carefully managed neuter/return--but in April 2003 the National Wildlife Federation membership magazine National Wildlife came out strongly against neuter/return. Only The Nature Conservancy, whose policy is to extirpate all nonnative species from their land holdings if possible, has more influence among U.S. wildlife policymakers.
Feral cat colony caretakers have often not helped their cause by maintaining colonies near sensitive wildlife habitats, and by not sterilizing enough cats, fast enough, to reduce the visible population to none within the three-to-five-year average lifespan of a feral cat who survives kittenhood.
Cape May, New Jersey, for example, has had an active neuter/return network since 1992, encouraged by animal control chief John Queenan. ANIMAL PEOPLE mentioned the Cape May project as a model for other communities in 1993. But Cape May is perhaps the most frequented resting and feeding area for migratory birds along the entire Atlantic flyway. Many visiting species are in decline, including the tiny red knot, which flies each year all the way from the Antarctic to the Arctic and back. Cape May is also among the nesting habitats of the endangered piping plover.
The Cape May economy is driven by birders' visits. When Cape May still had an estimated 500 feral cats in 2003, ten years into the neuter/return program, the city allowed neuter/return advocates to maintain 10 cat feeding stations and weather shelters, but the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service began demanding that feral cat feeding be ended.
Many cats were removed from sensitive areas and housed in two trailers, one belonging to Cape May Animal Control and the other to Animal Outreach of Cape May County, the primary local cat rescue group since 1995. On May 19, 2007, however, the trailers caught fire, killing 37 cats. Cape May is currently considering withdrawing support for neuter/return and prohibiting feeding cats outdoors.
A similar situation may have a happier outcome on Big Pine Key, Florida, home of the endangered Hefner rabbit, Sylivilagus palustris hefneri. The rabbit was named for Playboy magazine founder Hugh Hefner after he funded the study that put it on the U.S. endangered species list more than 20 years ago. Blaming feral cats for a catastrophic collapse in rabbit numbers at the National Key Deer Refuge, refuge manager Anne Morkill in June 2007 announced that the cats would be trapped and taken to animal control shelters, where they would probably be killed. Hefner then donated $5,000 to Stand Up For Animals, whose founder, Linda Gottwald, told Stephanie Garry of the St. Petersburg Times that she would use the funding to sterilize and relocate as many of the cats as possible.
Among the regional variations of note in the 2007 ANIMAL PEOPLE roundup of shelter killing data are that the dog/cat balance is 72/28 in the Northeast, 65/35 in the Midwest, 63/35 in the Mid-Atlantic region, and 60/40 along the West Coast, but is 54/46 in the South, where intakes and killing of both dogs and cats are highest. Among the possible explanations are that Southern animal control agencies may put more emphasis on picking up dogs, and that communities with more dogs at large tend to have fewer feral cats.
Virginia and Florida data, however, more resembles the data from the rest of the U.S., reflecting the demographic influences of Washington D.C. and migration to Florida from other parts of the country.
Midwest progress
The Midwest has made the most impressive recent gains, almost catching up to the West Coast in reduction of dog and cat overpopulation through high-volume low-cost sterilization. Many of the most ambitious dog-and-cat sterilization projects started within the past decade are in the Midwest, including Pets Are Worth Saving, founded by Paula Fasseas in Chicago, and the Foundation Against Companion Animal Euthanasia, founded by Scott Robinson, M.D., in Indianapolis.
A global veterinary shortage is especially acute in the Midwest, where organizations including the Michigan Humane Society, based in Detroit, and M'Shoogy's Animal Rescue, near Kansas City, have at times had to cut back services simply because they could not find vets to fill their open positions. [Boks: LA critics find fault with local veterinary shortages not recognizing this is a national crisis. Not withstanding, Animal Services has significantly rebuilt its medical program and has four outstanding veterinarians on staff and more applying all the time.]
The same problem afflicts the Appalachian states, where progress achieved in the 1990s has largely been lost, most markedly in Knoxville. Handling both city and county animal control sheltering out of a World War II-vintage Quonset hut, and operating a major local dog and cat sterilization program, the Humane Society of the Tennessee Valley had reduced shelter killing to 24.5 dogs and cats per 1,000 humans by 1999--well above the then-national average of 16.6, but among the best records in the South.
A coalition of local no-kill rescue groups then convinced Knoxville officials that a city-and-county-run shelter working cooperatively with them could operate on less money and save more animals. ANIMAL PEOPLE warned at the time that Knoxville could not realistically try to achieve no-kill sheltering until the animal control intake volume fell by at least half. Instead of lowering the shelter toll, the first five years of animal control under the new agency saw shelter killing increase by 22%.
Regions quit counting
A frustrating aspect of the 2007 ANIMAL PEOPLE shelter toll analysis is that while we received enough data from both the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions to project reliable totals and trends by comparison to past data, including the dog/cat balance, no individual or agency relayed complete enough new data from cities other than New York City and Philadelphia--the biggest cities in those regions--for us to list totals for any others.
This is markedly different from the first years of our annual updates, when the most complete counts we received were from the New England states, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland.
As shelter killing rates in those states have stabilized at very low levels, many of the agencies that formerly collected shelter tolls appear to have refocused on collecting information about adoption transport programs, a very small part of shelter activity 15 years ago, but now the source of half or more of the animals many shelters offer for adoption.
--Merritt Clifton
[Boks: Visit http://www.laanimalservices.com/about_stats.htm for two comparisons of national shelter killing stats. Click on 2007 National Stats or 2007 National Stats Direct Comparison.]
[ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide, founded in 1992. Their readership of 30,000-plus includes the decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations. They have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. E-mail: anmlpepl@whidbey.com Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org $24/year; for free sample, send address.]
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Beyond Vick: Animal Cruelty for Sport an essay by Frank Deford
Morning Edition, August 8, 2007 · "There has been some muted protest that Michael Vick has been suspended too precipitously by the National Football League and unfairly stripped of his rich endorsements, before the indictments against him for dogfighting and dog-killing could be settled in court.
However, given the heinous charges against Vick, it is difficult to imagine any public company — yours, for example? — that would blithely keep such an employee till the government had gotten round to working things out with him.
The presumption of innocence may be one of the most hallowed tenets of our justice system. But let's face it, in an informed society — most especially where details are well publicized — citizens of good will will arrive at their own conclusions. Sometimes, of course, these assumptions will run wild. In sport, we have no further to look than the notorious Duke lacrosse case. But, then, as the presumption of innocence is a final safeguard, the presumption of shame is a precipitate reality that public figures must take into account when they choose to misbehave.
And Vick's infamy has at least put the spotlight on the loathsome business of dog-fighting. Who knew that the Humane Society estimates that there are as many as 40,000 Americans who fight dogs? And there are, too, other animal torture amusements in this country that, lacking a celebrity to spotlight them, actually remain legal in many states.
For example, are you familiar with something called "canned hunting?" This is fun for that greatest of oxymorons — sportsmen. These are hunters who go to what are called, yes, "shooting preserves." There, animals are conveniently penned in for paying customers with a "no-kill, no-pay" guarantee, so they can be "sure shot" at close range. Fish in a barrel. Many of the technically wild animals are actually semi-tame, used to humans who feed them. They see a truck approaching, they think it's the feed wagon, they come closer, and the paying sportsman blasts away.
Only about half our states have any restrictions against canned hunting. There are about 1,000 shooting preserves in the U.S. — 500 alone in the great state of Texas.
Or, if you're a sportsman too busy to actually leave your comfortable home to kill a defenseless animal, Internet hunting is just for you. It's easy. You go online and are connected to a shooting preserve that may be hundreds of miles away, where you see your prey before you. You zero in on the target on your computer screen and touch a button that activates a gun that blows away the unsuspecting, docile animal. The trophy head will be shipped to you, you brave, big-game hunter, for display on your wall.
Sixteen states have no strictures against Internet hunting. One of them is the great state of Georgia, where so many citizens have been upset that the accused dog-slaughterer Vick plays for their Atlanta Falcons.
I'm personally revulsed by Michael Vick, but the sad fact is that, in the animal-cruelty business, he shares company with a lot of other distinguished American sportsmen."
To listen to Frank Deford's essay, "Beyond Vick: Animal Cruelty for Sport" visit: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12568999
If you agree with Mr. Deford's comments, let him know. Frank Deford's "Sweetness and Light" column takes comments at: http://www.npr.org/templates/contact/index.php?columnId=4499275
However, given the heinous charges against Vick, it is difficult to imagine any public company — yours, for example? — that would blithely keep such an employee till the government had gotten round to working things out with him.
The presumption of innocence may be one of the most hallowed tenets of our justice system. But let's face it, in an informed society — most especially where details are well publicized — citizens of good will will arrive at their own conclusions. Sometimes, of course, these assumptions will run wild. In sport, we have no further to look than the notorious Duke lacrosse case. But, then, as the presumption of innocence is a final safeguard, the presumption of shame is a precipitate reality that public figures must take into account when they choose to misbehave.
And Vick's infamy has at least put the spotlight on the loathsome business of dog-fighting. Who knew that the Humane Society estimates that there are as many as 40,000 Americans who fight dogs? And there are, too, other animal torture amusements in this country that, lacking a celebrity to spotlight them, actually remain legal in many states.
For example, are you familiar with something called "canned hunting?" This is fun for that greatest of oxymorons — sportsmen. These are hunters who go to what are called, yes, "shooting preserves." There, animals are conveniently penned in for paying customers with a "no-kill, no-pay" guarantee, so they can be "sure shot" at close range. Fish in a barrel. Many of the technically wild animals are actually semi-tame, used to humans who feed them. They see a truck approaching, they think it's the feed wagon, they come closer, and the paying sportsman blasts away.
Only about half our states have any restrictions against canned hunting. There are about 1,000 shooting preserves in the U.S. — 500 alone in the great state of Texas.
Or, if you're a sportsman too busy to actually leave your comfortable home to kill a defenseless animal, Internet hunting is just for you. It's easy. You go online and are connected to a shooting preserve that may be hundreds of miles away, where you see your prey before you. You zero in on the target on your computer screen and touch a button that activates a gun that blows away the unsuspecting, docile animal. The trophy head will be shipped to you, you brave, big-game hunter, for display on your wall.
Sixteen states have no strictures against Internet hunting. One of them is the great state of Georgia, where so many citizens have been upset that the accused dog-slaughterer Vick plays for their Atlanta Falcons.
I'm personally revulsed by Michael Vick, but the sad fact is that, in the animal-cruelty business, he shares company with a lot of other distinguished American sportsmen."
To listen to Frank Deford's essay, "Beyond Vick: Animal Cruelty for Sport" visit: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12568999
If you agree with Mr. Deford's comments, let him know. Frank Deford's "Sweetness and Light" column takes comments at: http://www.npr.org/templates/contact/index.php?columnId=4499275
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Urgent Action Needed for Kangaroos in California
Senate Bill 880, a bill that would allow the sale of kangaroo skins and body parts in the state of California, is sailing through the legislative process. Sadly, it has now passed the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee and moves to the Assembly for a floor vote. This means that the kangaroos still need your help. So even if you have already taken action on this issue, please take this opportunity to speak out one more time in opposition to SB 880.
If this bill passes it would erase a law that was implemented in 1970 to protect kangaroos by prohibiting the sale of their skins. A similar bill passed the legislature last session that reversed this protection for alligators, allowing their skins to be sold in California. It is important that the same fate does not befall the kangaroos.
Remind Your State Legislator of these Kangaroo Facts:
Kangaroos are not farmed. They are taken from the wild in Australia, and exist only in Australia.
Kangaroos are shot at night by hunters. Hunters are not always able to distinguish between kangaroos who are "approved" to be killed and others who are endangered. In Queensland, Australia, the Western Grey Kangaroo is not allowed to be killed, but it can be mistaken for the Eastern Grey that is allowed to be hunted.
The existing law that would be changed by this bill was made to protect certain "look-alike" species, so that Californians do not unwittingly contribute to the extinction of a species.
If a kangaroo that is killed is a mother with a baby in her pouch, the baby is taken out and killed by a heavy blow to the head (according to the Australian Code of Practice). Similar methods are used in Canada's seal hunt; both California and Federal laws prohibit the sale of seal products from Canada because of the cruel killing methods used.
