From the Desk of Ed Boks

Animal abuser registries would protect all of us

2012-02-02T07:48:00.000-08:00

Sex offender registration is a system designed to allow authorities to track the residence and activities of sex offenders. Information in the registry is made available to the public via a website or other means. In many jurisdictions registered sex offenders are subject to restrictions including housing, being in the presence of minors, and living in proximity to a school or day care center.

Efforts are now underway to expand this concept to include animal abusers. Initiatives are gaining support and legislation has been introduced in at least five states, including Arizona.

The Arizona Animal Cruelty Registry Law (HB 2310) would require people convicted of animal torture, mutilation, intentional killings and animal fighting to register with the police and provide an array of personal information along with a current photograph, much like sexual predators. The information, along with the registrants' specific offense, would be posted on the Internet.

Animal welfare activists hope laws like this will inspire governments nationwide in the same way Megan's Law registries for child molesters have proliferated in the past decade.

In Florida, State Senator Mike Fasano proposed Dexter's law, named after a kitten beaten to death in his state. His proposal would require convicted animal abusers to register with authorities. Their names, home addresses and photographs would be posted online, and they would pay $50 a year to maintain the registry.

Registries have also been proposed in Colorado, Maryland and New York and similar proposals are expected in other states.

Suffolk County on Long Island moved to create a registry in 2010, and has since been followed by two other New York counties. No names appear on the Suffolk County registry yet, because it was only recently set up. Convicted abusers will appear on the registry for five years. Those failing to register are subject to a $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail.

The New York counties require pet stores and animal shelters to check the names of anyone seeking to adopt or buy an animal against the registry.

Maryland State Senator Ronald Young said he plans to introduce legislation in the wake of two incidents in his state. In one, a Yorkshire terrier was thrown off a 23-foot-high balcony; the dog, Louie, survived. In the other, a golden retriever puppy named Heidi was shot to death.

A bill to create a registry in California, introduced in 2010, didn't make it through the Legislature, partly because of concerns about its cost.

Liberty Watch Colorado, an advocacy organization committed to holding elected officials accountable, says such legislation is "an unnecessary expansion of government."

However, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, an animal rights law organization based in California, outlines some taxpayer benefits. For instance, well-managed registries can reduce the number of abused animals and the animal control costs associated with caring for and treating abused animals. They also serve as an early warning system for potentially violent criminals like Ted Bundy, David Berkowitz and Jeffrey Dahmer all of whom tortured and killed animals during their childhoods.

"Researchers as well as FBI and other law enforcement agencies nationwide have linked animal cruelty to domestic violence, child abuse, serial killings and the recent rash of killings by school age children," says Dr. Randall Lockwood, vice president of training for the Humane Society of the United States.

Albert Schweitzer said it best when he warned that "Anyone who has accustomed himself to regard the life of any living creature as worthless is in danger of arriving also at the idea of worthless human lives." Registering felony animal abusers not only helps protect innocent animals, it helps protect our families, friends and neighborhoods.

Ed Boks is the executive director of the Yavapai Humane Society. He can be reached at eboks@yavapaihumane.org or by calling 445-2666 ext. 21.

Pets improve owners' health and well-being

2012-01-30T06:34:00.000-08:00

Did you know that the presence of a cat or dog in a counseling office can speed the therapeutic process for some patients? Animal-assisted therapy (AAT) was introduced by psychologist Boris Levinson in the 1950s when he discovered that his dog Jingles was able to connect with autistic children in a way humans had not.

Since then, AAT has continued to develop as a therapeutic science. Although dogs are the most frequently used therapy animals, cats, birds, rabbits, horses, donkeys, llamas and even pigs and snakes participate in different programs.

According to research, when people hold and stroke an animal, many positive physical and psychological transitions occur, including lowered blood pressure, a feeling of calm, the ability to be more extroverted and verbal, decreased loneliness and increased self-esteem.

Susan Lee Bady, a clinical social worker who uses cats in her practice, says the cats serve a number of different functions, including facilitating emotional expression and touching; encouraging spontaneity and fun; and providing the kind of unconditional love seldom found in human relationships.

Bady's patients report feelings of peacefulness and serenity when they watch cats cuddle and groom each other. This feeling is enhanced when a cat jumps into a patient's lap. Some patients speak more freely while holding or petting a cat. Patients out of touch with their emotions are sometimes able to identify and understand their emotions by watching the behavior of the cats.

Patients with trust issues learn to trust Bady by watching her with her cats. Bady's cats, like all pets, are independent souls. This independence and lack of predictability helps needy or insecure patients cope better with what they perceive as personal slights in everyday life. For example, when patients feel a cat doesn't like them because he or she won't sit in their lap, Bady uses that reaction to open a discussion about their neediness and the problems it might be creating in their lives.

There's a plethora of literature amassed on the many different ways animals help children and adults with psychiatric illness, mood disorders, developmental and learning disabilities, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and other mental and emotional challenges.

One study of hospitalized psychiatric patients concluded that animal-assisted therapy significantly reduced anxiety for patients with psychotic, mood and other disorders.

Another study published in the Journals of Gerontology showed that animal-assisted therapy reduced loneliness in residents of long-term care facilities - especially for those folks who previously owned pets.

A study conducted at the College of Veterinary Medicine at Washington State University concluded children with pervasive development disorders (PDD) who lack social communication abilities "exhibited a more playful mood, were more focused, and were more aware of their social environments when in the presence of a therapy dog."

In a report titled "Animal-Assisted Therapy in Psychiatric Rehabilitation," researchers studied the effect of AAT on a group of male and female psychiatric inpatients. By the fourth week of the study, "patients in the AAT group were significantly more interactive with other patients, scored higher on measures of smiles and pleasure, were more sociable and helpful with others and were more active and responsive to surroundings."

Aaron Katcher, M.D., a psychiatrist and professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, claims there is tremendous evidence for the success of animal-assisted therapy in controlled studies, such as depressed patients had increased socialization and decreased depression; children with severe ADHD and conduct disorder had decreased aggressive behavior and improved attention; patients with autism or developmental disabilities had increased socialization and improved attention; and patients with Alzheimer's had improved attention and decreased aggression and anger.

According to Katcher, there is also clinical and anecdotal evidence that patients with dissociative disorders and agoraphobia are able to decrease anxiety and increase social skills when they have companion animals.

With all the benefits pets provide, shouldn't you consider bringing one of these little miracle workers home today? Visit your local shelter for the largest selection of adoptable pets in your community.

Ed Boks is the executive director of the Yavapai Humane Society. He can be reached at eboks@yavapaihumane.org or by calling 445-2666, ext. 21.

Children's moral development influenced by adopting a pet

2012-01-29T12:00:00.000-08:00

Psychologist, animal welfare advocate and human-animal bond expert Dr. Pia Salk (niece of polio vaccine developer Jonas Salk and daughter of bestselling author/psychologist Lee Salk) is a regular contributor to Martha Stewart's The Daily Wag. In a recent article, Salk asked the provocative question, "Can adopting a shelter animal make a difference in your child's moral development?"

Salk offers important insight into the values we teach our children when we adopt a companion animal from a shelter. According to Salk, the very decision to devote family resources to caring for an animal in need sends a clear message to your children about who you are and what you stand for.

When you adopt a shelter pet, Salk explains, children internalize important values - "We are a family that uses the power of choice to save a life." This teaches kids that by taking personal responsibility, their choices can affect the larger community.

Children need to feel they can impact their world. Parents need to give children opportunities to do so in positive, pro-social ways. Adopting and caring for an animal can provide this opportunity.

Where should this life lesson begin? Salk suggests a family meeting to discuss if the family is willing and able to meet an animal's needs. Together, a family should explore every facet of these questions, such as: Do we need landlord permission? How much exercise will the animal need? How will we provide medical care? Who will be responsible for feeding, training and walks? Who will care for the animal during vacations? How will a pet affect plans to move? Such conversations teach the importance of planning, navigating around potential obstacles and committing to a goal, for better or worse. This exercise is an important step in teaching children the inherent value of the animal's life and well-being.

Answering these questions will also help you determine what sort of animal is a good match for your family. Don't hesitate to ask your local shelter for help in making this decision.

The choice around which animal to adopt can lead to deeper discussions about family values. Perhaps your family is willing to provide a home to an older pet abandoned because of an eviction, or maybe to a cat who has lost an eye or a limb. These choices help children see past age and physical "limitations" so they appreciate another being's intrinsic worth. This teaches acceptance and gives children a chance to witness the inspiring resilience of animals.

Perhaps your family is willing to take in a breed disadvantaged by negative stereotypes. This teaches kids to learn for themselves and not be influenced by a biased or misinformed public perception.

For kids who are adopted, adopting a pet provides an opportunity to talk about their feelings while learning more about their family's love and compassion for others in need. Likewise, for a child who is hearing-impaired or has a condition such as diabetes, adopting an animal with a similar condition, or other special need (provided the resources exist to properly manage it), can be therapeutic and enriching for all involved.

"There is no limit to the great lessons you can teach your children when you opt to adopt," says Salk. "These lessons benefit everyone involved and they live on in the minds of children, manifesting in a lifetime of compassionate acts."

What better time to have this compassionate, life-saving family discussion? Visit your local shelter today to see all the pets waiting for the perfect home - yours.

Ed Boks is the executive director of the Yavapai Humane Society. He can be reached at eboks@yavapaihumane.org or by calling 445-2666, ext. 21.

Circle of compassion rippling through universities

2012-01-28T07:01:00.000-08:00

The New York Times recently ran an article by James Gorman on the status of animals in universities across the United States.

Historically, academia relegated animals to the province of science. Rats were confined to psychology labs; cows to veterinary barns; monkeys to neuroscience labs; and preserved frogs to the dissecting tables of undergraduates. At the same time, the attention of liberal arts and social sciences was directed solely toward human interests.

No more. This spring Harvard is offering "Humans, Animals and Cyborgs," while Dartmouth presents "Animals and Women in Western Literature" and New York University offers "Animals, People and Those in Between."

These courses evidence a growing interest in animal studies. In fact, anything having to do with any connection between humans and animals in art, literature, sociology, anthropology, film, theater, philosophy, and religion is fair game for animal studies.

The Animals and Society Institute, itself only six years old, lists more than 100 animal studies courses in American universities. Institutes, book series and conferences are proliferating as formal academic programs emerge.

Wesleyan University, with the Animals and Society Institute, began a summer fellowship program this year. Michigan State now allows doctoral and master's students in different fields to concentrate their work in animal studies. At least two institutions offer undergraduate majors, and New York University is allowing undergraduates to minor in animal studies.

Scholars never actually ignored animals. Thinkers and writers of all ages grappled with human/animal issues and the treatment of animals. However, the current burst of interest is unprecedented.

Jane Desmond of the University of Illinois, a cultural anthropologist, says public sensitivities are largely responsible for all the animal attention.

The trend may be traced back to Jane Goodall, who first showed us the social and emotional side of chimpanzees in a way we could not ignore. Most recently the popular YouTube video of a New Caledonian crow bending a wire into a tool to fish food out of a container caused academics to wonder how old a child would have to be to figure that out.

The most direct influence may have come from philosophy. Peter Singer's 1975 book "Animal Liberation" was a landmark in arguing against killing, eating and experimenting on animals. He questioned how humans could justify causing animals pain.

Lori Gruen, head of philosophy and coordinator of the summer fellowship program in animal studies at Wesleyan, said, "Thirty years ago animals were at the margins of philosophical discussions; now animals are in the center of ethical discussion."

Another strain of philosophy, exemplified by the French writer Jacques Derrida, has had an equally strong influence. He considered the way we think of animals, and why we distance ourselves from them. In "The Animal that Therefore I Am," he discusses not only what he thinks of his cat, but what his cat thinks of him.

What animals think is something scholars are taking more seriously. Referring to academic programs that focused on disenfranchised populations like women or African-Americans, Dr. Weil of Wesleyan said, "Unlike (those populations, animals) can't speak or write in language the academy recognizes." This communication deficit lent itself to academics raising moral arguments on behalf of the animals.

The great variety of subjects, methods, interests and assumptions in animal studies raises serious questions about how it all hangs together. Law schools have courses in animals and the law; veterinary schools have courses about the human connection to animals; and some courses use animals in therapy as part of animal studies.

None of this diversity diminishes the excitement in what's going on, although there are some academics within the animal studies rubric who think the scholarly ferment has a long way to go before it can truly consider itself an academic field.

One thing the new interest in animal studies does not lack is energy. If you want to better understand what all the scholarly excitement is about visit your local shelter for your homework assignment and adopt a pet today.

Ed Boks is the executive director of the Yavapai Humane Society. He can be reached at eboks@yavapaihumane.org or by calling 445-2666, ext. 21.

Euthanasia not acceptable for healthy or treatable pets

2012-01-27T06:55:00.000-08:00

The mayor of Los Angeles once told me that he considered managing animal shelters more difficult than running a metropolis like L.A. I had to agree. Animal shelters represent the worst - or best - in a community. They are a nexus of heartache and compassion. When one of these outweighs the other, the soul of a community is revealed.

Understanding the daily challenges inherent in managing animal shelters, my heart goes out to the Arizona Humane Society (AHS). AHS is caught up in a public relations nightmare involving a homeless man who brought his kitten to them for medical care. Daniel Dockery, 49 years old, had hand-raised a 9-month old kitten since she was born. Dockery attributed his companionship with the kitten, Scruffy, to his ability to stay off heroin.

When Scruffy suffered "non-life threatening injuries," Dockery rushed her to AHS where a medical examination determined it would cost $400 to treat her. Unable to pay the fee, Dockery surrendered the kitten to AHS after being assured she would be treated and placed in foster care. Several hours later, Scruffy was euthanized. The report of her death went viral. It seemed every national mainstream and alternate news source reported on Scruffy's untimely death. The resulting outrage forced AHS to hire a publicist to help alleviate public ire.