According to official Australian government statistics, kangaroo populations continue to decline and are now the lowest they have been in over a decade. Current populations are well below half of what they were in 2001. (Source: Sustainable Wildlife Industries, Dept of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra, 2006). Reintroduction of the trade in kangaroo skins into California would be disastrous, as there are already too few kangaroos to meet the industry's demands.
SB 880 recently was modified (amended) in a way that appears at first glance to place a maximum limit on the number of kangaroos that could be killed in a given year. However, the new wording does not provide any real protection and, in reality, could allow kangaroos to be killed in even greater numbers to supply soccer cleats to Californians.
For more information on SB 880 vistit these sites:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0851-0900/sb_880_bill_20070710_amended_asm_v96.html
http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/kangaroo_court_calif_072307.html
If this bill passes it would erase a law that was implemented in 1970 to protect kangaroos by prohibiting the sale of their skins. A similar bill passed the legislature last session that reversed this protection for alligators, allowing their skins to be sold in California. It is important that the same fate does not befall the kangaroos.
Remind Your State Legislator of these Kangaroo Facts:
Kangaroos are not farmed. They are taken from the wild in Australia, and exist only in Australia.
Kangaroos are shot at night by hunters. Hunters are not always able to distinguish between kangaroos who are "approved" to be killed and others who are endangered. In Queensland, Australia, the Western Grey Kangaroo is not allowed to be killed, but it can be mistaken for the Eastern Grey that is allowed to be hunted.
The existing law that would be changed by this bill was made to protect certain "look-alike" species, so that Californians do not unwittingly contribute to the extinction of a species.
If a kangaroo that is killed is a mother with a baby in her pouch, the baby is taken out and killed by a heavy blow to the head (according to the Australian Code of Practice). Similar methods are used in Canada's seal hunt; both California and Federal laws prohibit the sale of seal products from Canada because of the cruel killing methods used.
According to official Australian government statistics, kangaroo populations continue to decline and are now the lowest they have been in over a decade. Current populations are well below half of what they were in 2001. (Source: Sustainable Wildlife Industries, Dept of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra, 2006). Reintroduction of the trade in kangaroo skins into California would be disastrous, as there are already too few kangaroos to meet the industry's demands.
SB 880 recently was modified (amended) in a way that appears at first glance to place a maximum limit on the number of kangaroos that could be killed in a given year. However, the new wording does not provide any real protection and, in reality, could allow kangaroos to be killed in even greater numbers to supply soccer cleats to Californians.
For more information on SB 880 vistit these sites:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0851-0900/sb_880_bill_20070710_amended_asm_v96.html
http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/kangaroo_court_calif_072307.html
Saturday, July 28, 2007
June 07 and Fiscal Year 07 Recap
When talking about “no-kill”, it is important to understand how this term is defined. At LA Animal Services “no-kill” means using the same criteria a compassionate veterinarian or loving guardian would use when deciding if euthanasia is appropriate. That is, euthanasia is only appropriate when an animal is terminally ill, terminally injured, or dangerously aggressive. When euthanasia is compassionately available for these animals alone we will have achieved “no-kill”.
LA Animal Services contends there is a loving home somewhere for all other categories of animals (the healthy, the treatable, and animals with behavioral issues that do not put people or other animals at serious risk of injury). Until all these animals are safely placed in loving homes Los Angeles has not achieved No-Kill. Until LA is not killing animals for reasons of space or limited medical resources we have not achieved No-Kill.
June 07 Statistics
Let’s look at the June 07 numbers. They reveal a timely snapshot of where we are now, but the real story is the consistent life saving trend we can document over the past five years.
June 07 dog and cat adoptions are up 26% compared to June 06 (1,552 from 1,233).
Dog adoptions are up 14% (839 from 733) and cat adoptions are up 43% (713 from 500).
The increase in cat adoptions appears to be the result of the community rallying to our calls for help with this year’s influx of cats.
New Hope Placements for dogs and cats is down slightly, 5.5% (344 from 376). Our New Hope program is a partnership with over 150 rescue organizations in California who help us place healthy and treatable animals at risk of euthanasia. New Hope placements for dogs is down 14% (291 from 340) but up 8% (235 from 217) for cats.
Where Animal Services Adoption and New Hope program’s synergistic efficiency truly reveals itself is in the euthanasia numbers. Dog and cat euthanasia in June 07 is down 30% (1,847) compared to June 06 (2,647). Dog euthanasia is down 30% (523 from 752) and cat euthanasia is also down 30% (1,323 from 1,895).
LA Animal Services implemented an aggressive orphan neonate kitten foster program this year. Neonates are kittens too young to survive on their own and in need of intensive foster care in order to survive. Neonates are animals state law defines as “unadoptable”, but LA Animal Services’ reverence for life No-Kill philosophy requires us to do everything we can to save these, the most helpless of all creatures.
In June 07 neonate kitten euthanasia decreased 59% (328 from 804). May 07 saw a 40% decrease in neonate mortality (192 from 319). These remarkable life saving results are being achieved by LA Animal Services employees and nearly 100 volunteer foster care givers who refused to let these animals die! I want to thank each and every one of you for your compassion and commitment to life!
In addition to the extraordinary efforts of our foster care givers, I want to thank our wonderful employees and volunteers for taking the time to help the public understand that by keeping these animals at home with momma until they are weaned they can greatly improve these babies’ chances of survival and, of course, for distributing Spay/Neuter Vouchers to get momma spayed after she weans this last batch of babies. These efforts resulted in a 21% decrease in the number of neonates coming into our Centers in June 07 compared to June 06 (862 from 1,095).
Fiscal Year 06/07 Statistics
In Fiscal Year (FY) 06/07, LA Animal Services took in 25,419 (55%) dogs and 20,898 (45%) cats.
34% (15,808) of all dogs and cats were owner relinquished, unwanted. 66% (30,686) were rescued by LA Animal Care Officers who found them as lost, roaming the streets, uncared for and perhaps just as unwanted.
LA Animal Services returned nearly 16% (4,037) of all incoming animals to their very grateful guardians. LA Animal Services consistently maintains the highest “return to guardian” rate in the country.
32% (6,634) of all cats taken (20,898) in were orphaned neonates.
Pit bull and pit bull mixes represent 25% (5,408) of all dogs taken in (25,493), 15% (1,463) of all dogs adopted, 4% (408) of all dogs placed through New Hope, and 41% (2,574) of all dogs euthanized.
In FY 06/07, LA Animal Services dog and cat adoptions are up 6.8% (15,098 from 14,125). Dog adoptions are up nearly 12% (from 8,772 to 9,813) and cat adoptions are down about 1% (5,285 from 5,353).
New Hope placements are down 1.7% (5,918 from 6,023). However, the combination of adoptions and New Hope placements is 21,016 – making LA Animal Services the highest volume pet adoption agency in the world.
In FY 06/07, Los Angeles euthanized (or killed) 17,314 dogs and cats. This represents the fewest number of dogs and cats euthanized in LA ever in a one year period. This is an 11.25% decrease from the previous Fiscal Year in which 19,508 dogs and cats were euthanized. LA Animal Services has consistently reduced euthanasia over the past five years in the double digits. 15% in 02/03. 12% in 03/04. 16% in 04/05. 10% in 05/06. 11.25% in 06/07. This represents a 50% decrease over the past five years from 34,329 to 17,314.
A sincere thank you to all of you who are helping to make No-Kill an achievable goal in LA!
LA Animal Services contends there is a loving home somewhere for all other categories of animals (the healthy, the treatable, and animals with behavioral issues that do not put people or other animals at serious risk of injury). Until all these animals are safely placed in loving homes Los Angeles has not achieved No-Kill. Until LA is not killing animals for reasons of space or limited medical resources we have not achieved No-Kill.
June 07 Statistics
Let’s look at the June 07 numbers. They reveal a timely snapshot of where we are now, but the real story is the consistent life saving trend we can document over the past five years.
June 07 dog and cat adoptions are up 26% compared to June 06 (1,552 from 1,233).
Dog adoptions are up 14% (839 from 733) and cat adoptions are up 43% (713 from 500).
The increase in cat adoptions appears to be the result of the community rallying to our calls for help with this year’s influx of cats.
New Hope Placements for dogs and cats is down slightly, 5.5% (344 from 376). Our New Hope program is a partnership with over 150 rescue organizations in California who help us place healthy and treatable animals at risk of euthanasia. New Hope placements for dogs is down 14% (291 from 340) but up 8% (235 from 217) for cats.
Where Animal Services Adoption and New Hope program’s synergistic efficiency truly reveals itself is in the euthanasia numbers. Dog and cat euthanasia in June 07 is down 30% (1,847) compared to June 06 (2,647). Dog euthanasia is down 30% (523 from 752) and cat euthanasia is also down 30% (1,323 from 1,895).
LA Animal Services implemented an aggressive orphan neonate kitten foster program this year. Neonates are kittens too young to survive on their own and in need of intensive foster care in order to survive. Neonates are animals state law defines as “unadoptable”, but LA Animal Services’ reverence for life No-Kill philosophy requires us to do everything we can to save these, the most helpless of all creatures.
In June 07 neonate kitten euthanasia decreased 59% (328 from 804). May 07 saw a 40% decrease in neonate mortality (192 from 319). These remarkable life saving results are being achieved by LA Animal Services employees and nearly 100 volunteer foster care givers who refused to let these animals die! I want to thank each and every one of you for your compassion and commitment to life!
In addition to the extraordinary efforts of our foster care givers, I want to thank our wonderful employees and volunteers for taking the time to help the public understand that by keeping these animals at home with momma until they are weaned they can greatly improve these babies’ chances of survival and, of course, for distributing Spay/Neuter Vouchers to get momma spayed after she weans this last batch of babies. These efforts resulted in a 21% decrease in the number of neonates coming into our Centers in June 07 compared to June 06 (862 from 1,095).
Fiscal Year 06/07 Statistics
In Fiscal Year (FY) 06/07, LA Animal Services took in 25,419 (55%) dogs and 20,898 (45%) cats.
34% (15,808) of all dogs and cats were owner relinquished, unwanted. 66% (30,686) were rescued by LA Animal Care Officers who found them as lost, roaming the streets, uncared for and perhaps just as unwanted.
LA Animal Services returned nearly 16% (4,037) of all incoming animals to their very grateful guardians. LA Animal Services consistently maintains the highest “return to guardian” rate in the country.
32% (6,634) of all cats taken (20,898) in were orphaned neonates.
Pit bull and pit bull mixes represent 25% (5,408) of all dogs taken in (25,493), 15% (1,463) of all dogs adopted, 4% (408) of all dogs placed through New Hope, and 41% (2,574) of all dogs euthanized.
In FY 06/07, LA Animal Services dog and cat adoptions are up 6.8% (15,098 from 14,125). Dog adoptions are up nearly 12% (from 8,772 to 9,813) and cat adoptions are down about 1% (5,285 from 5,353).
New Hope placements are down 1.7% (5,918 from 6,023). However, the combination of adoptions and New Hope placements is 21,016 – making LA Animal Services the highest volume pet adoption agency in the world.
In FY 06/07, Los Angeles euthanized (or killed) 17,314 dogs and cats. This represents the fewest number of dogs and cats euthanized in LA ever in a one year period. This is an 11.25% decrease from the previous Fiscal Year in which 19,508 dogs and cats were euthanized. LA Animal Services has consistently reduced euthanasia over the past five years in the double digits. 15% in 02/03. 12% in 03/04. 16% in 04/05. 10% in 05/06. 11.25% in 06/07. This represents a 50% decrease over the past five years from 34,329 to 17,314.
A sincere thank you to all of you who are helping to make No-Kill an achievable goal in LA!
Monday, July 09, 2007
Importance of AB1634 to Achieving No-Kill
The June 07 and the Fiscal Year 06/07 statistics are now available and can be found at http://www.laanimalservices.com/ under “About Us”. These statistics trace LA’s steady progress towards achieving our No-Kill Goal.