The publicist explained that Dockery's lack of funds combined with the number of animals in need of urgent care led to the decision to euthanize Scruffy. The betrayal of trust left Dockery feeling responsible for Scruffy's death and prompted an angry public to threaten withholding funds from AHS.

One positive outcome from this ordeal is that AHS created an account funded by donations to cover the cost of emergency animal care. The account is similar to the Yavapai Humane Society's STAR (Special Treatment And Recovery) fund, which is funded by donations and is responsible for saving the lives of many homeless animals in need of critical care.

Having been involved in animal shelter management for 30 years, I understand that mistakes can be made. I have also learned that policies and procedures can be implemented to help ensure errors are made on the side of saving a life, not taking it.

I share this lamentable story because it sits in juxtaposition to many life and death decisions made by the Yavapai Humane Society. For instance, in recent weeks YHS took in four senior pets, each surrendered by their respective owner claiming the pet was suffering from a life threatening illness.

While YHS provides euthanasia to owned animals who are irremediably suffering, we make it clear to pet owners that we will not euthanize an animal when it is determined that the animal is not suffering, is actually healthy, or can be treated.

In each of these cases, after ownership was legally surrendered to YHS, medical examinations were performed. A consultation with the private veterinarian handling the healthcare of each animal prior to surrender was conducted when possible. In each case no life threatening condition or suffering could be found. These animals have since been placed for adoption in hope they will live their remaining years in a loving home.

Every day employees at animal shelters across the United States are faced with decisions to kill or not to kill. Whether it is killing an animal too quickly or not quickly enough, shelters often find they are damned if they do or damned if they don't.

If the Yavapai Humane Society is to be judged, let it always be for trying to save the lives of animals others have given up on. Since embracing our "no-kill ethic," the Yavapai Humane Society has reduced shelter killing 77 percent - making our community the safest for pets in all Arizona.

If you are able to help YHS sustain this life-saving mission (regardless of age) please make a tax-deductible donation to the Yavapai Humane Society today.

Ed Boks is the executive director of the Yavapai Humane Society. He can be reached at eboks@yavapaihumane.org or by calling 445-2666, ext. 21.

Woman sues to prove animals are 'living souls,' not property

2012-01-26T08:30:00.000-08:00

"Today Show" contributor Scott Stump recently reported on a New Yorker named Elena Zakharova who filed a civil suit in a New York court against an Upper East Side pet store. The store, Raising Rover, sold Zakharova a puppy that developed numerous medical complications. The suit seeks to hold the store liable for the dog's pain and suffering, and medical bills, as if the dog were a person rather than an inanimate product.

New York law considers pets "property,' but the complaint wants to change that definition. The goal is to help shut down puppy mills that often mass-produce animals sold in boutique pet stores like Raising Rover, where "Umka" was purchased.

"Umka is a living soul,' the suit reads. " She feels love and pain.'

Ownership of Raising Rover has changed since Zakharova purchased Umka.

"I know nothing about the sale. The prior owner has the records. We are careful about where we get our puppies," Raising Rover's new owner Ben Logan told the New York Daily News. Logan declined to provide information about the prior owner.

Zakharova is seeking compensation for surgeries and medical treatment for Umka totaling about $8,000. She also wants a full return of the dog's sale price plus interest since the date of purchase in February 2011. Zakharova intends to donate any award to an animal charity, Lask said.

New York state has a "Puppy Lemon Law' that allows buyers to return sick animals to a pet store within 14 days for a full refund. The law is meant to slow puppy mills' mass production of dogs with inherent medical problems. However, Umka's medical issues did not become apparent for months after Zakharova purchased the dog.

"The Puppy Lemon Law doesn't cut it,' Lask said.

If the definition of a pet is changed from property to a sentient being, it could substantially change the amount of damages awarded when an owner buys a defective dog born in a puppy mill. That could have a chilling effect on pet stores buying animals from puppy mills fearing large payouts from lawsuits.

"It's going to put a number on my dog's broken hips that you created because you're negligent, you're greedy, and you're mass-producing puppies,' Lask said. "Right now, even if you return it, they just kill it, which is so inhumane.'

Lask is an animal lover who owns a Chihuahua named Lincoln who was found to have a hole in his skull months after her purchase. That discovery led her to investigate the practices of puppy mills. She waited six years to find a case to help correct the larger issue.

"It's much bigger than this case,' she said. "I am looking to shut down the puppy mill world.'

The main issue will be proving to a judge that pets are living souls who experience feelings of pain and emotion. "Human beings have treated other humans as property in history before recognizing it was wrong," said Lask, "so it's not too much of a stretch to ask the courts to change the definition."

"It's already a felony to abuse an animal. If animals have criminal rights, why not put rights on a damaged leg or a heart condition? If we're not equating (an animal) to a human being, and we're not equating it to a table, there has to be something in the middle.'

The suit brings to light the practices of puppy mills and their damaging effects on animals and their human owners. A 2011 investigation by The Humane Society of the United States revealed that Raising Rover, where Umka was purchased, was one of 11 upscale pet stores that purchased animals from Midwestern puppy mills with horrendous conditions.

The moral of the story is buyer beware! Experts agree consumers should opt to adopt from shelters like the Yavapai Humane Society to avoid the trauma that comes from paying exorbitant fees for pet store animals with hidden defects.

No-Kill - By the Numbers - Update

2011-06-04T13:08:00.000-07:00

The Yavapai Humane Society (YHS) has completed eleven months since implementing its “no-kill ethic”. This ethic embodies our commitment to the proposition that for every animal who comes through our doors there is a kind and loving person or family, and it is our mission to bring them together.

Many ask what effect our “no-kill ethic” has had in the lives of the animals in our care. There are three numbers that animal shelters use to explain their success, or failure, in reducing pet euthanasia (or killing).

1. The Live Release Rate (LRR): This number refers to the animals who get out of a shelter alive. It includes adoptions, transfers to rescue organizations, and lost pets returned to their owners. Some animal shelter experts claim anything over an 85% LRR can be considered “no-kill”.

Since July 2010, YHS has maintained an 87% Live Release Rate (compared to 71% for the same evelven months a year earlier).

2. The Euthanasia Rate: This number is the inverse of the LLR and reports the actual number of animals euthanized.

Since July 2010, YHS’ euthanasia rate fell 67%. This difference represents three additional lives saved each and every day.

Without question, the above numbers are cause for celebration. However, they don’t explain how YHS compares to other communities. The next number does, which is why I suspect so many shelters avoid talking about it:

3. The Per Capita Rate: This number refers to the number of animals killed per 1,000 residents. For instance, if a community of 500,000 people kills 5,000 dogs and cats per year, you divide 5,000 animals by 500 (groups of 1,000 residents) to determine a kill rate of 10 animals per 1,000 residents. The per capita rate provides an objective “apples to apples” comparison to other communities.

ANIMAL PEOPLE magazine issues an annual National Shelter Killing Report based on this number. In the 2009 report, the national kill rate average was 13.5 animals per 1,000 U.S. residents.

In 2009, YHS euthanized 17.25 animals per 1,000 residents; sadly, a substantially higher rate than the national average.

However, over the past 12 months (June 2010 - May 2011) the YHS kill rate fell to 4.7, well below the national average; thanks to applying the “no-kill ethic”. This is using the number of animals killed (700) divided by the 2010 Census number of 146,000.

Clearly, YHS has come a long way - from 17.25 to 4.7; but just as clearly, we have a long way yet to go. To create a “no-kill community” requires all of us to play our part as responsible pet owners.

Here is the Top Five List for how you can help transform our community into a truly humane society:

1. License your dog and microchip your pets. YHS has one of the highest “Return to Owner” rates in the nation (68%). When your pet comes to YHS with a current license or microchip he has a guaranteed ticket home.

2. Obey the leash law. Don’t allow your pet to run at large, especially if not spayed or neutered.

3. Spay/Neuter all your pets. Pets should be spayed or neutered before sexual maturity. Call the YHS Spay/Neuter Clinic to make an appointment today!

4. Become a YHS Member by making a live saving donation. Consider YHS in your Planned Giving strategies.

5. Join the YHS Volunteer Organization. Your involvement brings new energy and expertise to our organization and will make a big difference in the lives of the animals and people of Yavapai County.

Call 928.455.2666 Ext. 21 if you have questions or ideas about how you can help. Together we can make Yavapai County the safest community in Arizona for our pets.

Winter weather pet tips: If it's cold for you, it's cold for them!

2011-02-19T11:49:00.000-08:00

I moved to beautiful Prescott, Arizona from sunny Los Angeles in June of last year. Being an outdoors enthusiast, I love the quality of life provided by my adopted community. However, being a Southern California boy, I was a bit unprepared for the dramatic drop in temperature. So I thought I would review for all our cold climate resident pet owners the cold weather dangers for our pets. Be aware of these cold weather safety tips for your pets:

• Remember: If it is cold for you, it is cold for your pets, too! A common mistake people make is to assume our pets are better equipped to handle cold weather just because they are animals. They are not just animals; they are pets. They are the result of thousands of years of genetic reengineering that has left most companion animals completely dependent on our common sense.

• Although YHS believes all pets should be kept indoors, if you must keep your dog outside for any period of time, provide a dry, draft free dog-house. It should be large enough for your dog to sit and lay down comfortably but small enough to hold his body heat. The floor should be off the ground and covered with cedar shavings or straw. Turn the shelter away from the wind, and cover the door with a waterproof burlap or heavy plastic.

• Make sure all outside water sources don't freeze over. Pets can't burn the calories they need to stay warm without a fresh supply of water.

• Be aware of salt and other ice-melting chemicals on the streets and sidewalks. They are an irritant to your pet's paws and may cause injury if ingested. Use a warm, moist cloth to clean off any salt or chemical residues after a walk. Be the first on your block to provide your dog with a set of booties to protect his paws from these harsh and cold chemicals.

• Check your garage and driveway for antifreeze. Antifreeze tastes sweet to your pet and most brands are poisonous. Contact your veterinarian immediately if you suspect your pet has consumed antifreeze.

• Grooming is important; a matted coat will not protect your pet from the cold. Be watchful of ice or salt that may become entangled in long hair and remove it immediately.

• Don't let your pet venture onto frozen bodies of water. The ice may be too thin to support his weight and water rescues are both difficult and dangerous for the both of you.

• Be a good kitty Samaritan and slap the hood of your car before starting it. Cats often climb next to a warm engine during the night.

• Keep snowdrifts from piling up next to your fence, providing your pooch a way of escape. Make sure your dog is wearing a current dog license. In the event your dog does get away during this dangerous weather and YHS is able to rescue him, you will be assured of his return. If you love your pet, please license him or her.

• If you are flying with a pet, make sure the airline provides for your pet's safety and warmth. Some airlines restrict pets from flying when the temperature dips below a certain point. Call ahead to confirm.

Pets are part of the family; keep your family warm, and the winter months can be filled with wonderful memories. If you are looking for a pet to keep you warm this winter, come on by the Yavapai Humane Society and we'll help you select your next best friend.

Ed Boks is the executive director of the Yavapai Humane Society. He can be reached at ed@edboks.com or by calling 445-2666, ext. 21.

Buyer beware: Make sure you're not supporting puppy mills

2011-02-13T15:10:00.000-08:00

An edition of "Oprah" last year focused national attention on the "puppy mill." Puppy mills provide an unending supply of often purebred puppies to a public with an insatiable appetite for them, an appetite that has created a situation ripe for abuse. Puppy mills force dogs to produce litter after litter just for profit. These dogs are often plagued with disease, malnutrition, and loneliness.

Oprah's intrepid investigative reporter found bitches who could barely walk after living a life of immobilized confinement. When people buy a puppy from a pet shop, newspaper ad or from the Internet, they are often supporting a cruel industry.

Puppy mills frequently house dogs in shockingly poor conditions, particularly the "breeding stock" who are caged and continually bred for years, without human companionship, and then killed, abandoned or sold to another "miller" after their fertility wanes.

These dogs are bred repeatedly without the prospect of ever becoming part of a family themselves. The result is hundreds of thousands of puppies churned out each year for sale at pet stores, over the Internet, and through newspaper ads. This practice will end only when people stop buying puppy mill puppies.

How do you separate fact from fiction?

1. Pet stores cater to impulsive buyers seeking convenient transactions. Unlike responsible rescuers and breeders, these stores don't interview prospective buyers to ensure responsible, lifelong homes for the pets they sell, and the stores may be staffed by employees with limited knowledge about pets and pet care.

2. Puppy mill puppies often have medical problems. These problems can lead to veterinary bills in the thousands of dollars. Pet retailers count on the bond between families and their new puppies being so strong that the puppies won't be returned. And guarantees are often so difficult to comply with that they are virtually useless. In addition, poor breeding and socialization practices can lead to behavioral problems throughout the puppies' lives.

3. A "USDA-inspected" breeder does not mean a "good" breeder. Be wary of claims that pet stores sell animals only from "USDA-inspected" breeders. The USDA enforces the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which regulates commercial breeding operations. But the act doesn't require all commercial breeders to be licensed, and the USDA enforces only minimum-care standards and its inspection team is chronically understaffed. Breeders are required to provide food, water, and shelter, but not love, socialization, or freedom from confining cages. Many USDA-licensed and inspected puppy mills operate under squalid conditions with known violations of the AWA. Federal law prevents state and local authorities from blocking the shipping and sale of these animals across state lines, placing the burden on the customer to educate themselves.

4. Many disreputable breeders sell dogs directly to the public over the Internet and through newspaper ads. They often sell several breeds, but may advertise each breed separately and not in one large advertisement or website. These breeders are not inspected by any federal agency and, in many states, are not inspected by anyone at all.

5. Reputable breeders care where their puppies go and interview prospective adopters. They don't sell through pet stores or to families they haven't thoroughly checked out.

6. Purebred "papers" do not guarantee the quality of the breeder or the dog. Even the American Kennel Club (AKC) admits that it "cannot guarantee the quality or health of dogs in its registry."

When looking for a pet, do not buy from a pet store, and be wary of websites and newspaper ads. Don't buy a dog if you can't physically visit every area of the home or breeding facility where the seller keeps the dog.

Puppy mills will continue until people stop buying their dogs. Putting them out of business should be a goal of every dog lover. Instead, visit your local shelter or respectable rescue individual or organization where you will find a wide selection of healthy, well-socialized puppies and adult dogs - including purebreds - just waiting for that special home - yours.

Ed Boks is the executive director of the Yavapai Humane Society. He can be reached at ed@edboks.com or by calling 445-2666, ext. 21.

No-Kill Ethic gives every dog a chance

2011-02-03T09:21:00.000-08:00

There are moments on this job that make all the heartbreak and disappointment worthwhile. Recently Sandy Nelson, who had adopted one of our shelter animals a few months ago, called me to say, "Thank you for believing Xena (pronounced Zeena) deserved a chance to live." That was one of those moments.

When I first arrived at the Yavapai Humane Society (YHS) in July, I found Xena on the euthanasia list. Alone in her kennel, surrounded by barking dogs and abandoned by her family, she was understandably frightened. She responded to her new surroundings the only way she knew how - by demonstrating a behavior known as "fear-based aggression," which is not uncommon in shelter dogs when they first arrive.

Although we knew she was acting out her fear, her behavior was so fearsome that our most experienced animal handlers were unable to handle her. One of them admitted that, in all his years at YHS, Xena was the only dog that actually scared him. By the time I arrived that first week in July, it had already been determined that there was no chance Xena would ever be adopted. She was marked for euthanasia.

Public safety is the primary focus when evaluating dogs for adoption. With nearly 30 years experience in animal control and welfare, I understand better than most that there are dogs who are dangerously aggressive - dogs who should never be adopted out. Was Xena such a dog?

Imagine what must go on in the mind of a dog abandoned by her guardian. You wake up as you do every morning at the foot of your master's bed - but tonight you inexplicably find yourself alone in a cold concrete cell surrounded by excited barking dogs and strange people. Wouldn't you lash out in fear to defend yourself?

How do you discern a truly dangerous dog from an estranged pet?

Fortunately for Xena, renowned Malibu-based dog trainer and behaviorist Robert Cabral came to the rescue. Waiving his $250 per hour fee and all the expenses he incurred from driving himself and his two dogs, Silly and Goofy, to Prescott, he came to help staff and volunteers learn his life-saving techniques.

Cabral is not your typical dog trainer. His focus is not training beloved pets how to sit and stay in your backyard. His expertise is rehabilitating behaviorally challenged shelter dogs. He has been called upon to rehabilitate dogs adjudicated as "vicious" by city magistrates - dogs most of us wouldn't want to be in the same town with, much less on the same leash.

Believing that even these dogs deserve a chance at life is the essence of the no-kill ethic. These dogs do not come by this behavior naturally; they are trained directly or through neglect to be aggressive. The no-kill ethic asserts that every shelter animal deserves a chance at life. That means YHS will strive to treat animals in need of medical care as well as animals in need of behavioral rehabilitation in the effort to find each animal a loving home.

It was this ethic that saved Xena. The no-kill ethic created a way for the Nelsons and Xena to meet and fall in love. Today, Xena is in dog obedience classes, she happily sits for treats and she devotedly follows the Nelsons around their beautiful ranch in Chino Valley.

Cabral has a slogan: "You can't save all the dogs in the world, but you can save one. Join the revolution." Xena is one of many dogs benefiting from Cabral's life-saving training. YHS staff applied what we learned and Xena responded. She overcame her fear, was removed from the euthanasia list and was adopted by the Nelsons in July.

Isn't it time you joined the life-saving revolution? Adopt a shelter animal today.

For more information on Robert Cabral or the many wonderful pets available for adoption at YHS, visit http://www.yavapaihumane.org/ and click on the Black Belt Dog Training logo.

Ed Boks is the executive director of the Yavapai Humane Society. He can be reached at ed@edboks.com or by calling 445-2666, ext. 21.

The Truth About Pit Bulls

2011-01-25T04:31:00.000-08:00

No dog breed in history has encountered more misunderstanding and vilification than the American pit bull. In fact, the pit bull is an all-American breed blessed with tenacious athletic ability, loyalty, intelligence, and high-energy.

Pit bulls are not lap dogs or a dog for the sedentary person. They are not fashion accessories or macho symbols. They are a breed apart from every other canine.

The pit bull was so respected in the early 1900s that the military chose the breed to represent the United States on World War I and World War II recruitment posters. Sergeant Stubby, a pit bull WWI war hero, served in 17 battles, was injured twice in battle, saved his entire platoon by warning them of a poison gas attack, and single-handedly captured a German spy. Stubby earned many medals for heroism, including one presented by General John Pershing, Commanding General of the U.S. Armies. Stubby's obituary from the New York Times may be viewed at the Connecticut State Military Department's website.

The American pit bull terrier is the only breed ever featured on the cover of Time magazine - and not just once but three times.

Famous people who owned pit bulls include Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, George Patton, Jack Dempsy, Helen Keller, Humphrey Bogart, Fred Astaire, Anne Bancroft and Thomas Edison.

A few celebrities who own pit bulls today include Jon Stewart, Alicia Silverstone, Jessica Biel, Jessica Alba, Michael J. Fox, Bernadette Peters, Brad Pitt, Madonna, and Rachael Ray.

Pit bulls are commonly used as therapy dogs. Whether they are visiting a senior care facility or helping someone recover from an emotional accident, pit bulls are exceptional therapy dogs.

Pit bulls are also used in Search and Rescue work and serve as narcotic- and bomb-sniffing dogs. One pit bull, Popsicle (so named because he was found in an abandoned freezer), lays claim to the largest recorded single drug bust in Texas history.

Pit bulls are great with kids too, as demonstrated by Petey, the beloved dog featured in "The Little Rascals." Pit bulls were actually referred to as the "nanny dog" in the early 20th century because of their gentle and loving disposition with kids.

Pits are known for their personality. Even as they age, most remain playful. They are affectionate dogs who appreciate their owner's attention and approval more than anything else.

While certain purebreds are prone to a long list of health problems, pit bulls are fairly healthy and hearty. They are strong and long-lived. They are low-maintenance because their short coats are easy to care for and you'll have no grooming bills.

Sadly, a lot of pit bulls never have a chance. Many shelters have a policy to euthanize all pit bulls, and do not adopt them out. Irresponsible individuals, bad breeders and biased media attention have given these wonderful dogs a bad rap. Breed-specific legislation has turned this beloved family pet into an outlaw in some communities. Fortunately, there are many people who are educating the public on the breed and dispelling the myths.

According to The American Temperament Test Society, a national nonprofit organization for the promotion of uniform temperament evaluation of purebred and spayed/neutered mixed-breed dogs, the pit bull scores an 83.4 percent passing rate. That's better than the popular Australian shepherd (81.5 percent), beagle (80.3 percent), border collie (79.6 percent), boxer (84 percent), Chihuahua (71.1 percent), cocker spaniel (81.9 percent), German shorthair (76 percent), Lhasa Apso (70.4 percent), and miniature poodle (77.9 percent) to name but a few.

The American Temperament Test Society found that pit bulls were generally less aggressive when faced with confrontational situations that produced negative reactions in many other stereotypically "friendly" dog breeds, such as beagles and poodles.

The National Canine Temperament Testing Association tested 122 breeds, and pit bulls placed the 4th highest with a 95 percent passing rate.

The fact is that in most communities pit bulls are so popular that they account for the largest percentage of dogs rescued, adopted - and, sadly, euthanized. If you are interested in adopting a super dog, consider a rescued pit bull. Most shelters have adoption counselors standing by to help you select the perfect one for you and your family.

Ed Boks is the executive director of the Yavapai Humane Society. He can be reached at ed@edboks.com or by calling 445-2666, ext. 21.

FIV-positive cats can lead long, healthy lives

2011-01-22T04:10:00.000-08:00

In the quest to achieve No-Kill (applying the same criteria a loving pet guardian or conscientious veterinarian would apply when deciding a shelter animal's fate), one of the challenges YHS must overcome is the widespread belief in many myths regarding shelter animals.

The fact is some shelter animals have issues. Equally true is the fact that these issues are seldom the animal's fault and they can almost always be resolved. Knowingly adopting an animal with special needs is one of the noblest acts you will ever perform; you are truly saving a life.

Let me give you an example of a myth responsible for unnecessarily killing far too many animals: "cats infected with Feline Immunodeficiency Virus (FIV) should be euthanized." The truth is FIV cats often live long, healthy lives with no symptoms at all.

FIV is an endemic disease found in domestic cats worldwide; it is a lentivirus, meaning it progresses slowly, gradually affecting a cat's immune system. Cats are typically infected through a serious bite, usually inflicted by a stray male cat - earning it the moniker the "fighting cat" disease (a good reason for keeping your cat indoors).

The most well-known lentivirus in humans is HIV - but there are major differences between FIV and HIV. HIV cannot infect cats and FIV cannot infect humans - in fact, there is no evidence that FIV has ever infected a human in the 6,000 years humans and cats have lived together.

The fear concerning FIV cats came to my attention recently when YHS rescued a loving 3-year-old American shorthair named Pushkin. Pushkin was surrendered by a family not because of his disease, but because they were moving out of state and sadly could not afford to take him along. Pushkin is so sweet that staff fell in love with him and tried earnestly to find him a new home. However, when potential adopters learn Pushkin has FIV, they immediately lose interest in him.

Being the proud guardian of an FIV cat named Oliver who lives happily with my other cat, Beau Bentley, I am distressed by the apprehension I find among so many cat lovers regarding FIV.

As long as FIV cats are not exposed to diseases their immune system can't handle, they can live relatively normal lives. When kept indoors, as all cats should, health risks are significantly reduced. FIV is not easily passed between cats either. It cannot be spread casually - in litter boxes, water or food bowls, or when snuggling and playing. It requires a serious bite to transmit the disease.

Before we knew FIV existed, shelters routinely placed these cats into loving homes where they often lived long, normal lives. With the discovery of FIV in 1986 came an undeserved stigma that has since made placing them unduly difficult.

Dr. Susan Cotter, professor of hematology and oncology at Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine, is helping counteract these misinformed fears. "I would not advise getting rid of a cat that tests positive for FIV," she says. "If the cat is young and healthy, it could be years before anything changes."

Best Friends Animal Society veterinarian Dr. Virginia Clemans says "the one important thing is to keep your FIV cat healthy."

That, of course, is good advice for all cats. In fact, the very advice we offer FIV cat owners is equally appropriate for all cats. That is, all cats should be kept as healthy as possible; kept indoors and free from stress; fed a high-quality diet; and medical problems should be treated as soon as they arise.

If you already own a cat, ask your veterinarian about early detection to help maintain your cat's health and to help prevent the spread of this infection to other cats.

Although many FIV cats live long, happy lives, some may need periodic medical care or ongoing medical management. This is why adopting a special-needs animal is such a noble and selfless act. If you can find the room in your heart and home for Pushkin, or a cat like him, please contact YHS - because every animal counts.

Eb Boks is the Executive Director of the Yavapai Humane Society. He can be reached at eboks@yavapaihumane.org or by calling 445-2666, ext. 21

Research finds babies exposed to pets have fewer allergies

2010-10-22T12:37:00.000-07:00

If you have been told having multiple pets in the same house as a baby is unhealthy, listen up.

According to researchers from the Medical College of Georgia, pets might actually prevent some children from developing allergies later on in life.

"Allergists have been trained for generations that dogs and cats in the house were bad because they increased the risk of you becoming allergic to them; we know that before you become allergic to something, you have to be repeatedly exposed to it," said Dr. Dennis Ownby, lead researcher of the study.

But instead, the researchers found that children raised in a house with two or more dogs or cats during the first year of life may be less likely to develop allergic diseases compared with children raised without pets.

The study, supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

"The striking finding here is that high pet exposure early in life appears to protect against not only pet allergies but also other types of common allergies, such as allergy to dust mites, ragweed, and grass," said Dr. Marshall Plaut, chief of the allergic mechanisms section at NIAID. "This new finding changes the way scientists think about pet exposure; scientists must now figure out how pet exposure causes a general shift of the immune system away from an allergic response."

The researches followed 474 children from birth to age 6 or 7. When the children were 1, the researchers contacted parents by telephone to find out how many pets were in the home. When the children were 2, researchers measured the level of dust mite allergen in their bedrooms. When the children were 6 or 7, the researchers tested them for allergic antibodies to common allergens by two approaches - a skin-prick test and a blood measurement.

They found that children exposed to two or more dogs or cats during the first year of life were on average 66 to 77 percent less likely to have common allergies, as compared with children exposed to only one or no pets during their first year.

So how does man's best friends protect against allergies? The researchers suggested that bacteria carried by pets may be responsible for suppressing the immune system's allergic response. These bacteria release molecules called endotoxins. Endotoxins are believed to shift the developing immune system away from responding to allergens, and, instead stimulate cells that block allergic reactions.

"The bottom line is that maybe part of the reason we have so many children with allergies and asthma is we live too clean a life," Ownby said. "What happens when kids play with cats or dogs? The animals lick them. How many cute pictures like that have you seen? The lick is transferring a lot of bacteria and that may be changing the way the child's immune system responds in a way that helps protect against allergies."

Ownby said that if researchers could find out exactly what it is about pets or the bacteria they carry that prevents the allergic response, scientists might be able to develop new allergy therapies.

In the meantime, consider putting this new research finding to the test and possibly protecting your children's health by adopting a dog or cat from the Yavapai Humane Society. Visit our shelters at 1625 Sundog Ranch Road in Prescott or our website at www.yavapaihumane.org to see the wonderful endotoxin-filled critters available for adoption.