Why AB 1634 Matters in LA
Some opponents of the bill attempt to use LA Animal Services’ progress as a reason to not support AB 1634, The California Healthy Pets Act. They assert that if LA is able to reduce pet euthanasia without mandatory spay/neuter then any community could do the same if they were so inclined. Don’t be fooled by these misleading arguments. LA is not typical of most California communities, and despite our best spay/neuter efforts when it comes to the number of unwanted pets coming into our Animal Care Centers, it’s almost as if we are standing still.
Unlike any other community in California (or the United States for that matter) Los Angeles provides between 40,000 and 45,000 spay/neuter surgeries to LA pets annually. Despite our $1.2 million commitment to spay/neuter every year, we still saw a one percent increase in the number of dogs and cats we took in during Fiscal Year 06/07. While opponents of AB 1634 claim all the unwanted animals dying in shelters are feral cats, the actual number of cats, feral and otherwise, coming into our Care Centers actually decreased nearly 1% (20,898 from 21,067) while dog impounds increased nearly 2% (25,419 from 24,748).
While LA can boast one of the most impressive track records towards achieving No-Kill in the United States, we are not there yet, not as long as we consistently take in 46,000 lost and homeless dogs and cats every year. It is time we turn off the faucet that is flooding our state with so many unwanted animals.
LA Animal Services initiated AB 1634 in recognition of the fact that unless we work together as a state to stop the proliferation of unwanted dogs and cats in California then every community, including Los Angeles, will ultimately fail in its quest to achieve No-Kill. If we refuse to fix this broken pipe we will continue to find ourselves mopping up the results of irresponsible pet guardianship at a tremendous cost to taxpayers.
More than any other city in the state, LA has too much invested to fail now. $1.2 million a year for spay/neuter surgeries, $160 million in new shelters and clinics to handle the crushing numbers of unwanted dogs and cats, and $21 million a year in animal control costs associated with unwanted dogs and cats, up 36% over the past six years.
No other city has more aggressively fulfilled the mandates of the 1997 Hayden Bill to hold animals longer and provide better medical care. But the unintended consequences of the Hayden Bill has been over crowded shelters all across California and the state’s third largest reimbursable mandate, hovering at around $150 million and growing at about $30 million a year. AB 1634 will help stop the insanity of escalating budgets and escalating body counts across the state (visit http://www.cahealthypets.com/ for more information).
Please contact your Senator today and ask him/her to support AB 1634.
Defining No-Kill
When talking about “no-kill”, it is important to understand how this term is defined. At LA Animal Services “no-kill” means using the same criteria a compassionate veterinarian or loving guardian would use when deciding if euthanasia is appropriate. That is, euthanasia is only appropriate when an animal is terminally ill, terminally injured, or dangerously aggressive. When euthanasia is compassionately available for these animals alone we will have achieved “no-kill”.
LA Animal Services contends there is a loving home somewhere for all other categories of animals (the healthy, the treatable, and animals with behavioral issues that do not put people or other animals at serious risk of injury). Until all these animals are safely placed in loving homes Los Angeles has not achieved No-Kill. Until LA is not killing animals for reasons of space or limited medical resources we have not achieved No-Kill.
June 07 Statistics
Let’s look at the June 07 numbers first. They reveal a timely snapshot of where we are now, but the real story is the consistent life saving trend we can document over the past five years.
June 07 dog and cat adoptions are up 26% compared to June 06 (1,552 from 1,233). Dog adoptions are up 14% (839 from 733) and cat adoptions are up 43% (713 from 500). The increase in cat adoptions appears to be the result of the community rallying to our calls for help with this year’s influx of cats.
New Hope Placements for dogs and cats is down slightly, 5.5% (344 from 376). Our New Hope program is a partnership with over 150 rescue organizations in California who help us place healthy and treatable animals at risk of euthanasia. New Hope placements for dogs is down 14% (291 from 340) but up 8% (235 from 217) for cats.
Where Animal Services Adoption and New Hope program’s synergistic efficiency truly reveals itself is in the euthanasia numbers. Dog and cat euthanasia in June 07 is down 30% (1,847) compared to June 06 (2,647). Dog euthanasia is down 30% (523 from 752) and cat euthanasia is also down 30% (1,323 from 1,895).
LA Animal Services implemented an aggressive orphan neonate kitten foster program this year. Neonates are kittens too young to survive on their own and in need of intensive foster care in order to survive. Neonates are animals state law defines as “unadoptable”, but LA Animal Services’ reverence for life No-Kill philosophy requires us to do everything we can to save these, the most helpless of all creatures. In June 07 neonate kitten euthanasia decreased 59% (328 from 804). May 07 saw a 40% decrease in neonate mortality (192 from 319).
These remarkable life saving results were achieved by LA Animal Services employees and nearly 100 volunteer foster care givers who refused to let these animals die! I want to thank each and every one of you for your compassion and commitment to life! In addition to the extraordinary efforts of our foster care givers, I want to thank our wonderful employees and volunteers for taking the time to help the public understand that by keeping these animals at home with momma until they are weaned they can greatly improve these babies’ chances of survival and, of course, for distributing Spay/Neuter Vouchers to get momma spayed after she weans this last batch of babies. These efforts resulted in a 21% decrease in the number of neonates coming into our Centers in June 07 compared to June 06 (862 from 1,095).
Fiscal Year 06/07 Statistics
In Fiscal Year (FY) 06/07, LA Animal Services took in 25,419 (55%) dogs and 20,898 (45%) cats. 34% (15,808) of all dogs and cats were owner relinquished, unwanted. 66% (30,686) were rescued by LA Animal Care Officers who found them as lost, roaming the streets, uncared for and perhaps just as unwanted.
LA Animal Services returned nearly 16% (4,037) of all incoming animals to their very grateful guardians. LA Animal Services consistently maintains one of the highest “return to guardian” rates in the country.
32% (6,634) of all cats taken (20,898) in were orphaned neonates. Pit bull and pit bull mixes represent 25% (5,408) of all dogs taken in (25,493), 15% (1,463) of all dogs adopted, 4% (408) of all dogs placed through New Hope, and 41% (2,574) of all dogs euthanized. Pit bull and pit bull mixes represent the most popular dogs sought out for adoption. They also outnumber all other dog breeds euthanized.
In FY 06/07, LA Animal Services dog and cat adoptions are up 6.8% (15,098 from 14,125). Dog adoptions are up nearly 12% (from 8,772 to 9,813) and cat adoptions are down about 1% (5,285 from 5,353). New Hope placements are down 1.7% (5,918 from 6,023). However, the combination of adoptions and New Hope placements is 21,016 – making LA Animal Services the largest pet adoption agency in the nation again this year.
In FY 06/07, Los Angeles euthanized (or killed) 17,314 dogs and cats. This represents the fewest number of dogs and cats euthanized in LA in a one year period. This is an 11.25% decrease from the previous Fiscal Year in which 19,508 dogs and cats were euthanized. LA Animal Services has consistently reduced euthanasia over the past five years in the double digits. 15% in 02/03. 12% in 03/04. 16% in 04/05. 10% in 05/06. 11.25% in 06/07. This represents a 50% decrease over the past five years from 34,329 to 17,314.
A sincere thank you to all of you who are helping to make No-Kill an achievable goal in LA!
And don't forget to call or fax your Senator today to ask his/her support of AB 1634, beginning with the Senate Local Government Committee, which hears the bill on Wednesday, July 11th. The Committee’s members include:
Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod (Chair) 916-651-4032
Senator Dave Cox (Vice Chair) 916-651-4001
Senator Tom Harman 916-651-4035
Senator Christine Kehoe 916-651-4039
Senator Michael Machado 916-651-4005
Why AB 1634 Matters in LA
Some opponents of the bill attempt to use LA Animal Services’ progress as a reason to not support AB 1634, The California Healthy Pets Act. They assert that if LA is able to reduce pet euthanasia without mandatory spay/neuter then any community could do the same if they were so inclined. Don’t be fooled by these misleading arguments. LA is not typical of most California communities, and despite our best spay/neuter efforts when it comes to the number of unwanted pets coming into our Animal Care Centers, it’s almost as if we are standing still.
Unlike any other community in California (or the United States for that matter) Los Angeles provides between 40,000 and 45,000 spay/neuter surgeries to LA pets annually. Despite our $1.2 million commitment to spay/neuter every year, we still saw a one percent increase in the number of dogs and cats we took in during Fiscal Year 06/07. While opponents of AB 1634 claim all the unwanted animals dying in shelters are feral cats, the actual number of cats, feral and otherwise, coming into our Care Centers actually decreased nearly 1% (20,898 from 21,067) while dog impounds increased nearly 2% (25,419 from 24,748).
While LA can boast one of the most impressive track records towards achieving No-Kill in the United States, we are not there yet, not as long as we consistently take in 46,000 lost and homeless dogs and cats every year. It is time we turn off the faucet that is flooding our state with so many unwanted animals.
LA Animal Services initiated AB 1634 in recognition of the fact that unless we work together as a state to stop the proliferation of unwanted dogs and cats in California then every community, including Los Angeles, will ultimately fail in its quest to achieve No-Kill. If we refuse to fix this broken pipe we will continue to find ourselves mopping up the results of irresponsible pet guardianship at a tremendous cost to taxpayers.
More than any other city in the state, LA has too much invested to fail now. $1.2 million a year for spay/neuter surgeries, $160 million in new shelters and clinics to handle the crushing numbers of unwanted dogs and cats, and $21 million a year in animal control costs associated with unwanted dogs and cats, up 36% over the past six years.
No other city has more aggressively fulfilled the mandates of the 1997 Hayden Bill to hold animals longer and provide better medical care. But the unintended consequences of the Hayden Bill has been over crowded shelters all across California and the state’s third largest reimbursable mandate, hovering at around $150 million and growing at about $30 million a year. AB 1634 will help stop the insanity of escalating budgets and escalating body counts across the state (visit http://www.cahealthypets.com/ for more information).
Please contact your Senator today and ask him/her to support AB 1634.
Defining No-Kill
When talking about “no-kill”, it is important to understand how this term is defined. At LA Animal Services “no-kill” means using the same criteria a compassionate veterinarian or loving guardian would use when deciding if euthanasia is appropriate. That is, euthanasia is only appropriate when an animal is terminally ill, terminally injured, or dangerously aggressive. When euthanasia is compassionately available for these animals alone we will have achieved “no-kill”.
LA Animal Services contends there is a loving home somewhere for all other categories of animals (the healthy, the treatable, and animals with behavioral issues that do not put people or other animals at serious risk of injury). Until all these animals are safely placed in loving homes Los Angeles has not achieved No-Kill. Until LA is not killing animals for reasons of space or limited medical resources we have not achieved No-Kill.
June 07 Statistics
Let’s look at the June 07 numbers first. They reveal a timely snapshot of where we are now, but the real story is the consistent life saving trend we can document over the past five years.
June 07 dog and cat adoptions are up 26% compared to June 06 (1,552 from 1,233). Dog adoptions are up 14% (839 from 733) and cat adoptions are up 43% (713 from 500). The increase in cat adoptions appears to be the result of the community rallying to our calls for help with this year’s influx of cats.
New Hope Placements for dogs and cats is down slightly, 5.5% (344 from 376). Our New Hope program is a partnership with over 150 rescue organizations in California who help us place healthy and treatable animals at risk of euthanasia. New Hope placements for dogs is down 14% (291 from 340) but up 8% (235 from 217) for cats.
Where Animal Services Adoption and New Hope program’s synergistic efficiency truly reveals itself is in the euthanasia numbers. Dog and cat euthanasia in June 07 is down 30% (1,847) compared to June 06 (2,647). Dog euthanasia is down 30% (523 from 752) and cat euthanasia is also down 30% (1,323 from 1,895).
LA Animal Services implemented an aggressive orphan neonate kitten foster program this year. Neonates are kittens too young to survive on their own and in need of intensive foster care in order to survive. Neonates are animals state law defines as “unadoptable”, but LA Animal Services’ reverence for life No-Kill philosophy requires us to do everything we can to save these, the most helpless of all creatures. In June 07 neonate kitten euthanasia decreased 59% (328 from 804). May 07 saw a 40% decrease in neonate mortality (192 from 319).