Ed Boks is the executive director of the Yavapai Humane Society. He can be reached at eboks@yavapaihumane.org or by calling 445-2666, ext. 21.

Tethering dogs is a form of abuse that creates or exacerbates behavior problems

2010-09-24T09:51:00.000-07:00

Sometimes a seemingly simple solution to a perceived problem can result in tragic unintended consequences. Consider tethering. A tether is a rope, leash, or chain used to restrict the movement of a dog.

Many people consider a tether an acceptable solution to a misbehaving dog. Few ever consider its horrific consequences.

Let's think about tethering for a moment in a more personal way. Imagine a two-year old child confined to a small room. The toddler wakes each day full of natural curiosity and energy, with a need to be touched and loved by those around her. She can hear them laughing and interacting on the other side of the door; she can even smell them.

She only sees her loved ones when they fill her bowl with oatmeal and her bottle with water. She loves this brief interaction and tries to express her love, but they are annoyed by her affection. She is curious and longs to be held. But they always leave her behind, alone. She has no ability to communicate what she is feeling; only that she must be "bad" to be so rejected. She never has the opportunity to learn what is expected of her. No one takes the time to teach her to behave so that her loved ones would want her to be with them.

She gets no mental or physical exercise. Eventually she abandons all hope that the door will ever open. She turns inward, depressed and lonely. To occupy her time, she crawls in circles; she sucks her thumbs raw. When someone does come into her room now, she is afraid. She doesn't know how to behave or interact.

She feels helpless. The little world she knows will not respond to her needs; nothing she does matters. She has learned that people are to be feared. She defends herself by shrinking away or lashing out. A once curious, trusting, happy, healthy, loving little girl is now a cowering, aggressive and unstable child.

Dogs, like children, have an ingrained need for contact with human beings or other dogs. When a dog is tethered, she does not acquire the socialization needed to maintain her mental health. Even when a dog receives proper veterinary care and food, tethered dogs are still apt to develop serious behavior problems.

Tethered dogs often get tangled in their chains, making it impossible to reach shelter, shade, food or water. Tethered dogs have been known to grind their teeth down to stumps. Many compulsively lick an area of their body until it turns into a bleeding sore (granuloma). Tethered dogs inflict one-quarter of all dog bites recorded. Tethered dogs frequently become withdrawn and depressed and resort to compulsive barking, chewing and digging.

Some people tether their dogs because of a bad behavior, not realizing this only compounds the problem by adding hyperactive or aggressive behaviors. These dogs need professional training, not tethering.

Those who tether their dogs may be unaware of the cruelty involved. They tether their dogs rather than spending the time or money necessary to train them.

If you tether your dog, please consider an alternative. If you know someone who tethers their dog, let them know how cruel this practice is, and that they may be in violation of Arizona's felony cruelty law. Your veterinarian, dog clubs and dog trainers can provide the information you need to correct the behavioral problems that led to tethering in the first place.

Please call your local animal control or welfare organization for more information on the dangers of tethering and what you can do about it. When you see it, report it to animal control.

Ed Boks is the executive director of the Yavapai Humane Society. He can be reached at ed@edboks.com or by calling 928-445-2666, ext. 21.

FELIX: Feral Education and Love Instead of X-termination

2010-09-15T10:05:00.000-07:00

Insanity, according to Albert Einstein, is "doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results." Many communities address their feral cat problem over and over again with two basic methodologies - only to be disappointed by the consequences of their efforts.

Feral cats are cats who have reverted to a wild state - born from tame cats that owners abandon or allow to run loose. These cats mate with other free-roaming cats, and their offspring, raised without human compassion, are wild, or feral. They grow up and breed with other feral and free-roaming cats and the cat population increases exponentially. Feral cats are considered a public nuisance by some and a public health concern by others. They needn't be either.

The two methodologies employed by most communities are Do Nothing and Eradication. Decades of applying these methodologies has proven they don't work - and there are very real biological reasons why.

It is easy to understand why doing nothing has little impact on the problem, but it is not as easy to understand why eradication does not work.

Feral cats typically live in colonies of 6 to 20 cats. When individuals try to catch cats for extermination, this heightens the biological stress of the colony, triggering a survival mechanism that causes the cats to over-breed and over-produce. Consequently, instead of birthing one litter per year with two or three kittens, a stressed female will produce two or three litters with 6 to 9 kittens each.

Even in the unlikely event that a person could catch and remove all the feral cats in a neighborhood, a phenomenon known as "the vacuum effect" would result. The removed colony had kept surrounding colonies at bay, but once removed, all deterrents evaporate and the surrounding cats enter the new territory to over-breed. The vacated neighborhood is quickly overrun with feral cats fighting for mates, caterwauling, and spraying for territory. Extermination only exacerbates the problem and actually produces worse results than doing nothing at all.

However, there is a third methodology that is increasingly practiced in communities across the United States and around the world with amazing results. It is called Trap/Neuter/Return, or TNR.

With TNR, all the feral cats in a neighborhood are trapped, sterilized, and returned to the area where they originated - under the care of a colony manager. The colony manager is a trained volunteer in the neighborhood willing to feed, water, and care for the colony.

TNR prevents the vacuum effect. Altered cats display none of the troubling behaviors of intact cats. Feral cats provide free rodent abatement, a service many neighborhoods unknowingly rely on. Since feral cats only live three to five years, the problem literally solves itself through attrition, provided TNR is implemented community-wide.

TNR also solves public nuisance complaints. There is an adage that says "you can't herd cats." In fact, you can herd neutered cats because they tend to hang around the food bowl. No longer having the urge to breed and prey, they follow the food bowl wherever the colony manager takes it. Feral cats can be trained to congregate in areas out of the way of the public.

TNR is a non-lethal, humane and cost-effective solution. Understanding this, YHS is enacting a moratorium on accepting feral cats at its shelters until a comprehensive community-wide feral cat program can be initiated.

In the next weeks, YHS will work with others in the community to help develop a program to provide quad-city residents the training and tools they need to effectively employ TNR in their neighborhoods.

TNR empowers citizens to solve this troublesome problem once and for all. Feral cats are trapped, neutered, vaccinated, health-checked by a veterinarian and returned to their neighborhood where their population is stabilized and reduced through attrition.

If you would like more information on TNR or if you would like to help develop this program, please visit http://www.yavapaihumane.org/ and click on FELIX (Feral Education and Love Instead of X-termination) .

Ed Boks is the executive director of the Yavapai Humane Society. He can be reached at eboks@yavapaihumane.org or by calling 928-445-2666, ext. 21.

Landlords can play significant role in achieving No-Kill

2010-09-07T12:32:00.000-07:00

Ending euthanasia (or killing) as a method to control pet overpopulation requires the involvement of an entire community. We are all responsible for its use, and we can all play a role in its abolition.

Today I want to focus on the important role our community's landlords can play in achieving our "no-kill" goal. Please share this article with a landlord or property management company.

According to a report issued by The Foundation for Interdisciplinary Research and Education Promoting Animal Welfare in 2005, 50 percent of all rentals nationally prohibit pets.

Pet-forbidding landlords should consider these findings: Thirty-five percent of tenants without pets would own a pet if their landlord permitted; tenants in pet-friendly housing stay an average of 46 months compared to 18 months for tenants in rentals prohibiting pets; the vacancy rate for pet-friendly housing is lower (10 percent) than "no pets allowed" rentals (14 percent); and 25 percent of applicants inquiring about rentals in non-pet-friendly housing are seeking pet-friendly rentals.

With such a sizable potential tenant pool, it would seem there would be enough pet-friendly housing to meet the demand. In fact, according to economic theory, in perfectly functioning markets (where people make rational, profit-maximizing decisions, with full information and no significant transaction costs), pet-friendly housing should be available to renters willing to pay a premium to cover any extra costs to landlords. This begs the question, "Why do so many landlords overlook opportunities to increase profits by providing more pet-friendly housing?"

With nearly half of American households having companion animals and more than half of renters who do not have pets reporting they would have one or more pets if allowed, why are there so few pet-friendly rental units available?

Well, among landlords who do not allow pets, damage was the greatest concern (64.7 percent), followed by noise (52.9 percent), complaints/tenant conflicts (41.2 percent) and insurance issues (41.2 percent). Concerns about people leaving their pet or not cleaning common areas were rarely cited (5.9 percent).

Although 85 percent of landlords permitting pets reported pet-related damage at some time, the worst damage averaged only $430. This is less than the typical rent or pet deposit. In most cases, landlords could simply subtract the damage from a pet deposit and experience no real loss. In fact, the report finds landlords experience no substantive loss. There is little, if any, difference in damage between tenants with and without pets.

Other pet-related issues (e.g., noise, tenant conflicts concerning animals or common area upkeep) required slightly less than one hour per year of landlord time. This is less time than landlords spend for child-related problems and other issues. Whatever time landlords spend addressing pet-related problems is offset by spending less marketing time on pet-friendly units by a margin of eight hours per unit.

The study finds problems from allowing pets to be minimal, and benefits outweigh the problems. Landlords stand to profit from allowing pets because, on average, tenants with pets are willing and able to pay more for the ability to live with their pets.

At YHS, more than 1,900 pets were euthanized over the past 12 months. A large number of these pets were surrendered to our shelter because of the housing crisis. Imagine if all Yavapai County landlords permitted pets. That would create a demand far greater than the number of pets dying in our shelters, allowing YHS to achieve its goal to end euthanasia as a method of pet overpopulation control.

Landlords are hearing from their own colleagues and professional journals that permitting pets makes good business sense. Many landlords may be overlooking an opportunity to increase revenue, tenant pools and market size by allowing pets. While there are some costs to allowing pets, these costs are relatively low and the benefits appear to be even greater for landlords.

The benefits to the hundreds of homeless pets who are dying for lack of a home each year in Yavapai County cannot be overstated. Yavapai County landlords can make a profitable, life-saving choice simply by permitting pets.

Ed Boks is the executive director of the Yavapai Humane Society. He can be reached at eboks@yavapaihumane.org or by calling 928-445-2666, ext. 21.

Calling All Fosters: You play significant role in achieving No-Kill

2010-09-06T07:50:00.000-07:00

There is a fundamental tenet held among most animal welfare and animal rights advocates that is accepted as incontrovertible. That precept was perhaps best articulated by Mahatma Gandhi when he said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress is best judged by how we treat our animals." This principle expresses the belief that when a community is compassionate enough to care about the needs of its animals, there can be a reasonable expectation that the bar is raised on how we care for and treat one another.

The reverse is also true. If we can dismiss the needs of our animals, it becomes easier to dismiss the needs of our infirmed, aged, and needy human populations. Caring about animals becomes a litmus test for determining a community's capacity for compassion.

This test is applied to Yavapai County every day, but never more so than from the end of March through October and sometimes November - a time we call kitten season.

Each year during kitten season, Yavapai Humane Society (YHS) takes in hundreds of neonate kittens. Neonate means too young to survive for more than an hour or two without a mother. Sadly, most of the neonate kittens we take in are orphans. People find these babies in their garage, barn, flowerbeds and many other places where the mother felt safe from predators and intruders while she gave birth. Property owners find them within hours or days of birth and bring them to YHS without the mother. Taken away from their mother, they have no chance at survival without significant human intervention.

On the upside, most of our healthy weaned kittens do get adopted. So anything we can do to help our neonates reach "kitten-hood" improves their odds for eventually finding a loving home.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines "foster" as providing parental care and nurture to children not related through legal or blood ties. While Arizona state law does not define what an "adoptable" animal is, we intrinsically understand that our moral progress depends on our providing adequate care and nurture to these living souls with whom we have no legal or blood ties.

The problem is that we can't save them all by ourselves. We need your help. During kitten season, YHS can take in many neonate orphans every day. Depending on their age, they may require four to eight weeks of intensive foster care. The majority will not survive without your help. If you are able and willing to help save these lives, YHS will provide the training, support and supplies you need to be a foster parent.

This is a big commitment and a true test of our compassion. Even with our best efforts, not all foster babies survive. But they can all be loved. These babies need to be bottle-fed every two hours around the clock for several weeks, making this a perfect family, club, or faith-based organizational project. Fostering helpless neonates is one way to help foster compassion and respect for the sanctity of all life in our community.

We also need fosters for ailing or behaviorally challenged dogs of all ages and sizes. For more information on how you can volunteer to foster or make a donation to help others willing to make this commitment, please contact YHS.

Ed Boks is the executive director of the Yavapai Humane Society. He can be reached at eboks@yavapaihumane.org or by calling 928-445-2666, ext. 21.

Applying the No-Kill Ethic again...

2010-09-05T16:09:00.000-07:00

More than a policy and statistical objective, "no-kill" is a principle, an ethic, and, once applied, the practical consequences begin to fall into place. The principle is that animal shelters should apply the same criteria for deciding an animal's fate that a loving pet guardian or conscientious veterinarian would apply. That is, healthy and treatable animals are not killed simply because we lack the room or resources to care for them.

Killing animals for lack of space may be the quick, convenient and, at least from afar, the easy thing to do. But I have never, in nearly 30 years in this field, heard anyone argue that it is the right thing to do. After all, the creatures who fill our shelters can hardly be faulted for bringing trouble upon themselves. People who seek to excuse euthanasia in shelters often say we have to be "realistic." But such realism is best directed at the sources of the problem and at the element of human responsibility.

There are the heartbreaking cruelty cases that bring so many animals to our doors. On top of that, over 50 percent of the 6,500-plus dogs and cats Yavapai Humane Society (YHS) takes in each year are actually relinquished - turned in - even after years living with a family, like old furniture donated to charity. And another third are orphaned, neonate puppies and kittens. No one bothered to spay or neuter the parents, and so the offspring are born into the world homeless or unwanted. The general attitude is, "Let someone else deal with the problem," and - hundreds of times a year - someone else does, with a lethal injection.