These remarkable life saving results were achieved by LA Animal Services employees and nearly 100 volunteer foster care givers who refused to let these animals die! I want to thank each and every one of you for your compassion and commitment to life! In addition to the extraordinary efforts of our foster care givers, I want to thank our wonderful employees and volunteers for taking the time to help the public understand that by keeping these animals at home with momma until they are weaned they can greatly improve these babies’ chances of survival and, of course, for distributing Spay/Neuter Vouchers to get momma spayed after she weans this last batch of babies. These efforts resulted in a 21% decrease in the number of neonates coming into our Centers in June 07 compared to June 06 (862 from 1,095).
Fiscal Year 06/07 Statistics
In Fiscal Year (FY) 06/07, LA Animal Services took in 25,419 (55%) dogs and 20,898 (45%) cats. 34% (15,808) of all dogs and cats were owner relinquished, unwanted. 66% (30,686) were rescued by LA Animal Care Officers who found them as lost, roaming the streets, uncared for and perhaps just as unwanted.
LA Animal Services returned nearly 16% (4,037) of all incoming animals to their very grateful guardians. LA Animal Services consistently maintains one of the highest “return to guardian” rates in the country.
32% (6,634) of all cats taken (20,898) in were orphaned neonates. Pit bull and pit bull mixes represent 25% (5,408) of all dogs taken in (25,493), 15% (1,463) of all dogs adopted, 4% (408) of all dogs placed through New Hope, and 41% (2,574) of all dogs euthanized. Pit bull and pit bull mixes represent the most popular dogs sought out for adoption. They also outnumber all other dog breeds euthanized.
In FY 06/07, LA Animal Services dog and cat adoptions are up 6.8% (15,098 from 14,125). Dog adoptions are up nearly 12% (from 8,772 to 9,813) and cat adoptions are down about 1% (5,285 from 5,353). New Hope placements are down 1.7% (5,918 from 6,023). However, the combination of adoptions and New Hope placements is 21,016 – making LA Animal Services the largest pet adoption agency in the nation again this year.
In FY 06/07, Los Angeles euthanized (or killed) 17,314 dogs and cats. This represents the fewest number of dogs and cats euthanized in LA in a one year period. This is an 11.25% decrease from the previous Fiscal Year in which 19,508 dogs and cats were euthanized. LA Animal Services has consistently reduced euthanasia over the past five years in the double digits. 15% in 02/03. 12% in 03/04. 16% in 04/05. 10% in 05/06. 11.25% in 06/07. This represents a 50% decrease over the past five years from 34,329 to 17,314.
A sincere thank you to all of you who are helping to make No-Kill an achievable goal in LA!
And don't forget to call or fax your Senator today to ask his/her support of AB 1634, beginning with the Senate Local Government Committee, which hears the bill on Wednesday, July 11th. The Committee’s members include:
Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod (Chair) 916-651-4032
Senator Dave Cox (Vice Chair) 916-651-4001
Senator Tom Harman 916-651-4035
Senator Christine Kehoe 916-651-4039
Senator Michael Machado 916-651-4005
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Top Ten Reasons Why Pets are Relinquished in Los Angeles
In a recent LA Times article a local animal advocate was quoted as stating that the number one reason pets are relinquished to shelters is because the pets are too sick or too old.
While that may be true in other communities, that reason actually ranks number 8 for cats and number 7 for dogs in Los Angeles. The data below is being included in the development of a program called "Safety Net". Safety Net is being designed with the help of several partner organizations to help keep pets and guardians together during difficult times negating the need for relinquishment.
So, just what are the Top Ten Reasons guardians give for relinquishing their pets in the City of Los Angeles? The rankings differ slightly for cats and dogs. It should also be mentioned that a percentage of pet relinquishers either refuse to give a reason or for some other reason this data was not obtained.
CAT GUARDIANS:
1. GUARDIAN HAS TOO MANY PETS (1,324) LA Animal Services does follow up on many of these relinquishments and many spay/neuter vouchers are distributed and as appropriate citations issued.
2. LANDLORD OR ZONING ISSUES (536)
3. GUARDIAN MOVING CANNOT TAKE CAT (465)
4. GUARDIAN HAS NO TIME FOR THE CAT (294)
5. HUMAN MEMBER OF GUARDIAN FAMILY ALLERGIC TO CAT (252)
6. GUARDIAN TOO ILL TO CARE FOR THE CAT (176)
7. CAT DOES NOT GET ALONG WITH OTHER PET (148)
8. GUARDIAN CANNOT AFFORD MEDICAL COSTS FOR SICK OR INJURED CAT (147)
9. GUARDIAN HOMELESS (138)
10. GUARDIAN DIED (89)
DOG GUARDIANS:
1. GUARDIAN MOVED COULD NOT TAKE DOG (1,021)
2. GUARDIAN HAD NO TIME FOR DOG (768)
3. LANDLORD/ZONING ISSUES (692)
4. GUARDIAN HAD TOO MANY PETS (600) LA Animal Services does follow up on many of these relinquishments and many spay/neuter vouchers are distributed and as appropriate citations issued.
5. GUARDIAN TOO ILL TO CARE FOR DOG (350)
6. GUARDIAN DIED (327)
7. GUARDIAN COULD NOT AFFORD THE MEDICAL COSTS FOR SICK OR INJURED DOG (323)
8. DOG TOO AGGRESSIVE WITH OTHER ANIMALS (304)
9. DOG TOO AGGRESSIVE WITH PEOPLE (290)
10. GUARDIAN HOMELESS (256)
The June 07 and Fiscal Year 06/07 Statistics are posted on the website. I want to thank everyone who helped us achieve these remarkable numbers. An analysis will be posted later this week.
Please remember to contact your California Senator Monday and/or Tuesday to ask him or her to support AB 1634, The California Healthy Pets Act. They need to hear from you now! It's crunch time! The California Healthy Pets Act is to be heard in the Local Government Committee on July 11th at 8:00am. It must pass out of this Committee to get to the full Senate.
If you live in the district for any of the five Local Government Committee Members, please act immediately, fax and call now:
Members:
Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod (Chair)
916-651-4032 Office, 916-445-0128 Fax
Chino Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Colton, Fontana, Montclair, Ontario, Pomona, Rialto, San Bernardino
Senator Dave Cox (Vice Chair)
916-651-4001 Office, 916-324-2680 Fax
Fair Oaks Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado, Lassen, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, Sierra Auburn, Elk Grove, Fair Oaks, Folsom, Galt, Mammoth Lakes, Orangevale, Placerville, Rancho Cordova, Roseville, Sacramento, Shingle Springs, South Lake Tahoe, Susanville, Truckee, Valley Springs
Senator Tom Harman
916-651-4035 Office, 916-445-9263 Fax
Orange Orange, Costa Mesa, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, Westminister
Senator Christine Kehoe
916-651-4039 Office, 916-327-2188 Fax
San Diego, Del Mar, Lemon Grove
Senator Michael Machado
916-651-4005 Office, 916-323-2304 Fax
Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, Yolo Davis, Fairfield, Manteca, Stockton, Tracy, Vacaville, West Sacramento
While that may be true in other communities, that reason actually ranks number 8 for cats and number 7 for dogs in Los Angeles. The data below is being included in the development of a program called "Safety Net". Safety Net is being designed with the help of several partner organizations to help keep pets and guardians together during difficult times negating the need for relinquishment.
So, just what are the Top Ten Reasons guardians give for relinquishing their pets in the City of Los Angeles? The rankings differ slightly for cats and dogs. It should also be mentioned that a percentage of pet relinquishers either refuse to give a reason or for some other reason this data was not obtained.
CAT GUARDIANS:
1. GUARDIAN HAS TOO MANY PETS (1,324) LA Animal Services does follow up on many of these relinquishments and many spay/neuter vouchers are distributed and as appropriate citations issued.
2. LANDLORD OR ZONING ISSUES (536)
3. GUARDIAN MOVING CANNOT TAKE CAT (465)
4. GUARDIAN HAS NO TIME FOR THE CAT (294)
5. HUMAN MEMBER OF GUARDIAN FAMILY ALLERGIC TO CAT (252)
6. GUARDIAN TOO ILL TO CARE FOR THE CAT (176)
7. CAT DOES NOT GET ALONG WITH OTHER PET (148)
8. GUARDIAN CANNOT AFFORD MEDICAL COSTS FOR SICK OR INJURED CAT (147)
9. GUARDIAN HOMELESS (138)
10. GUARDIAN DIED (89)
DOG GUARDIANS:
1. GUARDIAN MOVED COULD NOT TAKE DOG (1,021)
2. GUARDIAN HAD NO TIME FOR DOG (768)
3. LANDLORD/ZONING ISSUES (692)
4. GUARDIAN HAD TOO MANY PETS (600) LA Animal Services does follow up on many of these relinquishments and many spay/neuter vouchers are distributed and as appropriate citations issued.
5. GUARDIAN TOO ILL TO CARE FOR DOG (350)
6. GUARDIAN DIED (327)
7. GUARDIAN COULD NOT AFFORD THE MEDICAL COSTS FOR SICK OR INJURED DOG (323)
8. DOG TOO AGGRESSIVE WITH OTHER ANIMALS (304)
9. DOG TOO AGGRESSIVE WITH PEOPLE (290)
10. GUARDIAN HOMELESS (256)
The June 07 and Fiscal Year 06/07 Statistics are posted on the website. I want to thank everyone who helped us achieve these remarkable numbers. An analysis will be posted later this week.
Please remember to contact your California Senator Monday and/or Tuesday to ask him or her to support AB 1634, The California Healthy Pets Act. They need to hear from you now! It's crunch time! The California Healthy Pets Act is to be heard in the Local Government Committee on July 11th at 8:00am. It must pass out of this Committee to get to the full Senate.
If you live in the district for any of the five Local Government Committee Members, please act immediately, fax and call now:
Members:
Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod (Chair)
916-651-4032 Office, 916-445-0128 Fax
Chino Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Colton, Fontana, Montclair, Ontario, Pomona, Rialto, San Bernardino
Senator Dave Cox (Vice Chair)
916-651-4001 Office, 916-324-2680 Fax
Fair Oaks Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado, Lassen, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, Sierra Auburn, Elk Grove, Fair Oaks, Folsom, Galt, Mammoth Lakes, Orangevale, Placerville, Rancho Cordova, Roseville, Sacramento, Shingle Springs, South Lake Tahoe, Susanville, Truckee, Valley Springs
Senator Tom Harman
916-651-4035 Office, 916-445-9263 Fax
Orange Orange, Costa Mesa, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, Westminister
Senator Christine Kehoe
916-651-4039 Office, 916-327-2188 Fax
San Diego, Del Mar, Lemon Grove
Senator Michael Machado
916-651-4005 Office, 916-323-2304 Fax
Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, Yolo Davis, Fairfield, Manteca, Stockton, Tracy, Vacaville, West Sacramento
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Applying The No-Kill Ethic
Too often, when LA Animal Services makes the news the story is about one or another inconsequential controversy spawned by local armchair activists who thrive on seeing their name in the paper, rather than being about the challenges we face, the progress we’re making in modernizing the department and saving animals, and making Los Angeles the first major metropolitan “no-kill” city in the United States.
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 Services 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 over 25 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 46,000-plus dogs and cats the City 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 of the creatures Animal Services 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. (In California it’s more than four hundred thousand times a year.)
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 AB 1634, the state mandatory spay/neuter bill currently being fought over in the State Senate.
Here in Los Angeles there are rays of light. Between now and the end of 2007, the City will open several more new animal care centers, a decisive step forward in our commitment to helping lost and homeless animals, and to swearing off euthanasia as a solution to pet overpopulation.
The new Centers will give us four times our current 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 will 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 older 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. In LA we are moving steadily in this direction. Over the past six years, our lost and homeless dog euthanasia rate has decreased 67 percent and our cat euthanasia rate has decreased 24 percent. In just the first five months of 2007, we’ve seen another 22 percent decrease in dog and cat euthanasia compared to the same period in 2006. In the past 12 months, 18,108 dogs and cats were euthanized.