Along with such failures in personal responsibility is a breakdown in social responsibility. On the budget sheets, saving animals can seem to a certain mindset as being a lowly or trivial concern. That's an easy position to take, as long as you don't have to be there when the problem gets "solved." If the people who brush off animal-welfare as "trivial" had to see the product of their priorities carried out - to witness for themselves how trusting the dogs are even when being led to their death, or how as they drift away they lick the hand or face of the person with the needle - I suspect they would see matters in a very different light, and would enthusiastically support life-saving programs.

Here in Yavapai County there are rays of light. There is a renewed community commitment to helping lost and homeless animals and to swearing off euthanasia as a solution to pet overpopulation.

The "no-kill" ethic is a matter of taking responsibility, instead of excusing the problem or hiding its consequences.

No matter how you do the math, there are still too many creatures who have love and devotion to offer, but never get their chance. And calling the practice euthanasia (as some prefer), instead of killing (as others prefer), doesn't make it any kinder.

The practice of killing animals has never been anyone's idea of an ideal solution - let alone anyone's idea of giving "shelter" to creatures in need. And, up close, the willful elimination of healthy animals with good years left is a sight to move the hardest heart. It is time we as a community make this commitment: No animal that comes through YHS's doors will be killed out of convenience or a lack of space. For every one of them, there is somewhere a kind and loving person or family, and it is our mission to bring them together.

Ed Boks is the Executive Director of the Yavapai Humane Society. He can be reached at eboks@yavapaihumane.org or by calling 928.445-2666, ext. 21.

Take a Walk...

2010-06-07T08:17:00.000-07:00

Are you having trouble finding time for your daily 30-minute walk? Then make a date with your dog.

Studies have shown that dog ownership has some decided health benefits, not the least of which is that a furry friend helps get people into better shape -- even more so than a human walking partner!

See Spot Walk

Researchers at the University of Missouri wanted to see just how helpful it was to walk with a dog. So they assigned seniors to one of three walking programs: walking with a dog, walking with a friend, or walking alone. And they found that the people who hoofed it with a canine companion increased their walking speeds by an impressive 28 percent. People strolling alone or with a human companion only upped their speeds by about 5 percent.

The Canine Effect

Why did the dog walkers have so much more spring in their steps? The researchers posit that dog walking improved the seniors' balance and confidence, making them want to walk even more. Add to this the fact that pet owners tend to handle stress better, be more emotionally stable, and make fewer trips to the doctor than pet-free people, and you've got a lot of reasons to thank your pooch for his presence.

If you don't have a walking partner then visit your local shelter for help in selecting one. If walking your best friend is more of a drag, literally, stop prepping for the Iditarod, and check out Good Owners, Great Dogs, by Brian Killcommons. This book provides simple techniques taught in a straightforward way that will help you turn these lessons into everyday routines. Unconditional love from a well-mannered pooch -- and a healthier you? You can't go wrong with furry friendship.

How to End a Vicious Life and Death Cycle in your Neighborhood

2010-05-31T09:50:00.000-07:00

This is the time of year for finding abandoned neonate kittens. A neonate is a newborn, and an orphan is a neonate without a dam (a female parent). Neonates are orphaned for a variety of reasons including death or illness of the dam or an inability of the dam to produce sufficient amounts of good quality milk.

It is not unusual for LA Animal Services to take in 1,000 to 1,500 orphans a month in April, May and June and around 1,000 a month in July through September. This phenomenon occurs at thousands of shelters across the United States every year. While many shelters, like LA Animal Services, have a robust foster program for taking in and nursing many of these orphans, no shelter can take in and care for all of them. It is best to not take these animals to a shelter if it can be avoided.

But if we don't take them to a shelter, what can we do with them? Most people do not know what to do when they encounter a litter of orphaned kittens in their yard. Yet, this happens all the time.

1. First, make sure the kittens are in fact orphaned. No one can take better care of these babies than the mother. If mama is taking care of them, let her continue to do so until they are weaned. You can provide her with fresh water and food daily. After they are weaned, (at around 8 weeks of age) take them to your local shelter or cat rescue agency to be spayed or neutered, vaccinated and placed for adoption. Ideally, after the kittens are weaned, you should trap the mother and take her in to be spayed too.

If there is no sign of the mother and it is clear that the kittens are in distress, it is best to take them in.

2. Call your local cat welfare, animal shelters and humane societies to find out if they have a kitten foster program and what their policies are.

3. Ideally, consider taking the kittens in and foster them yourself. No community has enough volunteers to care for all the orphans found each year. If you have kids of your own, this is an exceptional humane family project for teaching your kids about compassion. But understand, this is a big commitment. There are certain things that kittens really need, like the proper food, shelter and general care. It is important to even clean a kitten's genital area every few hours to stimulate them to urinate and defecate. It is important that you know what to do. Many shelters, like LA Animal Services, have classes that will equip you for effectively caring for these babies.

4. Here is an additional site with valuable information on caring for Newborn Kittens - Go to: Feral Cat Caretakers' Coalition.

Please share this information with your family, friends and neighbors. Together we can end the vicious cycle of unwanted births and premature deaths in our neigborhoods by intervening directly to save these lives and ensure they are spayed or neutered and placed into loving homes.

Will Work for Food

2010-05-26T13:59:00.000-07:00

Innovative programs give feral cats jobs and prove their value to society.

Brad Kollus wrote a great article about an innovative LA program in the current issue of Cat Fancy magazine. The article can also be found at Cat Channel.com. Here is an excerpt:

Feral cats are domestic cats that were born without human contact or handling. If these cats do not receive human contact within their first 8 weeks, humans will have a hard time taming them. According to the ASPCA, there are tens of millions of feral cats in the United States. For decades, these cats were seen as pests by some, and many were caught and killed.

But in the 1990s, a movement began. Advocates such as Alley Cat Allies, the Feral Cat Coalition and Alley Cat Rescue (who also feed feral cats) began using trap-neuter-return (TNR), which stops the growth of a colony’s size and allows the cats to live out their lives in dignity.

Feral Cats Go To Work

In 1999, Voice for the Animals Foundation (VFTA) in Venice, Calif., took another bold step. It realized that feral cats are part of our ecosystem and play an important role in controlling rodent populations and stopping the spread of diseases carried by rodents. If VFTA could find areas that needed rodent control, it could provide that area with feral cats, which would save the cats’ lives and protect humans from rodents.

VFTA’s first project was the Flower Market in Los Angeles, where it offered to provide feral cats as a way of taking care of the market’s rodent problem. It worked.

“A lot of people who worked at the flower market didn’t like cats,” says Melya Kaplan, founder and executive director of VFTA. “The flower market has a big aisle down the center leading into the loading dock. One day there was a huge cat which we had put in, and he was chasing a rat right down the center aisle. Everyone started applauding. It has actually changed peoples’ views of both ferals and cats in general.”

Click here to see CatChannel’s exclusive slideshow of working feral cats.

**Get the July 2010 issue of CAT FANCY to read the full article.**

Proposed Budget for LA Animal Services May Risk Public Safety and Increase Pet Euthanasia

2010-04-27T11:37:00.000-07:00

The following letter is from the Department of LA Animal Services to the Budget and Finance Committee regarding impending budget cuts:

In the pre-dawn coolness of Friday morning, April 16, 2010, LAPD officers were waiting for help. Three 130-pound Cane Corso dogs, two males protecting a female, were boxed in by police cars near Slauson and Verdun in Council District 8. The police had to wait for the one person who had the knowledge, skill, and experience to handle the situation safely: an Animal Control Officer. Unfortunately, there was in fact only one Animal Control Officer on grave duty in the entire southern half of the City, and he was responding to a separate LAPD call for assistance to rescue an injured dog in Northeast Los Angeles. Soon after the Animal Control Officer arrived back in South LA to help the LAPD there, the two male dogs crawled out from between two squad cars and were heading home on the sidewalk. There, on the public sidewalk, in this neighborhood of businesses, homes, and churches, two los Angeles Police officers fired at least six rounds, killing one of the dogs. The other two dogs were safely impounded by LA Animal Services.

The reason LA Animal Services exists is to provide for public safety. The City's first obligation is the public's safety. Safe streets are those in which trained Animal Control Officers are available to respond to dangerous animals and handle situations without injury to the public, without wasting police resources, and without shots fired. A safe city is one in which an animal expert is on hand to evacuate animals in a disaster as mandated by Federal law so that people are willing to flee to safety. Safe neighborhoods are the foundation for a Humane LA.

Recognizing the precarious financial situation facing the City, we as a public safety agency nevertheless must be candid in our assessment that the deletion of $1.8 million in funding attributed to the 26-working days reduction compromises the Department's ability to deliver on our public safety responsibility. It compounds the impact of the shared sacrifice cuts we have already absorbed in the last two fiscal years and of the protracted hiring freeze by cutting another 10% of the work force through the 26-working days reduction. The Department believes this will obligate the Mayor and Council to choose closure of an operating animal care center and to sanction a likely resulting increase in pet euthanasia.

Closure of Animal Care Centers/26-Working Day Reduction

Consolidating pet intake into fewer facilities is regression to the conditions that the voters of Los Angeles chose to change in approving the Prop F Bond. Consolidation of the animals leads to more disease, over-crowding, incidences of aggression, and inevitably, increased euthanasia.

We acknowledge the financial imperatives behind the proposed temporary shuttering of the Northeast Animal Care Center in 2010-2001 to achieve short-term financial savings. While this facility is not used for the public now, it is generally filled to about 1/3 capacity with evidence and quarantined animals and for nursing mothers with puppies and kittens. It has proven an invaluable resource for temporary holding of animals evacuated in disasters.

Closing Northeast will require evidence and quarantined animals to be housed in kennels and cages at the other six animal care centers which are currently used to promote the adoption of healthy, available animals. This action will trigger the negative domino effect of: reducing Citywide kennel/cage holding capacity, reducing adoption revenue, reducing our live release rates, and increasing our euthanasia rates. The Department's overall holding capacity will drop by about 10%, and euthanasia will increase by about 2,500 to 4,000 animals, depending on intake trends. The reaction of the humane community to this downgrading of progress is unknown.

The $1.8 million (10%) additional cut of 26-working days is an effective cut of 8 Animal Control Officers, 14 Animal Care Technicians, 3 Registered Veterinary Technicians, 4 Clerical Staff, and 2 Supervisors, the equivalent of the staff of one of the six fully operational Animal Care Centers.' The only remaining option that allows for enough staffing to safely provide the necessary levels of animal care and service to the public is to close one Center. The Department will need direction from the Mayor and Council as to which additional Animal Care Center should be closed during the period of time this 26-working day reduction is in effect.

Closing an operating Animal Care Center in addition to Northeast creates an unfortunate situation for the communities we serve. Net holding capacity will drop by at least another 15% and pet euthanasia will rise by 4,000 to 11,000 more pets, depending on intake and the number of animals held as evidence and quarantine, using kennels that would otherwise be available for adoptable animals. Again, we will also lose adoption revenue, and spend more on euthanasia, aggravating rather than alleviating our revenue situation.

The Department cannot reduce its workload by telling residents that services will be cut or by closing our doors. The pursuit of strays and biting animals, the impoundment and care of animals, and the adoption or euthanasia of impounded animals is not discretionary; it is not even a set of services for which residents can find temporary alternatives. We do not control animal intake, and by law we cannot shirk our duty and responsibility. We must accept animals found or brought to us, 24/7. Failing to do so directly and negatively impacts public safety and the City's compliance with State law.

In the event that the City's financial situation ultimately requires the temporary closure of any Animal Care Center, we recommend that the General Services Department be requested to submit an estimate of the cost for security services from at least dusk to dawn and to erect fences or other physical measures to safeguard the vacant facility and all remaining equipment.

Call Center Closure

The proposed Call Center cut will result in the elimination of the Department's dedicated 888 - toll-free number and will increase phone traffic to individual Animal Care Centers and to the City's 3-1-1 System. Since the 3-1-1 operators cannot have access to our dedicated Chameleon information database (animal, medical, and financial tracking system), operators will be limited in their ability to provide information on topics such as lost animal inquiries. Other than providing general information that is currently available through the City-wide Services Directory, operators will be required to transfer calls directly to Animal Care Centers for assistance which will impact the ability of Department staff to process revenue generating adoption/licensing transactions while servicing and assisting the visiting public. This will result in delays for both callers and on-site customers alike.

The Call Center's six (6) staff members currently handle approximately 400,000 telephonic inquires annually while the 3-1-1 Call Center handles 1.5 million. Dropping the toll free number in favor of having all calls go through 3-1-1 will result in an approximate 25% workload increase to ITA's 3-1-1 Call Center. However approximately $100,000 in toll and Integrated Voice Response (IVR) charges will be saved by ITA, a portion of which could be utilized to hire at least one additional 3-1-1 Call Center operator to assist with the increased workload. Beginning in May, the Department will start phasing out the advertisement of its 888 - number while promoting 3-1-1, in a pre-changeover exercise to see if 3-1-1 can handle the call increase without unexpected problems.

The proposed elimination of the License Canvassers will result in a decrease of approximately $300,000 in annual revenue attributed to them. However, they are not cost neutral and total burdened costs for all 8 staff is over $400,000, without considering the cost of supervision and clerical support. Other changes to the dog licensing program which are in process at this time including multi-year and on-line licensing, have a potential to cover the loss of canvassers while additional alternatives are explored."

The biggest drawback to our program's success has been that the position of Animal License Canvasser lacks the peace officer or public officer enforcement powers to issue citations, unlike the programs in other jurisdictions. Our Animal License Canvassers are able to request payment for licensing fees; however, other than acting as a "good will ambassador" requesting that payment be made, they lack the ability to enforce compliance of the law through the issuance of citations. For example, the lack of enforcement authority requires a Canvasser to make repeat visits while attempting to collect outstanding $15 license fees, rendering any attempt at full-cost recovery unachievable. Proper staffing of this program with classifications able to carry out the required program duties (i.e., Animal Control Officers or Animal License Inspectors) should be considered a key component to a successful in-house License Canvassing Program in the future.