That’s the lowest number ever for a one-year period in LA since thorough record-keeping began – and fewer animals than met the same fate in the much smaller city of Bakersfield. But no matter how you do the math, it still comes to over 18,000 creatures who had love and devotion to offer, and never got their 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 greater Los Angeles 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. But as LA’s new Animal Care Centers continue to open their doors, Animal Services offers this goal to go with them, and we ask everyone’s help in achieving it: 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.
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 Services 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 over 25 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 46,000-plus dogs and cats the City 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 of the creatures Animal Services 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. (In California it’s more than four hundred thousand times a year.)
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 AB 1634, the state mandatory spay/neuter bill currently being fought over in the State Senate.
Here in Los Angeles there are rays of light. Between now and the end of 2007, the City will open several more new animal care centers, a decisive step forward in our commitment to helping lost and homeless animals, and to swearing off euthanasia as a solution to pet overpopulation.
The new Centers will give us four times our current 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 will 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 older 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. In LA we are moving steadily in this direction. Over the past six years, our lost and homeless dog euthanasia rate has decreased 67 percent and our cat euthanasia rate has decreased 24 percent. In just the first five months of 2007, we’ve seen another 22 percent decrease in dog and cat euthanasia compared to the same period in 2006. In the past 12 months, 18,108 dogs and cats were euthanized.
That’s the lowest number ever for a one-year period in LA since thorough record-keeping began – and fewer animals than met the same fate in the much smaller city of Bakersfield. But no matter how you do the math, it still comes to over 18,000 creatures who had love and devotion to offer, and never got their 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 greater Los Angeles 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. But as LA’s new Animal Care Centers continue to open their doors, Animal Services offers this goal to go with them, and we ask everyone’s help in achieving it: 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.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Healthy Pets Act could save millions of dollars
The article below was written by Lloyd Levine, D-Sherman Oaks who represents the 40th Assembly District in California. It was published by the Long Beach Press Telegram on June 16, 2007:
The California State Assembly has passed Assembly Bill 1634 - the California Healthy Pets Act - by a 41-38 vote. If enacted, this legislation would require most pets in California to be spayed or neutered.
I authored this measure because every year, nearly 1 million cats and dogs pass through the doors of animal control agencies throughout California. And every year, more than 50 percent of them - many perfectly healthy and adoptable - are euthanized by overcrowded shelters which are unable to find them good homes.
Perhaps those numbers don't bother you, but this one might: Collectively, our state and local governments are spending 259 million taxpayer dollars to house and care for dogs and cats in animal shelters each year. That figure doesn't include the cost of killing and disposing of about half a million dogs and cats each year. When you include those costs plus the intake and processing costs, the total price tag climbs to well over $300 million each year. In addition, stray dogs roam through many neighborhoods, increasing the danger of dog bites and the transmission of rabies.
Under AB 1634, dog and cat owners who don't comply would be cited if their pet comes in contact with a local animal control officer, but will be given time to spay or neuter their pets before a fine would be assessed. A portion of those fines would be used to expand the availability of free or low-cost spay and neuter programs.
The vast majority of people I've spoken with about this measure are very supportive. We've received over 7,000 letters of support in my office, hundreds of phone calls, and many willing volunteers asking how they can help get AB 1634 signed into law. These people come to us from animal shelters, rescue groups, law enforcement agencies and veterinarian groups - a wide array of backgrounds united by the common goal of reducing the number of pets needlessly killed each year.
But with any high-profile legislation there is always a vocal opposition as well, and in this case, breeders from across the nation have gone on the offensive. They will stop at nothing to defeat this common-sense measure - even if it means calling local Assembly members and threatening them with relocating their AKC National Championship out of Long Beach. These threats were made despite the fact that this bill very specifically and expressly exempts show dogs and animals from out of state.
I commend Long Beach-area Assemblymembers Laura Richardson and Betty Karnette, who would not be bullied or intimidated by these unfortunate and undeserved threats. They read the legislation and noted the exemptions and had the courage to join me in trying to address the severe dog and cat overpopulation problem in a responsible way.
This legislation already contains a number of common-sense exceptions, including for show and sporting dogs, law enforcement dogs, dogs used in search and rescue, cats or dogs who are too old or in poor health, and guide, service and signal animals. But we will continue to try and address everyone's concerns while crafting the strongest possible piece of legislation.
If signed into law, Assembly Bill 1634 will not only establish California as a national leader in the humane care for animals, but it will save our state's taxpayers millions of their hard-earned dollars.
And if you're not convinced, consider this: The bill is modeled after a highly successful mandatory spay and neuter ordinance that has been in place in Santa Cruz County since 1995. Within two years of the county's adoption of the measure, it began to see a noticeable reduction in the number of animals entering its shelters. Within eight years, despite a 15 percent growth in the county's human population, the number of animals entering the county's shelters had been cut 60 percent. This example shows just how effective AB 1634 can be if given the chance.
Lloyd Levine, D-Sherman Oaks, represents the 40th Assembly District in the California Legislature.
The California State Assembly has passed Assembly Bill 1634 - the California Healthy Pets Act - by a 41-38 vote. If enacted, this legislation would require most pets in California to be spayed or neutered.
I authored this measure because every year, nearly 1 million cats and dogs pass through the doors of animal control agencies throughout California. And every year, more than 50 percent of them - many perfectly healthy and adoptable - are euthanized by overcrowded shelters which are unable to find them good homes.
Perhaps those numbers don't bother you, but this one might: Collectively, our state and local governments are spending 259 million taxpayer dollars to house and care for dogs and cats in animal shelters each year. That figure doesn't include the cost of killing and disposing of about half a million dogs and cats each year. When you include those costs plus the intake and processing costs, the total price tag climbs to well over $300 million each year. In addition, stray dogs roam through many neighborhoods, increasing the danger of dog bites and the transmission of rabies.
Under AB 1634, dog and cat owners who don't comply would be cited if their pet comes in contact with a local animal control officer, but will be given time to spay or neuter their pets before a fine would be assessed. A portion of those fines would be used to expand the availability of free or low-cost spay and neuter programs.
The vast majority of people I've spoken with about this measure are very supportive. We've received over 7,000 letters of support in my office, hundreds of phone calls, and many willing volunteers asking how they can help get AB 1634 signed into law. These people come to us from animal shelters, rescue groups, law enforcement agencies and veterinarian groups - a wide array of backgrounds united by the common goal of reducing the number of pets needlessly killed each year.
But with any high-profile legislation there is always a vocal opposition as well, and in this case, breeders from across the nation have gone on the offensive. They will stop at nothing to defeat this common-sense measure - even if it means calling local Assembly members and threatening them with relocating their AKC National Championship out of Long Beach. These threats were made despite the fact that this bill very specifically and expressly exempts show dogs and animals from out of state.
I commend Long Beach-area Assemblymembers Laura Richardson and Betty Karnette, who would not be bullied or intimidated by these unfortunate and undeserved threats. They read the legislation and noted the exemptions and had the courage to join me in trying to address the severe dog and cat overpopulation problem in a responsible way.
This legislation already contains a number of common-sense exceptions, including for show and sporting dogs, law enforcement dogs, dogs used in search and rescue, cats or dogs who are too old or in poor health, and guide, service and signal animals. But we will continue to try and address everyone's concerns while crafting the strongest possible piece of legislation.
If signed into law, Assembly Bill 1634 will not only establish California as a national leader in the humane care for animals, but it will save our state's taxpayers millions of their hard-earned dollars.
And if you're not convinced, consider this: The bill is modeled after a highly successful mandatory spay and neuter ordinance that has been in place in Santa Cruz County since 1995. Within two years of the county's adoption of the measure, it began to see a noticeable reduction in the number of animals entering its shelters. Within eight years, despite a 15 percent growth in the county's human population, the number of animals entering the county's shelters had been cut 60 percent. This example shows just how effective AB 1634 can be if given the chance.
Lloyd Levine, D-Sherman Oaks, represents the 40th Assembly District in the California Legislature.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
AB 1634 Passes the Assembly! And the May '07 and Year To Date Kill Rates Demonstrate New Strides Toward No-Kill in LA City
At precisely 10:16 p.m. on Wednesday, June 6, 2007 history was made in California. The California State Assembly passed AB1634 The California Healthy Pets Act by a vote of 41 to 38. This seminal event sends a clear message that California continues to be the national animal welfare leader. Constituents of AYE voting representatives should send a letter of appreciation to their Assembly Member today! Given the opposition to this bill their votes truly represent a courageous stand for fiscal responsibility and the value of life.
But the battle is only half won. We must now help our State Senators understand the importance of this life and money saving legislation. Please contact your State Senator today and ask him or her to support this important life saving legislation.
Visit http://www.cahealthypets.com/ to see why Bob Barker says the Price is Right for AB 1634!
The May 07 statistics are now in. Below is an analysis of the past 12 months, the calendar year to date, and the month of May. Thanks to the help of the public, our partners and most importantly our employees and volunteers we are making remarkable progress towards our No-Kill Goal. (No-Kill means using the same criteria that a compassionate veterinarian or loving pet guardian would use in deciding when an animal should be euthanized. That is, an animal is not killed for lack of space or resources. No-Kill is achieved when only terminally ill or injured animals or dangerously aggressive animals are euthanized and all healthy or treatable animals are adopted or placed with organizations capable of caring for them.)
Last 12 Months (June 1, 2006 through May 31, 2007):
18,108 dogs and cats were euthanized in the past 12 months (June 1, 2006 through May 31, 2007). That represents a 7.2% decrease compared to the previous 12 months in which 19,524 dogs and cats were killed.
Earlier this year LA Animal Services broke through the 19,000 barrier for the number of dogs and cats killed in a 12 month period for the first time ever. It is our hope to break through the 18,000 barrier in the very near future and aggressively continue this trend. Five years ago over 35,000 dogs and cats were dying in LA Centers each year.
The 18,108 number represents 4.5 deaths per 1000 LA City residents per year. This means LA has decidedly broken through the somewhat arbitrary "no-kill" threshold of 5.0, a goal established by some in the animal welfare movement many years ago.
New York City established a 2.5 kill rate during my tenure there and San Francisco has been recorded at 2.1. So clearly, the 5.0 "no-kill" threshold needs to be re-evaluated in light of the successes in these and other cities.
Of the total number of dogs and cats killed in the last 12 months, 64% were cats (11,567) and 36% were dogs (6,541).
Of the 6,541 dogs, 39% (2,574) were pit bulls or pit bull mixes.
Of the 11,567 cats that were killed in the last 12 months 43% (5,020) were orphaned neonate kittens. This represents nearly one third (28%) of all dogs and cats killed. 318 neonates were saved through our Baby Bottle Foster Program during this time, mostly in the month of May, and this number highlights the need for AB 1634, more spay/neuter programs and more foster care givers. LA Animal Services has recruited and trained over 60 volunteer foster care givers so far this kitten season.
2007 Year to Date Numbers:
The 2007 Year to Date comparison is also encouraging. From January 1 to May 31, 2007, dog and cat euthanasia decreased 21.5% compared to the same five months in 2006 (5,242 to 4,114).
Dogs killed Year to Date (1,908) decreased 17.6% compared to last year at this time (2,316). 787 or 34% were pit bulls or pit bull mixes despite a 24% decrease in the number of pit bull/mixes killed during this same period last year (1,038).
Cats killed Year to Date (2,206) decreased 24.6% compared to those killed during the same time last year. 22% of the cats killed (728) were orphaned neonate kittens. Year to Date we have seen a 43% reduction in the number of neonates killed compared to last year (1285), thanks to our Bottle Baby Program.
May 07 Numbers:
The May 07 kill rate (1,331) dropped 35% compared to May 06 (2,043). This is the lowest May kill rate since statistics have been recorded. Cats saw a 38% decrease from 1,467 in 06 to 900 in 07. 36% of all cats killed were orphaned neonate kittens. However, our orphaned neonate kitten kill rate for the month of May 07 (328) dropped 59% compared to May 06 (804). This is the lowest number of neonate kittens ever killed in the month of May thanks to our Bottle Baby Program.
Dogs saw a 25% decrease from 576 in May 06 to 431 in May 07. 31% of all dogs (178) killed were pit bull/mixes despite a 24% decrease in the number of pit bull/mixes killed compared to May 06 (251). LA Animal Services will be announcing a bold new program called, Pit Bull Academy later this month. This program is designed to further help reduce the number of pit bulls dying in our Centers.