Fill Remaining Vacant Mid-Management Positions

The proposed budget resolves overfilled supervisory and mid-management positions and makes other streamlining changes. The Department will develop an efficient and functional organization based on the proposed regular positions. However, the ability of the Department to achieve effective and efficient operations, particularly under the strain of reduced resources, requires the authority to appoint staff to the existing positions in that structure. Continued reliance on "acting" appointments compromises effectiveness and damages morale.

Early Retirement IP Payouts

The Department will have $170,000 payable in the coming fiscal year as payouts among the 12 employees who took the ERIP in the current fiscal year and for deferred sick leave. This cost apparently is to come from existing budgeted resources.

The Department does not recommend any budget reduction that would dilute public safety, close an Animal Care Center, or increase the euthanasia rate from its steady downward trend.

We stand ready, however, to support the ultimate decision of the policy-makers. On behalf of LA Animal Services, I look forward to further discussion of this proposed budget and any alternatives that may be possible.

Very Truly Yours,
Kathy Davis
Interim General Manager
LA Animal Services

If you would like to weigh in on these important decisions

contact the

LOS ANGELES BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE

http://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=10-0600

Achieving and Sustaining No-Kill

2010-04-16T07:07:00.000-07:00

The City of Los Angeles has come a long way towards achieving “No-Kill” over the past forty years. It is difficult to even imagine today that in 1971 Los Angeles killed 110,835 dogs and cats. That was the worst year of killing in LA history and it caused an awakening among civic leaders that led to the City of Los Angeles becoming the first municipality in the United States to fund spaying and neutering for resident pet owners.

City efforts culminated in the lowest euthanasia rate ever achieved in 2007 when 15,009 animals were euthanized. That represents an 86% decrease in killing.

However, the 2008 euthanasia rate for dogs and cats rose for a variety of reasons for the first time in many years, stalling a long-standing trend of impressive annual double digit decreases.

Even though the years 2006 through 2009 represent the four lowest euthanasia rates in the City’s history, the recent upward trend is troubling and suggests new thinking and new programs are needed.

In the drive to achieve No-Kill there are two commonly recognized hurdles to overcome. A community’s initial progress towards No-Kill usually stalls when its pet euthanasia rate is reduced to between 12 and 10 shelter killings per 1,000 human residents annually (13.8 is the current national average).

Once a community achieves this rate, continued significant reductions are often hindered until aggressive spay/neuter programs designed to achieve further euthanasia reduction goals are implemented. With effective, targeted spay/neuter programs progress can be resumed.

Clearing the first hurdle becomes apparent after a community has successfully persuaded all the people who are likely to fix their pets to do so. Los Angeles has substantially done this and the challenge today is to persuade the more difficult populations, which include:

1. The poor,

2. The elderly on fixed income,

3. Individuals with negative attitudes about spay/neuter,

4. People who speak languages other than English, and

5. People who live in relatively remote or underserved areas.

The hurdle before Los Angeles’ quest to achieve No-Kill is characterized as “the wall”. No major city has ever been able to break through "the wall" (with the possible exception of New York). A community hits “the wall” when it reduces its pet euthanasia rate to between 5 and 2.5 shelter killings per 1,000 human residents annually. In 2007, Los Angeles reduced its euthanasia rate to 3.7. However, in 2009 it was up to 4.9. Clearly Los Angeles has hit the proverbial wall.

On the one hand, hitting “the wall” signifies the success of an earlier generation of programs. However, on the other hand, it is important not to miss the point that it also reveals the fact that a new generation of targeted programs that address the needs of residual populations not met by earlier or existing programs is now required.

While achieving and sustaining No-Kill may not be rocket science, it does require strategic thinking and targeted programs.

Broad indiscriminate spay/neuter efforts were the reason for LA’s successful life-saving efforts until now. However, only targeted spay/neuter programs will be responsible for breaking through the “wall” and achieving and sustaining “No-Kill” in Los Angeles. Targeted low and no cost, high-volume spay/neuter efforts will lead to fewer animals entering municipal shelters, allowing more resources to be allocated toward other life-saving programs.

No-Kill can be achieved and sustained; however, to do so will require targeted, affordable:

1. Spay/neuter programs,

2. Accessible wellness and other low cost veterinary services, and

3. Human/animal bonding programs designed to promote pet retention.

To learn more about how to help the City of Los Angeles (or any community) break through the wall to achieve No-Kill and ensure this new status is sustained click here.

Counting Down To No-Kill

2010-04-15T08:01:00.000-07:00

Many contend it is impossible to accurately determine feral cat populations. In fact, the inability to determine a feral population would call for any humane effort to reduce that population to rely on guess work. All TNR programs should be required to produce measurable results to ensure continued support and funding; and the measure of success depends on knowing the baseline population.

In a study titled, The Birth and Death Rate Estimates of Cats and Dogs in U.S. Households and Related Factors, published in 2005 in volume 7.4 of the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science we find a responsible formula for calculating feral cat populations. This study was published by John C. New Jr. and William Kelch of the University of Tennessee, Jennifer Hutchison of the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mo Salman and Mike King of Colorado State University, Janet Scarlett of Cornell University, and Philip Kass of the University of California at Davis.

The formula evolved from a 1996 survey of 7,399 U.S. households. The survey found a crude birth rate of about 11.2 kittens per 100 cats in households and an attrition rate that included a death rate of 8.3 and a disappearance rate of 3%. That is, cat births in households equaled attrition. It was further found that the movement of feral/stray cats into homes and shelters was approximately equal to the net growth in the household population plus the number of cats killed in shelters.

In other words, the number of feral/stray cats can be estimated by adding net cat acquisition to the number of cats killed in the shelter(s) and multiplying by three (to account for the one queen, one tom, and at least one sibling not entering homes or shelters who must exist to produce the known feral/stray cats).

More to the point, the feral cat population equals three times the number of cats killed in the shelters serving that area, plus the net cat acquisition (number of cats added to households) minus pet cat mortality.

Let me give you an example of how this formula would work. In a Los Angeles No-Kill plan that I submitted to Mayor Villaraigosa, I identified an area in South LA where spay/neuter efforts should be targeted. In this area 3,917 cats were impounded and 2,212 cats died or were euthanized in the SLA shelter in 2008. This targeted area has an estimated 1.25 million people living in 397,433 households according to the Los Angeles Planning and Demographic Research Unit. According to an AVMA formula this area has 128,768 cat-keeping households, with a total of 283,290 cats among them.

The combined mortality (8% or 22,663 cats) and disappearance (3% or 8,500 cats) rate of 11% per year is equal to the estimated number of births annually. This means there is a net self-replacement of an estimated 32,000 cats per year.

According to the U.S. norm for pet cat population increase over the past 20 years, the Los Angeles pet cat population is increasing at about 1% per year. Thus net acquisitions in this South Los Angeles area exceed attrition by about 2,850 additional cats per year, beyond births.

Of these 2,850 acquired cats, 1,705 come from LA Animal Services (3,917 impounds minus 2,212 killed). Another 1,114 (2,850 minus 1,705) come from other sources. Based on national averages, no more than 290 come from breeders, leaving 824 acquired from other sources like pet stores.

LA cat acquisitions include LA shelter adoptions including feral-born kittens and impounded stray cats, both kittens and tamed strays. The annual adjustment to the feral/stray population is 2,529 (1705 placed by shelters + 824 placed by other sources + the 2,103 who were killed). This totals 4,632 cats. Assuming that each cat had a mother, a father, and at least one surviving sibling, a crude estimate for the feral/stray cat population in the targeted area is 13,896.

Leonardo Fibonacci is considered the greatest European mathematician of the middle ages, born in Pisa, Italy about 1175 AD. Fibonacci developed a formula relating to agriculture productivity. His formula was later used by Pasteur to predict 70% of a susceptible population has to be vaccinated to prevent an epidemic. Fibonacci’s 70% Rule is recognized by World Health Organization and Center for Disease Control.

If you think of spay/neuter as inoculating feral cats to prevent pregnancy, then according to the Fibonacci Rule, 70% of all feral cats must be sterilized before the successful breeding encounters of the remaining 30% are reduced to a rate sufficient only to replace normal attrition. This means 9,927 (or rounding up for good measure, 10,000) feral/stray cats must be spayed or neutered just to stabilize the feral/stray cat population in the targeted area. Meaningful and sustained reductions will occur only when this rate is exceeded.

It is only with this knowledge that local animal control and/or local foundations can make a meaningful and measurable impact on local feral cat populations.

TNR as a Public Health response to achieving No-Kill

2010-04-14T09:33:00.000-07:00

A substantial number of animals euthanized in animal shelters each year are feral cats and their neonate offspring. A program to control the homeless cat population by neutering instead of culling cats in shelters is critical to achieving No-Kill.

Overpopulation must be curtailed at its source; sterilization is the only humane, non-lethal solution to unchecked reproduction. TNR (Trap/Neuter/Return) is designed to achieve this goal by reducing the stray and feral cat population through attrition by trapping, sterilizing, and inoculating feral and stray cats against distemper and rabies, and then returning them to their already established territory, where they are monitored by feral cat colony managers. The sterilization prevents the cats from reproducing while inoculations prevent disease. Ear-notching provides an easy way to identify cats in a TNR program.

TNR has a history in Denmark, England, Israel, and the United States, is endorsed by the American Veterinary Medical Association and is currently being implemented with local governments’ approval in many communities. Humane organizations have endorsed TNR, including the Humane Society of the United States, Friends of Animals, Alley Cat Allies, Best Friends Animal Society in Utah, Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy, the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR) and the Cat Fanciers’ Association. A national opinion poll conducted by Alley Cat Allies in May 2003 found that out of 24,599 respondents, 94% supported TNR as an effective tool in addressing feral and stray cat population. Since March 2002, the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association has published four articles in favor of TNR.

TNR has proven to be an effective and workable program for long-term population control and is increasingly being utilized by public and private entities to address feral cat populations and the concomitant problems of protecting the public health from rabies and cat nuisance complaints. It has been demonstrated to reduce overpopulation, complaints about roaming and the number of cats in shelters in communities in the United States and abroad. It reduces euthanasia rates, and costs less than half of the cost of traditional trap and kill programs. Dr. Julie Levy, DVM, Ph.D., monitored an eleven-year TNR project that involved eleven feral cat colonies on a central Florida campus. Dr. Levy concluded that “a comprehensive long-term program of neutering followed by adoption or return to the resident colony can result in reduction of the free roaming cat population in urban areas.”

TNR is working successfully in New Jersey in model TNR programs in Cape May, Atlantic City (at the Boardwalk), Phillipsburg and Bloomfield. In addition, support for TNR was one of the top three recommendations of New Jerseyans in comments received at public hearings on the topic.

Elsewhere in the country, the Orange County, Florida, Animal Services Department, the San Francisco SPCA, and statewide programs in California and Utah have successfully implemented TNR programs. Maricopa County, Arizona and correctional institutions in Ohio, Montana and New York State have also officially approved TNR as a means to feline population control. These programs are additionally beneficial to local governments, as volunteers can often be found to assist governments in managing feral cat colonies but are generally not willing to assist in trapping and removing cats for euthanasia.

Examples of successful TNR programs include:

Alachua County, Florida: A program called Catnip was implemented in 1998 and is responsible for sterilizing more than 22,000 cats since then. The program decreased shelter intake of cats by 61% since 2000.

Maricopa County, Arizona: Ed Boks, former Director of Animal Care and Control, Maricopa County, Arizona, studied conventional methods of feral cat control for over 20 years. He determined that these methods do not properly regulate the population and, consequently, initiated a TNR program that is operated by the county animal control department. Within eight years the euthanasia rate dropped from 23 cats per 1,000 county residents to only eight cats per 1,000 county residents.

Orange County, Florida: Orange County, Florida has a population of 700,000 people. Its animal control department incurs costs of approximately $105 per animal when it must respond to a complaint and impound and euthanize the animal. Before its TNR program was introduced, there were approximately two hundred complaints per year, resulting in as many animals being captured, with a cost of $21,000 to the county. Within six years after the introduction of TNR by animal control services in 1995, complaints decreased by approximately 10% as did the number of impoundments, with a total savings to animal services of over $100,000. Within the six years of the start of the program, euthanasia decreased by 18%.

San Diego, California: Founded in 1992 by Dr. Rochelle Brinton, the Feral Cat Coalition (FCC) introduced TNR to San Diego on a countywide basis. FCC is an all volunteer organization that provides free sterilization procedures for feral and stray cats. In addition to sterilization procedures, the cats are vaccinated for rabies and treated for fleas and any immediate medical problems. FCC volunteers monitor the feral cats after they are returned to the outdoors. The local animal control departments support the program as it has had a positive impact in reducing the feral population, thus reducing the number of cases to which they would have otherwise been required to respond. By 1994, two years after the start of the TNR program, the total number of cats brought into San Diego shelters dropped over 34% and the euthanasia rates in county shelters for all cats dropped 40% (instead of the usual 10% increase). San Diego euthanized 8.0 shelter animals per 1,000 people in 1997; 4.9 in 2002. The reduction in the euthanasia rate translated to an estimated tax savings of $795,976.

San Francisco, California: The San Francisco SPCA initiated a citywide TNR program in 1993. The SPCA has been working with feral cat caregivers to control the feral cat population, provide some medical care, keep the cats adequately fed and, when possible, adopt them into homes. There are three aspects to the program. The first is “feral fix,” a program through which the SF/SPCA provides vaccinations and spay/neuter surgery for San Francisco feral cats, all at no charge to their caregivers. Since the program began they report altering over 10,000 cats. The second aspect of the program is “Cat Assistance Teams.” In neighborhoods throughout the City, CAT members work together to humanely trap feral cats, transport them to Feral Fix, provide post-surgery recovery care, and socialize feral kittens before placing them in homes. CAT members also provide expert advice and assistance to novice caregivers in their neighborhoods. Finally, there is 9 Lives™ Humane Feral Cat Management Video Series including nine comprehensive videos that cover all aspects of caring for feral cats. Within six years of commencing the TNR program, euthanasia rates dropped 70%.