Adoption, New Hope, Return to Owner and other statistics on dogs, cats, rabbits, and other species, as well as neonate dogs and cats, and pit bulls can be found at www.laanimalservices.com under the "About Us" tab. All statistics are updated each month in a twelve month rotating calendar that compares the past 12 months to the same 12 month periods in each of the past six years.
The practice of posting these statistics on our website each month won LA Animal Services national recognition by the Maddie's Foundation for transparency.
LA Animal Services statistics are not obfuscated by subjective categories such as "adoptable" and "unadoptable" as is the custom of some agencies. LA Animal Services reports only on the total number of animals that come in alive, leave alive or are euthanized (or killed). Today's message highlights the actual progress LA made over the past 12 months in reducing LA's kill rate among dogs and cats to an all time low.
Please consider how you can help LA Animal Services continue our shared quest to achieve No Kill! And call your Senator to ask for an AYE vote on AB 1634!
But the battle is only half won. We must now help our State Senators understand the importance of this life and money saving legislation. Please contact your State Senator today and ask him or her to support this important life saving legislation.
Visit http://www.cahealthypets.com/ to see why Bob Barker says the Price is Right for AB 1634!
The May 07 statistics are now in. Below is an analysis of the past 12 months, the calendar year to date, and the month of May. Thanks to the help of the public, our partners and most importantly our employees and volunteers we are making remarkable progress towards our No-Kill Goal. (No-Kill means using the same criteria that a compassionate veterinarian or loving pet guardian would use in deciding when an animal should be euthanized. That is, an animal is not killed for lack of space or resources. No-Kill is achieved when only terminally ill or injured animals or dangerously aggressive animals are euthanized and all healthy or treatable animals are adopted or placed with organizations capable of caring for them.)
Last 12 Months (June 1, 2006 through May 31, 2007):
18,108 dogs and cats were euthanized in the past 12 months (June 1, 2006 through May 31, 2007). That represents a 7.2% decrease compared to the previous 12 months in which 19,524 dogs and cats were killed.
Earlier this year LA Animal Services broke through the 19,000 barrier for the number of dogs and cats killed in a 12 month period for the first time ever. It is our hope to break through the 18,000 barrier in the very near future and aggressively continue this trend. Five years ago over 35,000 dogs and cats were dying in LA Centers each year.
The 18,108 number represents 4.5 deaths per 1000 LA City residents per year. This means LA has decidedly broken through the somewhat arbitrary "no-kill" threshold of 5.0, a goal established by some in the animal welfare movement many years ago.
New York City established a 2.5 kill rate during my tenure there and San Francisco has been recorded at 2.1. So clearly, the 5.0 "no-kill" threshold needs to be re-evaluated in light of the successes in these and other cities.
Of the total number of dogs and cats killed in the last 12 months, 64% were cats (11,567) and 36% were dogs (6,541).
Of the 6,541 dogs, 39% (2,574) were pit bulls or pit bull mixes.
Of the 11,567 cats that were killed in the last 12 months 43% (5,020) were orphaned neonate kittens. This represents nearly one third (28%) of all dogs and cats killed. 318 neonates were saved through our Baby Bottle Foster Program during this time, mostly in the month of May, and this number highlights the need for AB 1634, more spay/neuter programs and more foster care givers. LA Animal Services has recruited and trained over 60 volunteer foster care givers so far this kitten season.
2007 Year to Date Numbers:
The 2007 Year to Date comparison is also encouraging. From January 1 to May 31, 2007, dog and cat euthanasia decreased 21.5% compared to the same five months in 2006 (5,242 to 4,114).
Dogs killed Year to Date (1,908) decreased 17.6% compared to last year at this time (2,316). 787 or 34% were pit bulls or pit bull mixes despite a 24% decrease in the number of pit bull/mixes killed during this same period last year (1,038).
Cats killed Year to Date (2,206) decreased 24.6% compared to those killed during the same time last year. 22% of the cats killed (728) were orphaned neonate kittens. Year to Date we have seen a 43% reduction in the number of neonates killed compared to last year (1285), thanks to our Bottle Baby Program.
May 07 Numbers:
The May 07 kill rate (1,331) dropped 35% compared to May 06 (2,043). This is the lowest May kill rate since statistics have been recorded. Cats saw a 38% decrease from 1,467 in 06 to 900 in 07. 36% of all cats killed were orphaned neonate kittens. However, our orphaned neonate kitten kill rate for the month of May 07 (328) dropped 59% compared to May 06 (804). This is the lowest number of neonate kittens ever killed in the month of May thanks to our Bottle Baby Program.
Dogs saw a 25% decrease from 576 in May 06 to 431 in May 07. 31% of all dogs (178) killed were pit bull/mixes despite a 24% decrease in the number of pit bull/mixes killed compared to May 06 (251). LA Animal Services will be announcing a bold new program called, Pit Bull Academy later this month. This program is designed to further help reduce the number of pit bulls dying in our Centers.
Adoption, New Hope, Return to Owner and other statistics on dogs, cats, rabbits, and other species, as well as neonate dogs and cats, and pit bulls can be found at www.laanimalservices.com under the "About Us" tab. All statistics are updated each month in a twelve month rotating calendar that compares the past 12 months to the same 12 month periods in each of the past six years.
The practice of posting these statistics on our website each month won LA Animal Services national recognition by the Maddie's Foundation for transparency.
LA Animal Services statistics are not obfuscated by subjective categories such as "adoptable" and "unadoptable" as is the custom of some agencies. LA Animal Services reports only on the total number of animals that come in alive, leave alive or are euthanized (or killed). Today's message highlights the actual progress LA made over the past 12 months in reducing LA's kill rate among dogs and cats to an all time low.
Please consider how you can help LA Animal Services continue our shared quest to achieve No Kill! And call your Senator to ask for an AYE vote on AB 1634!
Monday, June 04, 2007
Arm Yourself with the Truth about AB 1634
Arm yourself with a thorough knowledge and understanding of AB 1634. Please refer to these documents so you know what to do and say in defense of AB 1634!
1. How YOU can help: http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/How_can_I_help.pdf
2. What Law Enforcement says about AB 1634: http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/may-Law%20Enforcement%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
3. Summary of AB 1634 Provisions: http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/MAY%20Summary%20of%20Provisions.pdf
4. Rebuttal to claims of failed mandatory efforts in other communities: http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/may-Quick%20Track%20Record%20Rebuttal.pdf
5. Rebuttal to AKC claims: http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/may-AB%201634%20Rebuttal%20to%20AKC.pdf
6. Medical TRUTH about early spay/neuter: http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/may-The%20Medical%20Truth%20about%20Early%20Spay%20and%20Neuter%20in%20Cats%20and%20Dogs.pdf
7. Frequently asked questions: http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/CALIFORNIA%20HEALTHY%20PETS%20ACT%20FAQS.pdf
8. Nine reasons California NEEDS AB 1634: http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/CHP%209%20reasons%20FINAL.pdf
9. An overview of AB 1634: http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/CHP%209%20reasons%20FINAL.pdf
For more helpful information on AB 1634 visit: www.cahealthypets.com
The Assembly is likely to vote this week. Maybe today! If you have not talked to your Assembly Representative yet it is not too late. Call and FAX today!
1. How YOU can help: http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/How_can_I_help.pdf
2. What Law Enforcement says about AB 1634: http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/may-Law%20Enforcement%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
3. Summary of AB 1634 Provisions: http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/MAY%20Summary%20of%20Provisions.pdf
4. Rebuttal to claims of failed mandatory efforts in other communities: http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/may-Quick%20Track%20Record%20Rebuttal.pdf
5. Rebuttal to AKC claims: http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/may-AB%201634%20Rebuttal%20to%20AKC.pdf
6. Medical TRUTH about early spay/neuter: http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/may-The%20Medical%20Truth%20about%20Early%20Spay%20and%20Neuter%20in%20Cats%20and%20Dogs.pdf
7. Frequently asked questions: http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/CALIFORNIA%20HEALTHY%20PETS%20ACT%20FAQS.pdf
8. Nine reasons California NEEDS AB 1634: http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/CHP%209%20reasons%20FINAL.pdf
9. An overview of AB 1634: http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/CHP%209%20reasons%20FINAL.pdf
For more helpful information on AB 1634 visit: www.cahealthypets.com
The Assembly is likely to vote this week. Maybe today! If you have not talked to your Assembly Representative yet it is not too late. Call and FAX today!
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Dog Days of Summer Warning...
In June 2006, the LA City Council officially went on the record supporting California Senate bill 1806. The bill outlaws leaving an animal in any unattended motor vehicle under conditions that endanger the health or well-being of the animal due to heat, cold, lack of adequate ventilation, or lack of food or water. This important bill was approved overwhelmingly by the Legislature last summer and signed by the Governor in September. This groundbreaking measure was made possible thanks to the staff and volunteers of LA Animal Services who were the original authors of the bill.
As the dog days of summer approach, the The Animal Protection Institute (API, a national nonprofit animal welfare group in Sacramento) has sent out the following information:
API has launched its summer initiative, “My Dog is Cool,” to save dogs and other animals from dying in hot cars during warm-weather months.
Every year, dogs die after being locked inside cars while their humans leave them, often for “just a few minutes.” These tragedies occur with alarming frequency, yet the animals’ deaths are completely preventable.
“As the summer heats up, it’s important that people be made aware of the dangers of leaving companion animals inside hot cars,” says API’s director of legal and government affairs, Nicole Paquette. “People mean well by taking their dog or other animal along with them while they work, visit, shop, or run errands, but warm weather can literally turn a car into a death trap.”
** NOTE: A Stanford University test found that even if it’s only 72 degrees outside, a car’s internal temperature can rocket to 116 degrees within an hour. Hundreds of dogs are unintentionally killed or injured each year by being left in hot cars, even with windows cracked and only for a short time.
The lifesaving Web site http://www.mydogiscool.com is a free, friendly resource to help spread the word about the dangers of hot cars. Resources include downloadable posters and “It’s hot!” flyers that can be used when a dog is left in a hot car, and an “Is it Too Hot?” weather forecasting tool that allows you to just enter your zip code and see if it’s too hot to take your pal along in the car.
The MyDogIsCool.com site provides everything you need to know to keep dogs safe and happy during hot weather.
The Animal Protection Institute is a national nonprofit animal advocacy organization working to end animal cruelty and exploitation through legislation, litigation and public education. For more information, visit http://www.api4animals.org
Below are some additional tips to keep in mind on warm/hot days. These points are from Gary Bogue, a daily newspaper columnist on pets, wildlife and environmental issues for Contra Costa Newspapers, in Walnut Creek, CA, since January, 1970. You can read more insightful information by Gary at: http://blogs.cctextra.com/garybogue/
Things to keep in mind on warm/hot days:
Indoor Animals — Make sure your house doesn't turn into an oven during the day while you're at work. If you don't have an air conditioner, leave as many windows partially open as you can to keep the air circulating. Moving air is important. Your dog or cat will follow the air currents around to find the most comfortable spot.
You can help by filling several liter-size plastic Coke/Pepsi bottles with water and freezing them. (Don't fill them too full because ice expands.) Leave them lying on the floor around the house in places where your pets like to hang out. They can snuggle up against the icy bottles and keep at least a little cooler.
If you have an aquarium or fish bowl full of fish, make sure the sun doesn't shine on them as it moves past your windows. Warm water loses oxygen, and a fish in a sunny aquarium can have trouble breathing and actually "drown."
Outdoor Animals — If your dog or cat spends the day in the back yard, it would be great if they had a dog/cat door that would let them come inside to cool off. If they don't (how about a doggy door into the garage?), you need to make sure they have some shady spots to get out of the sun and plenty of water to drink so they can stay hydrated.
Give the ground under bushes or in shady areas a good watering before you go to work so your dog has a place to stay comfortable. You can always give your pal a bath later.
Drinking Water — Whether your pets stay inside or out, make sure they have plenty of cool, clean water to drink. Leave several large bowls in different parts of your house or yard where your pets like to go and make sure they stay out of the sun so the water doesn't get too hot to drink.