New York City, NY: The New York City Feral Cat Council (“NYCFCC”) is a coalition of NYC animal groups working to humanely reduce the City’s feral cat population through the use of TNR. They established a TNR program on the Upper West Side of Manhattan in 1999. Based on statistics compiled by New York City’s Animal Care and Control, the number of stray cat intakes from the Upper West Side was reduced 73% in the first three years of the program. During the first year of the program, there was a 59% reduction in the number of cats arriving in shelters.

Cape May, New Jersey: In 1995, John Queenan, with the Cape May City Animal Control, proposed an ordinance to facilitate TNR and the feeding of feral cat colonies. Queenan based his proposal on similar regulations in Santa Cruz County, California. Because pick-up and euthanasia had not resolved the city’s overpopulation problem, the ordinance focused on preventing reproduction. As a result of Cape May’s ordinance change, 200 cats were altered in 1997. Based on the number of nuisance complaints, litters of kittens and visual sightings of the colonies, it is estimated that the feral cat population, which was between 500 and 800 cats in 1994, has been reduced by 50%.

Atlantic City, New Jersey: The Humane Society of Atlantic County, in conjunction with the Health Department of Atlantic City and local volunteers, has used TNR successfully and with municipal approval. Through kitten adoptions and natural attrition (since these cats no longer reproduce), the feral cat population under the Atlantic City boardwalk was reduced by more than 70% within three years. Cat related nuisance complaints, common before enactment of the TNR ordinance, are now rare.

Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Phillipsburg, Warren County also authorized TNR. Dr. Robert Blease, a veterinarian and founder of Common Sense for Animals (“CSA”), a non-profit organization that receives no public funding, initiated the municipality’s TNR ordinance in 2001. All feral cats that are brought to CSA are vaccinated, sterilized, and identified by way if ear notching. Cats that are infected with FIV/FEHV, unhealthy or vicious, are humanely euthanized. Since Phillipsburg authorized TNR the stray cat population has reportedly dropped an estimated 350 cats in the first year alone, and citizen complaints about stray cats have dropped to zero.

Bloomfield, New Jersey: The Friends of the Bloomfield/Bukowski Animal Shelter (FOBAS) initiated a TNR program September 2003 with two colonies. The program has been endorsed and supported by the mayor, the town council and the Bloomfield Department of Health. Neighborhood Cats, a New York City-based volunteer non-profit organization, provides advice and assistance to the town, which adopted TNR as its official feral cat program.

For information on the sources for the above information as well as how to calculate the feral cat population in your community refer to page 24 (Analysis of Feral Cat Solutions) and page 28 (Feral Population Formula).

Applying The No-Kill Ethic

2010-04-11T07:39:00.000-07:00

More than a policy and statistical objective, “no-kill” is a principle, an ethic, and once applied the practical consequences begin to fall into place. The principle is that your local animal control should apply the same criteria for deciding an animal’s fate that a loving pet guardian or conscientious veterinarian would apply. That is, healthy and treatable animals are not killed simply because we lack the room or resources to care for them.

Killing animals for lack of space may be the quick, convenient and, at least from afar, the easy thing to do. But I have never, in nearly 30 years in this field, heard anyone argue that it is the right thing to do. After all, the creatures who fill our shelters can hardly be faulted for bringing trouble upon themselves. People who seek to excuse euthanasia in shelters often say we have to be “realistic.” But ultimately such realism would be better directed at the sources of the problem and, above all, at the element of human responsibility.

There are the heart-breaking cruelty cases that bring so many animals to our doors, and the added wrong of killing animals already victimized by callous or vicious behavior. On top of that, over 30 percent of the 54,000-plus dogs and cats LA takes in each year are actually relinquished – turned in – even after years of living with a family, like old furniture donated to charity. And another third of the creatures LA euthanizes each year are orphaned, neonate puppies and kittens. No one bothered to spay or neuter the parents, and so the offspring are born into the world homeless or unwanted. The general attitude is, “Let someone else deal with the problem,” and – thousands of times a year – someone else does with a lethal injection.

Along with such failures in personal responsibility is a breakdown in social responsibility in the care of animals. On the budget sheets of government, saving animals can seem to a certain mindset as being a lowly or trivial concern. That’s an easy position to take, just as long as you don’t have to be there when the problem gets “solved” by euthanasia. If the public officials in most locales who brush off animal-welfare as “trivial” had to see the product of their priorities carried out – to witness for themselves how trusting the dogs are even when being led to their death, or how as they drift away they lick the hand or face of the person with the needle – I suspect they would see matters in a very different light, and would enthusiastically vote to support local or state spay/neuter programs.

Here in Los Angeles there are rays of light. The City has opened six new animal care centers, a decisive step forward in its commitment to helping lost and homeless animals, and to swearing off euthanasia as a solution to pet overpopulation.

The new Centers provide four times the shelter space to accommodate the average of 150 lost, sick, injured, neglected, abused or unwanted animals entrusted to LA Animal Services every day. The Centers have wide aisles, solar and radiant heating, cooling misters, veterinary and spay/neuter clinics, park benches for visitors, fountains and lush landscaping – a world away from the grim conditions of typical shelters, where animals can become so agitated or depressed that they seem ill-tempered and, thus, “unadoptable” by old school animal control reckoning. By transforming our animal shelters into places of hope and life, instead of despair and doom, odds are we can measurably increase adoption rates.

The “no-kill” ethic is a matter of taking responsibility, instead of excusing the problem or hiding its consequences. More and more communities are moving steadily in this direction.

But no matter how you do the math, still too many creatures who have love and devotion to offer, are never given the chance. And calling the practice euthanasia (as some prefer), instead of killing (as others prefer), doesn’t make it any kinder.

The good news is we are making significant progress, and we have many fine allies in the cause. There are hundreds of groups across the United States dedicated to finding homes for needy animals and to helping sterilize those animals who otherwise might contribute to the pet overpopulation problem. These compassionate, idealistic people show us the way forward.

The practice of killing animals for lack of shelter space has never been anyone’s idea of an ideal solution – let alone anyone’s idea of giving “shelter” to creatures in need. And, up close, the willful elimination of healthy animals with good years left is a sight to move the hardest heart. It is time for every local animal control program to make this commitment: No animal that comes through those doors will be killed out of convenience or a lack of space. For every one of them, there is somewhere a kind and loving person or family, and it is our mission to bring them together.

What did Mayor Villaraigosa learn?

2010-04-10T07:58:00.000-07:00

The challenge before the Mayor now is finding a person willing to risk his/her career to come to a community where performance expectations is driven by outside forces making narrow and extreme demands.

A wise man once admonished us to “Beware when all men speak well of you.” Well, the good news is that there is little chance of that ever happening in Los Angeles. In LA we have an ample supply of critics, (arm chair activists), who in the words of Teddy Roosevelt, ever live to “point out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better,” while they themselves never lift a finger to help in any meaningful way.

However, Roosevelt goes on to say, and I paraphrase, that the real “credit belongs to LA Animal Services’ employees, volunteers and rescue partners who are actually in the arena, whose faces are marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strive valiantly, who err and come up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but they know the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, because they spend themselves for a worthy cause; who, at the best, know, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if they fail, at least they fail while daring greatly, so that their place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."

Such a cold and timid soul recently opined in a pusillanimous letter to the editor of the LA Daily News that, “As we approach the one year anniversary of the resignation of Animal Services General Manager Ed Boks, it doesn't appear that Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has learned much… He hired a high profile animal shelter general manager without consulting the stakeholders, namely [me, Daniel Guss]…”

As Mr. Shayne Micklich from Studio City pointed out in a follow up letter to the editor, the general tenor of Guss’ letter sounded “like a veiled threat by the radical animal groups that have terrorized elected officials and employees throughout the tenure of a number of past general managers, not just Ed Boks. The argument that [Guss et al] have sufficient technical knowledge to select the person to run this major multi-shelter city agency is like saying that security guards have the expertise to select the police chief.”

Many wonder why Guss is so hateful in his criticisms of the department; it seems so personal, I am often told. In fact, it is. Guss started attacking the City the day after I explained to him that there was no budget for a public information position that he had been trying to carve out for himself for the past several years; upon learning that he went from supporter to nemesis overnight.

Nevertheless, putting Guss’ irresponsible threats and antics aside, the question, did the mayor learn anything from my tenure? deserves an answer. And it can be answered by the Mayor himself, “Under Boks’ leadership this City revamped the way we treat and care for our pets and animals. The ‘no kill’ policy became a central component of our animal services strategy. Pet adoptions are up, shelters expanded at a rapid rate, and ‘spay and neuter’ has become more than just a call to action; it is the law in Los Angeles. We look forward to building on his legacy and continuing to make LA Animal Services the gold standard for pet protection.”

Despite Guss’ allegations to the contrary, a great deal was accomplished over the past four years, not the least of which was transforming the department into the most successful municipal pet adoption program in the nation (nearly 27,000 adoptions annually); successfully opening six new state-of-the-art animal care centers; establishing the Department’s first ever Strategic Plan; updating and standardizing policies and procedures to ensure a well-run Department; assembling the finest animal care and control medical and executive teams in the nation (who even now continue to identify and correct long-term organizational empowerment and accountability issues); and most gratifying to me, achieving the lowest euthanasia rates in the Department’s recorded history with every reason to expect continued improvement.

Amazingly, this was all accomplished during a time when the Department experienced its largest, fastest, and most historic growth in service demand; increasing shelter capacity over 250% and staffing 100%. This is comparable to recruiting, hiring, training and building a brand new department while running the existing one; no easy feat in the best of times. Over the past four years, LA Animal Services found its balance in an environment of severe budget cuts, an unprecedented demand for expansion of services, and a severe staffing shortage.

The only challenge before the Mayor now is finding a person willing to risk his/her career to come to a community where performance expectations for LA Animal Services is driven by outside forces making narrow and extreme demands. Although small in number, these people are media savvy and love the attention. They use intimidation, false accusations, and violence to forcibly divert attention from the broad causes of the pet overpopulation crisis in the City. They refuse to acknowledge the real challenges the City faces or the progress the City is making in modernizing the department and saving animals in a sincere and committed effort to make Los Angeles the first major metropolitan “no-kill” city in the United States.

While Guss seems to foolishly think the rancorous environment he creates will improve his City job aspirations, he is actually putting at risk the recruitment of talented individuals. It is time he put the animals in need in Los Angeles above his personal ambitions. It is time to stop wasting the time and energy of staff, volunteers, law enforcement, and elected officials and focus on the real work of understanding and solving pet guardianship issues in Los Angeles.

No-Kill is achievable in LA - but not as a house divided. Division is a tool of those who want to conquer and subjugate. We can and should be working together. Three local foundations have already incorporated the attached No-Kill Plan into their strategic initiatives. Click here to learn how we all can all better align our best efforts to achieve No-Kill in LA!

Competing Priorities

2010-04-09T09:12:00.000-07:00

During difficult economic times, many communities find the care of lost and homeless animals complicated by a host of competing priorities.

When evaluating competing priorities one’s focus often turns to the bottom line. When that happens, the real questions, the questions of conscience concerning animal care can be overlooked.

In urban communities it is easy to lose touch with nature and the intrinsic value of animals. If we’re not careful, we can forget that companion animals are beings with needs and wants and purpose.

When confronted with all of the issues and problems involved with creating a pleasant urban environment, it is not difficult to understand how decision makers can feel strongly that human need and wants are more important to a community than animal needs and wants.

When this happens, animal care can be reduced to a simple equation of what’s affordable, profitable or expedient. We can almost fool ourselves into thinking we are dealing with widgets instead of lives.

It is at this decision point that we as a community find ourselves engaged in a true test of our character.

Indian Prime Minister Mahatma Gandhi, whose image we honor in Union Park Square in New York City, taught that the true nature of a community’s character is revealed in the way that community treats their animals. In other words, animal care is a measure of a community’s capacity for human empathy, compassion, and kindness.

How a community treats lost and homeless companion animals defines what that community is teaching its next generation about love, compassion and mercy.

Matthew Scully, senior speech writer for President Bush and author of the book Dominion, put it this way: “We are called upon to treat animals with kindness, not because they have rights or power or some claim to equality, but because they don’t; because they all stand unequal and powerless before us.

Animals are so easily overlooked, their interests so easily brushed aside. Whenever we humans enter their world, from our farms to the local animal shelter to the African savanna, we enter as lords of the earth bearing strange powers of terror and mercy alike.”

In New York City, Los Angeles and many other communities across the nation we are on the brink of an exciting and historic accomplishment; ending the terror of pet euthanasia as a form of pet overpopulation control.

That is not to say there are no higher priorities or that we won’t be distracted by greater needs or injustices.

To this point, Scully points out there will always be enough injustices and human suffering in the world to make the wrongs done to animals seem small and secondary. But we err in thinking of justice as a finite commodity. It is not, nor is kindness and love.

It is dangerous to think a community has just enough compassion for its elderly but not its children, or just enough love for its children but not it’s poor.

Is it easy to think only of the value of human life? Albert Schweitzer warns that, “Anyone who has accustomed himself to regard the life of any living creature as worthless is in danger of arriving also at the idea of worthless human lives."

We compound the wrongs within our character when we excuse the wrongs done to animals by saying that more important wrongs are done to human beings and we must concentrate on those alone.

A wrong is a wrong, and when we shrug off these little wrongs we do grave harm to ourselves and others.

“When we wince at the suffering of animals, that feeling speaks well of us even when we ignore it, and those who dismiss love for our fellow creatures as mere sentimentality overlook a good and important part of our humanity.” (Scully: Dominion)

So, how do we balance all the competing priorities vying for our attention and resources?