Here are a couple of important points from an ASPCA News Alert on hot weather:
1. Exercise your dog in the cool of the early morning or evening, never when it's hot. Be careful not to let your dog stand on hot asphalt or cement, as its sensitive paw pads can easily burn.
2. Some animals need extra special care in hot weather, especially those who are elderly and overweight, or have heart or lung disease. Hopefully, you know who you are.
As the dog days of summer approach, the The Animal Protection Institute (API, a national nonprofit animal welfare group in Sacramento) has sent out the following information:
API has launched its summer initiative, “My Dog is Cool,” to save dogs and other animals from dying in hot cars during warm-weather months.
Every year, dogs die after being locked inside cars while their humans leave them, often for “just a few minutes.” These tragedies occur with alarming frequency, yet the animals’ deaths are completely preventable.
“As the summer heats up, it’s important that people be made aware of the dangers of leaving companion animals inside hot cars,” says API’s director of legal and government affairs, Nicole Paquette. “People mean well by taking their dog or other animal along with them while they work, visit, shop, or run errands, but warm weather can literally turn a car into a death trap.”
** NOTE: A Stanford University test found that even if it’s only 72 degrees outside, a car’s internal temperature can rocket to 116 degrees within an hour. Hundreds of dogs are unintentionally killed or injured each year by being left in hot cars, even with windows cracked and only for a short time.
The lifesaving Web site http://www.mydogiscool.com is a free, friendly resource to help spread the word about the dangers of hot cars. Resources include downloadable posters and “It’s hot!” flyers that can be used when a dog is left in a hot car, and an “Is it Too Hot?” weather forecasting tool that allows you to just enter your zip code and see if it’s too hot to take your pal along in the car.
The MyDogIsCool.com site provides everything you need to know to keep dogs safe and happy during hot weather.
The Animal Protection Institute is a national nonprofit animal advocacy organization working to end animal cruelty and exploitation through legislation, litigation and public education. For more information, visit http://www.api4animals.org
Below are some additional tips to keep in mind on warm/hot days. These points are from Gary Bogue, a daily newspaper columnist on pets, wildlife and environmental issues for Contra Costa Newspapers, in Walnut Creek, CA, since January, 1970. You can read more insightful information by Gary at: http://blogs.cctextra.com/garybogue/
Things to keep in mind on warm/hot days:
Indoor Animals — Make sure your house doesn't turn into an oven during the day while you're at work. If you don't have an air conditioner, leave as many windows partially open as you can to keep the air circulating. Moving air is important. Your dog or cat will follow the air currents around to find the most comfortable spot.
You can help by filling several liter-size plastic Coke/Pepsi bottles with water and freezing them. (Don't fill them too full because ice expands.) Leave them lying on the floor around the house in places where your pets like to hang out. They can snuggle up against the icy bottles and keep at least a little cooler.
If you have an aquarium or fish bowl full of fish, make sure the sun doesn't shine on them as it moves past your windows. Warm water loses oxygen, and a fish in a sunny aquarium can have trouble breathing and actually "drown."
Outdoor Animals — If your dog or cat spends the day in the back yard, it would be great if they had a dog/cat door that would let them come inside to cool off. If they don't (how about a doggy door into the garage?), you need to make sure they have some shady spots to get out of the sun and plenty of water to drink so they can stay hydrated.
Give the ground under bushes or in shady areas a good watering before you go to work so your dog has a place to stay comfortable. You can always give your pal a bath later.
Drinking Water — Whether your pets stay inside or out, make sure they have plenty of cool, clean water to drink. Leave several large bowls in different parts of your house or yard where your pets like to go and make sure they stay out of the sun so the water doesn't get too hot to drink.
Here are a couple of important points from an ASPCA News Alert on hot weather:
1. Exercise your dog in the cool of the early morning or evening, never when it's hot. Be careful not to let your dog stand on hot asphalt or cement, as its sensitive paw pads can easily burn.
2. Some animals need extra special care in hot weather, especially those who are elderly and overweight, or have heart or lung disease. Hopefully, you know who you are.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Police Departments Across California Support AB 1634
Salinas and Capitola Police Departments are the most recent law enforcement departments to endorse California Healthy Pets Act. The Salinas and Capitola Police Departments have joined the growing coalition of support for the California Healthy Pets Act, which will help keep communities safer by reducing the number of unwanted stray dogs roaming the streets and reduce dog bites.
“This bill will be a much needed tool to aid in the fight to reduce pet overpopulation in California and more specifically, in the City of Salinas,” said Salinas Police Chief Daniel Ortega. The City of Capitola is located in Santa Cruz County, which already has a spay/neuter law that has helped to reduce save taxpayer’s money by reducing pet overpopulation. “We are confident that the cost to the City of Capitola to shelter and euthanize unwanted pets could further be reduced if AB1634 was in effect throughout the state, as the dumping of cats and dogs from outside jurisdictions would be reduced with the implementation of a statewide spay-neuter law,” said Capitola Police Chief Richard Ehle.
Other law enforcement agencies that have already announced their endorsement of the bill include but is not limited to Los Angeles, Santa Ana, and Beverly Hills Police Departments. For a listing of the hundreds of organizations supporting AB 1634 visit: www.cahealthypets.com
“This bill will be a much needed tool to aid in the fight to reduce pet overpopulation in California and more specifically, in the City of Salinas,” said Salinas Police Chief Daniel Ortega. The City of Capitola is located in Santa Cruz County, which already has a spay/neuter law that has helped to reduce save taxpayer’s money by reducing pet overpopulation. “We are confident that the cost to the City of Capitola to shelter and euthanize unwanted pets could further be reduced if AB1634 was in effect throughout the state, as the dumping of cats and dogs from outside jurisdictions would be reduced with the implementation of a statewide spay-neuter law,” said Capitola Police Chief Richard Ehle.
Other law enforcement agencies that have already announced their endorsement of the bill include but is not limited to Los Angeles, Santa Ana, and Beverly Hills Police Departments. For a listing of the hundreds of organizations supporting AB 1634 visit: www.cahealthypets.com
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
California American Postal Workers Union President speaks out for AB 1634
Last week was National Dog Bite Week and rising injuries from aggressive pets are in the news. California American Postal Workers Union President Isabelle Bailey has spoken out in support of the California Healthy Pets Act. The Golden State has more dog bite injuries than any other state in the nation. Dogs that have been neutered are three times less likely to attack than unaltered dogs, more evidence that universal spay and neuter means safer communities.
“Every day, postal service employees confront not only aggressive dogs, but too many dogs that are abandoned and roaming our neighborhoods. The California Healthy Pets Act will help reduce injuries from overly aggressive animals as well as curb the number of unwanted pets without a caring home,” said Bailey.
For more information visit: www.cahealthypets.com
“Every day, postal service employees confront not only aggressive dogs, but too many dogs that are abandoned and roaming our neighborhoods. The California Healthy Pets Act will help reduce injuries from overly aggressive animals as well as curb the number of unwanted pets without a caring home,” said Bailey.
For more information visit: www.cahealthypets.com
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Time to Focus on AB 1634
California's humane community is making a supreme effort to change forever the fundamental nature of animal care and control in this state by passing AB 1634: The California Healthy Pets Act in the state legislature. At this crucial turning point, some critics of the department persist in trying to distract the local humane community from the task at hand. Instead these ne'er-do-wells dredge up allegations that have been circulated and rebutted weeks or months ago and continue to fabricate new ones.
These regurgitated charges have been addressed numerous times and, while I respect any one's right to disagree with the response, I refuse to allow any of this to create a distraction from the department's mission to save more animals and our collaboration with others in California seeking to win approval for AB 1634. These critics seem to believe that by repeating false charges over and over again they will magically become true. They're wrong.
Rather than wasting any more time responding to these critics again, I will simply refer concerned parties to http://www.laanimalservices.com/PDF/info/rumor/rumor4.pdf. Should anyone have any additional questions or concerns, I can be reached at 213.482.9558.
It is my hope, however, that all true animal advocates will keep their eye on the most immediate and important goal, which is to help persuade our State Assembly Representatives to support AB 1634 in the upcoming vote. Visit http://www.cahealthypets.com for more information.
These regurgitated charges have been addressed numerous times and, while I respect any one's right to disagree with the response, I refuse to allow any of this to create a distraction from the department's mission to save more animals and our collaboration with others in California seeking to win approval for AB 1634. These critics seem to believe that by repeating false charges over and over again they will magically become true. They're wrong.
Rather than wasting any more time responding to these critics again, I will simply refer concerned parties to http://www.laanimalservices.com/PDF/info/rumor/rumor4.pdf. Should anyone have any additional questions or concerns, I can be reached at 213.482.9558.
It is my hope, however, that all true animal advocates will keep their eye on the most immediate and important goal, which is to help persuade our State Assembly Representatives to support AB 1634 in the upcoming vote. Visit http://www.cahealthypets.com for more information.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
If you didn't contact your Assembly Representative yesterday, do it today!
I am in Sacramento this week talking to our State Assembly Representatives about AB 1634. As I watch this legislation work its way through the process I see a disturbing trend emerging. To date no Republicans have either voted or voiced their support for AB 1634. This is curious because all of us who have worked so hard on this initiative have always viewed it as a bipartisan effort.
Crafted by animal control professionals and veterinarians you cannot find two more bipartisan fields. There are two major reasons for passing AB 1634, the humanitarian reason and the fiscal reason. Seldom does a truly humanitarian initiative actually reduce government costs. AB 1634 does, which demonstrates that it squarely aligns with both Republican and Democratic core values.
So, you might ask, what fault do Republicans find with AB 1634? The charge I hear up here is "Nanny Government". That is, "how dare the government tell me what to do with my property." In other words, the Republican argument against AB 1634 is that it interferes with a citizen's personal property rights.
I personally appreciate Republican core values of fiscal responsibility, smaller more efficient government, and the protection of personal property rights. In earlier entries I explained how AB 1634 will result in extraordinary cost savings to both local and state government. These cost saving will also result in smaller more efficient animal control programs over time. So clearly, AB 1634 is consistent with at least two Republican core values. That leaves the personal property rights argument.
My counter to this argument is simple. Pets are not like refrigerators or motorcycles. Pets can suffer. Nearly one million of them suffer the trauma of a shelter impoundment every year. More than half of them never make it out alive. Another significant difference is that pets reproduce at an alarming rate and at an extraordinary cost to taxpayers.
Clearly, pets are different from most categories of "property". Indeed, many communities in California have already codified this difference by changing the definition of "owner" to "guardian" in their local ordinances. Most Californians understand we are guardians or stewards of our pets. But as a state, we have to admit we are not exercising our stewardship responsibly. The cost and death rates of the status quo confront us with this truth every day.
So when a state representative votes no on AB 1634 whose property rights are they protecting? Responsible breeders? No, responsible breeders are exempt from this legislation. Then who? The group up here lobbying against AB 1634 characterize themselves as hobby breeders. These breeders do not want to declare or pay taxes on the income they raise from their hobby. Nor do they want to help pay for the costs resulting from a hobby experiment gone wrong.
When a hobby breeder cannot sell the offspring from their hobby they can conveniently dump their property at their local shelter at no cost to them. Visit the LA Times or any other local newspaper in California and see the hundreds of thousands of dollars in undeclared income earned every year by hobby breeders. But what happens to the property they cannot sell in the local newspaper, bulletin board, or website? When they can't sell this "property" for a handsome profit, they can simply dump it at the local shelter for you and me to pay for.
All AB 1634 does is make hobby breeders honest. If people want to breed animals for profit they should declare their income. Why should the rest of us have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars each year to clean up hobby experiments gone wrong?
Please call and fax your Assembly Representative today and tell them personal property rights cannot be allowed to trump personal responsibility. As long as there are irresponsible breeders in California we will need AB 1634!
For more information visit: http://www.cahealthypets.com/
Crafted by animal control professionals and veterinarians you cannot find two more bipartisan fields. There are two major reasons for passing AB 1634, the humanitarian reason and the fiscal reason. Seldom does a truly humanitarian initiative actually reduce government costs. AB 1634 does, which demonstrates that it squarely aligns with both Republican and Democratic core values.