The great philosopher Yogi Berra provided the answer when he said, “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.”

When we come to competing priorities such as summer youth programs or animal care, lets take it as an opportunity to implement a Teach Love and Compassion (TLC) program that meets the needs of both our kids and our pets.

TLC is just one example of how we as a community can walk and chew gum at the same time. Choosing priorities need not be either/or it can be both. One part of our community need not suffer because we feel we have to choose another to help.

Your local animal control can implement programs designed to address the needs of your community. Big Fix, FELIX, STAR, Safety Net are a few examples of the role animal care can play in displaying the type of character we would want to see replicated in our children.

What is exciting about these types of animal control programs is that they truly exemplify the character of our community. They exist because of the love and compassion of people who care about the entire circle of life in our communities, a circle that includes our pets.

Ed Boks E-Mails Reveal Mandatory S/N Law Failures - The Truth

2010-04-07T19:36:00.000-07:00

Recently Nathan Winograd mischaracterized a portion of an email from me as suggesting LA’s spay/neuter law is a failure. This is typical of the divisive sniping endemic in all of Nathan’s self-aggrandizing philosophy.

The email quotes a portion of an email that says, “we can’t hide from the fact that veterinarians are raising their prices to a point where people cannot afford the services regardless of vouchers or financial assistance. We need some innovative thinking in addition to more mobile vans.”

Identifying this problem and developing a response is appropriate, and I am thankful that the Coalition for Pets & Public Safety took this admonition to heart and recently added another spay/neuter vehicle to the several already serving Los Angeles. Yet Nathan attempts to malign these types of strategic initiatives by obfuscating the facts with this slanted narrative: “Ed Boks made headlines in his support of a California sterilization law, Assembly Bill 1634. During legislative hearings, Boks admitted that the legislation was more about expanding the bureaucratic power of animal control than saving animals when a Senator asked: ‘Mr. Boks, this bill doesn’t even pretend to be about saving animals, does it?’ To which Boks responded: ‘No Senator, this is not about saving dogs and cats.’

Nathan conveniently quotes only the first portion of my response. The entire quote was, “No Senator, this is not about saving dogs and cats ALREADY IN THE SHELTER, it is about saving untold lives in the future by ensuring they are never born.”

Nathan then transitions to attacking the results of a successful spay/neuter ordinance in the City of Los Angeles, claiming I “demanded more officers to enforce it, and was granted over $400,000 in enforcement money to do so, money that was taken away from truly lifesaving programs. The end result was predictable. Almost immediately, LAAS officers threatened poor people with citations if they did not turn over the pets to be killed at LAAS, and that is exactly what occurred. For the first time in a decade, impounds and killing increased – dog deaths increase 24%."

What a horrific lie! What is the reason for such sensational fiction? In fact, LA Animal Services’ budget was reduced after the passing of this ordinance, and the department was the only City department at risk of a layoff of officers. While the dog euthanasia rate did increase 6% over the past year (NOT 24%) the intake rate also rose from 31,082 to 31,953 as a result of the economic down turn NOT BECAUSE OF THE ORDINANCE. All across the United States shelters are experiencing an increase in intakes as a result of the economy, but it seems to serve Nathan’s business purpose to vilify LA’s spay/neuter law.

After much tortured reasoning, Nathan claims I fault the spay/neuter ordinance for his exaggerated claim regarding an increase in killing, quoting an email from me that said, “the failure of our programs… explains why no progress has been made in reducing cat intakes in recent years.” He deliberately misses the point - I was NOT criticizing the spay/neuter ordinance, I was pointing out the failure of LA’S spay/neuter voucher programs and I was suggesting restructuring the program to better target animals most in need. In fact, the number of cat deaths has actually decreased 5.6% since passage of the spay/neuter ordinance.

For a detailed explanation of my proposal to restructure the Voucher program, click here.

Nathan sadly continues: “…to defray blaming the spay/neuter law for increased impounds, Boks and his killing apologists in Los Angeles… blamed the economy. But the data did not bear out the claim. While the City of Los Angeles had one of the lowest foreclosure rates (1.79) at the time, it saw killing increase following the passage of its spay/neuter law.”

Nathan has the luxury to pick and choose the facts that support his presuppositions. He shoots his arrows and then paints a target around them. While the foreclosure rate for Los Angeles might have been 1.79%, the animals most at risk in Los Angeles come from the East Valley and South LA where foreclosures have seen rates as high as 2.23% compared to the national average of 2.04%.

It is truly pitiable that Nathan has chosen as his guiding business principal Oscar Wilde’s self-effacing precept that, “It is not enough that I succeed; my friends must also fail.” If he would spend as much time helping communities as he does sowing strife we would all be that much closer to achieving No-Kill.

Ohio Effort to Ban Puppy Mills and Dog Auctions Disrupted by Opponents

2010-03-29T07:47:00.000-07:00

A meeting at Millersburg, Ohio, aimed at training and educating supporters of a possible bill that would ban dog auctions in Ohio was canceled Saturday after opponents disrupted the meeting.

Millersburg Police and Holmes County Sheriff's deputies were called to the Holmes County Library this past Saturday morning where a "town hall meeting" was being held by the Coalition to Ban Ohio Dog Auctions to talk about possible legislation.

Opponents of the proposed legislation gathered outside the front entrance of the library to hand out literature titled "The Animal Rights Agenda," with one section highlighted in blue, stating: "You are attending today's "Town Hall Meeting" to discuss plans for a ballot initiative to shut down dog auctions in Ohio. There is only one such auction in Ohio. This initiative is a direct attack on that private business which is operated in Holmes County; and literally hundreds of your fellow citizens depend on this auction to either purchase or market their dogs and to obtain new bloodlines or offer new bloodlines to other breeders."

Mary O' Connor-Shaver, treasurer for the Coalition to Ban Ohio Dog Auctions, said the group has organized meetings in more than 14 counties and never had it "disrupted" like it was Saturday. She said the information contained in the flier was "sensationalism."

"The auction is serving as a distribution channel for disreputable buyers and sellers, and we feel it's not been good for the state, whether it's Holmes County or any other county, Ohio suffers as a result of these auctions and it's not any good," she said.

The Ohio Dog Auctions Act would be similar to a Pennsylvania law and would establish a statute to the Ohio Dog Law making it illegal for anyone to auction or raffle a dog in Ohio. It also would prohibit bringing dogs into the state for sale or trade that were acquired by auction of raffle elsewhere. Supporters are hoping to get it on the November 2011 ballot.

O'Connor-Shaver said the Hamilton County - Coalition Meeting on Ohio Dog Auctions Act has been rescheduled for Saturday, April 3 at 10:00 a.m. at the SPCA Cincinnati, Sharonville.

For more information on the Ohio effort to ban puppy mills and dog auctions visit: http://www.banohiodogauctions.com/

http://www.edboks.com/

Duluth animal shelter adopts no-kill goal

2010-03-28T11:00:00.000-07:00

The Duluth Animal Shelter and Animal Allies Humane Society are announcing a joint goal of not euthanizing a single healthy animal starting this year.

When Duluth Animal Control Officer Carrier Lane took her job in the early ’90s, the conditions she found at the city animal shelter were nothing short of deplorable, she said.

Animals were rarely let out of their cages, weren’t being spayed and neutered, and a dozen — if not dozens of — healthy animals were euthanized each day.

“That was easily the hardest part of the job,” Lane said.

But things have improved so much that the shelter and Animal Allies Humane Society are announcing a joint goal of not euthanizing a single healthy animal starting this year.

“If we can make that part of our job go away,” Lane said, “that would really help us. And separate from us, it’ll be good for the animals.”

That may not seem like such a challenge, but nationally the rate of animals euthanized at shelters can be up to 40 percent for dogs and 70 percent for cats, according to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

Euthanizing healthy animals at one point was a major problem in Duluth, said Animal Allies executive director Jim Filby Williams, who said about 25 years ago that 1,500 were euthanized in a single year. Last year, the number was 59.

The total of euthanized animals last year, 344, is thought to be a record low for the city.

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/163836/

http://www.edboks.com/

Puppy Mills Don't Play in Peoria

2010-03-28T06:53:00.000-07:00

The saying, "Will it play in Peoria?" is traditionally used as a metaphor to ask whether a given product, person, promotional theme, or event will appeal to mainstream America. The following article suggests “puppy mills” and related "puppy mill events" do not “play in Peoria”. Let's hope this is a good portent for the rest of the nation that this horrific industry will soon be a thing of the past:

Activists cheer cancellation of puppy expo

Missouri business denied license to sell dogs in Peoria
By CATHARINE SCHAIDLE (cschaidle@pjstar.com) OF THE JOURNAL STAR

PEORIA — Animal rights activists claimed victory this week when a puppy expo planned for this weekend at Exposition Gardens was canceled.

Lauren Malmberg, director of the Peoria Animal Welfare Shelter, said Wednesday the event was canceled after the organizers' application for a transient business license to sell puppies in Peoria was denied.

"We were notified on the 18th that application had been made and discovered they were out of state," Malmberg said.

Organizers Joy Thomas, Judy Hodge-Smith and Kae Sherrill, operating under the business K9 Kabin, are from Missouri.

"I called the ag department to confirm they did not have the appropriate license to operate in Illinois as a dog dealer, or kennel or pet shop operator, so I consulted with our legal department," Malmberg said. "We denied their application based on the fact they did not hold a state license."

K9 Kabin officials could not be reached to respond to comments by Malmberg and others. But even if K9 Kabin had been granted a license, the owners probably would have met a hostile atmosphere in Peoria. Dozens of animals rights activists had been e-mailing and calling each other to protest its operation as soon as the advertisement appeared Sunday in the classified section of the Journal Star, Malmberg said.

A group called The Puppy Mill Project that monitors puppy sales has been mobilizing members all across the state.

The K9 Kabin group is licensed through the U.S. Department of Agriculture as a commercial dog breeder.

Activists had planned to stage a protest at Expo Gardens in Peoria.

"This is not the first time we've stopped a puppy expo," said Cari Meyers, who runs The Puppy Mill Project, based in Chicago. "I have a group of 150 warriors as I call them, and with phone calls and e-mails, about 900."

One of the "warriors" is Doris Mueller of Peoria, who formed Peoria Area Voices for Animals three years ago.

"We were just going to be holding signs and getting people to be aware of the situation and not be impulsive buyers," Mueller said about the protest they had planned. "The public doesn't have a chance to see the parents. Puppy mill puppy problems don't manifest themselves until the dogs are much older."

Animal rights activists use the term puppy mill to refer to commercial breeders with USDA licenses.

"They have hundreds of dogs which live outside in cages with wire flooring, and they are all bred to be sold," Meyers said.

Meyers said her group, in conjunction with other advocates from Illinois, did some investigation and found the Missouri-based K9 Kabin's owners had several U.S. Department of Agriculture violations.

"This has got to stop," Meyers said. "They are running puppy mills."

A recent report by Missouri's Better Business Bureau found that 30 percent of federally licensed dog breeders are located there, four times the number of breeders in the next-highest state.

http://www.pjstar.com/news/x905411668/Activists-cheer-cancellation-of-puppy-expo

http://www.edboks.com/

Volunteers Open Kitten Room at No-Kill Shelter

2010-03-27T12:38:00.000-07:00

A fresh paint job, a new floor and custom-built furniture aren't among things that a cat generally holds in high regard.

However, volunteers at Jeffersonville's Animal Protection Association, are hoping it's something that potential pet owners will.

The association – a non-profit and no-kill shelter on 11th Street in Jeffersonville – is putting the finishing touches on its kitten nursery with such improvements. The shelter is not like many others in that most of the cats roam free, climbing around cat trees and other furniture, instead of spending their hours behind bars.

“We wanted to make it cute and inviting for adopters and make it homelike for the cats,” said Susan Hammon, a volunteer who helped decorate the kitties' new digs. “The idea is that the cats are in this house, essentially running free.”

And it's not as though they have the full run of the building. There are rooms and some cages in which some of the cats are contained.

Andy Scott, of Louisville-based Candor Construction, volunteered to build the wooden boxes, beds and cage for the new kitten nursery.

“It was a lot of fun,” he said, noting that it became a project for he and his two sons. “I love to build stuff.”

Hammon said the room is being completed as spring time usually brings a lot of new tabby tenants and siamese squatters.

“Anytime now, we're expecting a flood of kittens,” she said.

Currently, according to association president Faye Hinton, the organization has about 40 cats, not all of which are at the shelter. In a given year it finds homes for about 200 cats, she said.

Those interested in adopting at cat can call (812) 283-6555 for an appointment. The shelter also has adoption hours between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays at 702 East Eleventh Street, Jeffersonville.

http://news-tribune.net/homepage/x769243227/Volunteers-open-kitten-room-at-no-kill-shelter-in-Jeffersonville

http://www.edboks.com/

NASCAR Driver plans No-Kill shelter

2010-03-27T10:07:00.000-07:00

Friends of the Animals, a non-profit group chaired by NASCAR driver Greg Biffle and his wife, Nicole, plan to build a 1.5-acre no-kill animal and education center will include a low-cost spay and neuter clinic.

The center will be in the planned $800 million Langtree at the Lake community off Interstate 77 Exit 31 in south Iredell, the Biffles announced this afternoon.

Friends of the Animals hopes the center will open within two years.

The animal sanctuary will house 150 animals -- 60 cats and 90 dogs -- that will be available for adoption.

The animal education and community center will also be available to churches, community groups and the public for birthday parties and meetings.

Langtree’s developers, including Rick Howard, CEO of The Langtree Group, are allowing Friends of the Animals to use green space fin the development or a community dog park and walking trails.

“Friends of the Animals searched for several years to find a location that would be easy for the public to access,” NIcole Biffle said in announcing the shelter plans. “ If the location is easy and friendly, we know it will increase adoptions and spay/ neuters for the animals.”

Nicole Biffle is president of the