So, you might ask, what fault do Republicans find with AB 1634? The charge I hear up here is "Nanny Government". That is, "how dare the government tell me what to do with my property." In other words, the Republican argument against AB 1634 is that it interferes with a citizen's personal property rights.
I personally appreciate Republican core values of fiscal responsibility, smaller more efficient government, and the protection of personal property rights. In earlier entries I explained how AB 1634 will result in extraordinary cost savings to both local and state government. These cost saving will also result in smaller more efficient animal control programs over time. So clearly, AB 1634 is consistent with at least two Republican core values. That leaves the personal property rights argument.
My counter to this argument is simple. Pets are not like refrigerators or motorcycles. Pets can suffer. Nearly one million of them suffer the trauma of a shelter impoundment every year. More than half of them never make it out alive. Another significant difference is that pets reproduce at an alarming rate and at an extraordinary cost to taxpayers.
Clearly, pets are different from most categories of "property". Indeed, many communities in California have already codified this difference by changing the definition of "owner" to "guardian" in their local ordinances. Most Californians understand we are guardians or stewards of our pets. But as a state, we have to admit we are not exercising our stewardship responsibly. The cost and death rates of the status quo confront us with this truth every day.
So when a state representative votes no on AB 1634 whose property rights are they protecting? Responsible breeders? No, responsible breeders are exempt from this legislation. Then who? The group up here lobbying against AB 1634 characterize themselves as hobby breeders. These breeders do not want to declare or pay taxes on the income they raise from their hobby. Nor do they want to help pay for the costs resulting from a hobby experiment gone wrong.
When a hobby breeder cannot sell the offspring from their hobby they can conveniently dump their property at their local shelter at no cost to them. Visit the LA Times or any other local newspaper in California and see the hundreds of thousands of dollars in undeclared income earned every year by hobby breeders. But what happens to the property they cannot sell in the local newspaper, bulletin board, or website? When they can't sell this "property" for a handsome profit, they can simply dump it at the local shelter for you and me to pay for.
All AB 1634 does is make hobby breeders honest. If people want to breed animals for profit they should declare their income. Why should the rest of us have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars each year to clean up hobby experiments gone wrong?
Please call and fax your Assembly Representative today and tell them personal property rights cannot be allowed to trump personal responsibility. As long as there are irresponsible breeders in California we will need AB 1634!
For more information visit: http://www.cahealthypets.com/
Monday, May 21, 2007
Ask Your State Representative to Support AB 1634 Today!
Some ask why AB 1634 allows pure breed animals to be bred while it precludes owners of mixed breed animals to do the same. It is estimated by some that in California 97% of the 500,000 animals killed in municipal shelters each year are of mixed pedigree.
Pure breed dogs and cats are usually adopted or rescued by breed specific organizations who have a specific interest in protecting their breed. These organizations are often capable of accepting pure breeds that would have been difficult to adopt due to serious behavior or health issues.
A critical problem facing California today is the indiscriminate breeding of dogs and cats. Pet overpopulation is costly to local ($250 million annually) and State ($121.6 million to date plus $30 million annually) government.
Pet overpopulation contributes to the spread of disease, some of which are transmittable to humans. Pet overpopulation also places an enormous burden on the thousands of municipal employees throughout the State who we require to perform euthanasia simply because there are not enough homes for all the animals in our shelters. The national annualized attrition rate for shelter workers is 40%. In California some shelters have a 90% rate. It is not right to ask our employees to continue killing without providing them the tools they need to finally solve this vexing problem.
The legislative intent of the Hayden and Vincent Bills passed in the late 90's is clear. The intention is to make California a "no-kill" State by the year 2010. AB 1634 is critical to achieving this laudable goal. It is not likely we will achieve this goal without this legislation.
It is time for courageous legislative action to help end the horrible and unnecessary destruction of life in the State of California. If we fail to pass AB 1634 the message we will send to our children is that life has little or no value compared to the personal property rights of irresponsible breeders.
The time has come to end the unnecessary and senseless breeding of pet animals while we are unable to provide enough loving homes for all of them.
The above article was written in collaboration with Mike McFarland, Executive Director of Stanislaus County Animal Services. We urge you to fax and call your Assembly representative today!
Pure breed dogs and cats are usually adopted or rescued by breed specific organizations who have a specific interest in protecting their breed. These organizations are often capable of accepting pure breeds that would have been difficult to adopt due to serious behavior or health issues.
A critical problem facing California today is the indiscriminate breeding of dogs and cats. Pet overpopulation is costly to local ($250 million annually) and State ($121.6 million to date plus $30 million annually) government.
Pet overpopulation contributes to the spread of disease, some of which are transmittable to humans. Pet overpopulation also places an enormous burden on the thousands of municipal employees throughout the State who we require to perform euthanasia simply because there are not enough homes for all the animals in our shelters. The national annualized attrition rate for shelter workers is 40%. In California some shelters have a 90% rate. It is not right to ask our employees to continue killing without providing them the tools they need to finally solve this vexing problem.
The legislative intent of the Hayden and Vincent Bills passed in the late 90's is clear. The intention is to make California a "no-kill" State by the year 2010. AB 1634 is critical to achieving this laudable goal. It is not likely we will achieve this goal without this legislation.
It is time for courageous legislative action to help end the horrible and unnecessary destruction of life in the State of California. If we fail to pass AB 1634 the message we will send to our children is that life has little or no value compared to the personal property rights of irresponsible breeders.
The time has come to end the unnecessary and senseless breeding of pet animals while we are unable to provide enough loving homes for all of them.
The above article was written in collaboration with Mike McFarland, Executive Director of Stanislaus County Animal Services. We urge you to fax and call your Assembly representative today!
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Three Reasons to Support AB 1634
Assembly Bill 1634 – The California Healthy Pets Act – continued on its path to the Governor’s desk Wednesday, May 16th when it was passed by the Assembly Appropriations Committee on a B roll call vote.
AB 1634 is designed to serve as a significant tool in helping end the incalculable suffering of lost and homeless dogs and cats in the State of California.
There are many reasons for supporting AB 1634. I want to highlight just three:
1. Public Health: According to the American and California Veterinary Medical Associations, dogs and cats have many transmitted diseases, many of which are fatal and some are potentially contagious to humans. Spayed and neutered pets are rarely exposed to these diseases.
The number one killer of cats and dogs, after euthanasia, is cancer. Spaying and neutering can prevent most of these deaths. Medical research shows that spayed and neutered cats and dogs live longer and healthier lives. For these and many other reasons, the American Veterinary Medical Association recommends early spaying and neutering because younger animals recover faster and with less pain.
This modest one time expense can save an incalculable amount of money in veterinary care as well as all the heartache resulting from unnecessary illnesses over the life of an animal.
2. Public Safety: Spaying and neutering reduces the dangers caused by roaming stray animals, the transmission of rabies, and injuries from dog and cat bites. Over 30,000 dog and cat bites are reported in California annually. Over 23,000 involve dogs. Unaltered dogs are three times more likely to attack humans and other pets.
According to the Center for Disease Control, California has the highest occurrence of dog bites, animal attacks and attack-related fatalities in the nation -- and children are the most common victims. In fact, 50% of all children are bitten by a dog or cat by age 12 according to the CDC. People over 70 years of age comprise 10% of all dog bite victims and represent 20% of those killed by dogs. 75% of all dog bites, attacks and fatalities involve intact male dogs.
The insurance industry estimates it pays more than $1 billion each year in homeowners’ liability claims resulting from dog bites. Hospital expenses for dog bite-related emergency visits are estimated at $102.4 million. There are also medical insurance claims, workmen’s compensation claims, lost wages, and sick leave and other associated business costs that have not been calculated.
3. Fiscal Responsibility: In 1998 the State enacted the Animal Shelter Law, SB 1785, commonly called “The Hayden Bill”. Since its enactment the provisions of the Hayden Bill have generated the third largest reimbursable fiscal mandate in the state. To date the Hayden Bill has cost the state $121.6 M and is conservatively growing at a rate of $30M a year.
In order to meet the requirements of the Hayden Bill to hold animals for longer periods of time and provide more medical services to treatable animals, the City of Los Angeles allocated $160 million to build seven animal shelters with medical clinics just to manage the crushing number of lost and homeless animals rescued by LA Animal Services every year - over 50,000 animals. To further meet the requirements of the Hayden Bill the City Council had to increase Animal Services’ budget by 36% over the past six years, with a 28% increase this year alone.
The lesson we have learned from the Hayden Bill is that addressing the pet overpopulation problem from the back end is expensive. Warehousing thousands of animals for longer periods of time in costly mega shelters is not a viable long-term solution. It is very much like trying to mop up a flooded basement without first fixing the broken water pipe. The water keeps pouring in despite our best efforts to mop it up. To not support AB 1634 gives new meaning to penny wise and (dog) pound foolish!
Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. AB 1634 provides an elegant response for ending the insanity of escalating budgets and escalating body counts. AB 1634 will help us fix the broken water pipe.
Please call and write your state representative and ask him/her to support AB 1634.
For more information on this important initiative visit: http://www.cahealthypets.com/
AB 1634 is designed to serve as a significant tool in helping end the incalculable suffering of lost and homeless dogs and cats in the State of California.
There are many reasons for supporting AB 1634. I want to highlight just three:
1. Public Health: According to the American and California Veterinary Medical Associations, dogs and cats have many transmitted diseases, many of which are fatal and some are potentially contagious to humans. Spayed and neutered pets are rarely exposed to these diseases.
The number one killer of cats and dogs, after euthanasia, is cancer. Spaying and neutering can prevent most of these deaths. Medical research shows that spayed and neutered cats and dogs live longer and healthier lives. For these and many other reasons, the American Veterinary Medical Association recommends early spaying and neutering because younger animals recover faster and with less pain.
This modest one time expense can save an incalculable amount of money in veterinary care as well as all the heartache resulting from unnecessary illnesses over the life of an animal.
2. Public Safety: Spaying and neutering reduces the dangers caused by roaming stray animals, the transmission of rabies, and injuries from dog and cat bites. Over 30,000 dog and cat bites are reported in California annually. Over 23,000 involve dogs. Unaltered dogs are three times more likely to attack humans and other pets.
According to the Center for Disease Control, California has the highest occurrence of dog bites, animal attacks and attack-related fatalities in the nation -- and children are the most common victims. In fact, 50% of all children are bitten by a dog or cat by age 12 according to the CDC. People over 70 years of age comprise 10% of all dog bite victims and represent 20% of those killed by dogs. 75% of all dog bites, attacks and fatalities involve intact male dogs.
The insurance industry estimates it pays more than $1 billion each year in homeowners’ liability claims resulting from dog bites. Hospital expenses for dog bite-related emergency visits are estimated at $102.4 million. There are also medical insurance claims, workmen’s compensation claims, lost wages, and sick leave and other associated business costs that have not been calculated.
3. Fiscal Responsibility: In 1998 the State enacted the Animal Shelter Law, SB 1785, commonly called “The Hayden Bill”. Since its enactment the provisions of the Hayden Bill have generated the third largest reimbursable fiscal mandate in the state. To date the Hayden Bill has cost the state $121.6 M and is conservatively growing at a rate of $30M a year.
In order to meet the requirements of the Hayden Bill to hold animals for longer periods of time and provide more medical services to treatable animals, the City of Los Angeles allocated $160 million to build seven animal shelters with medical clinics just to manage the crushing number of lost and homeless animals rescued by LA Animal Services every year - over 50,000 animals. To further meet the requirements of the Hayden Bill the City Council had to increase Animal Services’ budget by 36% over the past six years, with a 28% increase this year alone.
The lesson we have learned from the Hayden Bill is that addressing the pet overpopulation problem from the back end is expensive. Warehousing thousands of animals for longer periods of time in costly mega shelters is not a viable long-term solution. It is very much like trying to mop up a flooded basement without first fixing the broken water pipe. The water keeps pouring in despite our best efforts to mop it up. To not support AB 1634 gives new meaning to penny wise and (dog) pound foolish!
Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. AB 1634 provides an elegant response for ending the insanity of escalating budgets and escalating body counts. AB 1634 will help us fix the broken water pipe.
Please call and write your state representative and ask him/her to support AB 1634.
For more information on this important initiative visit: http://www.cahealthypets.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
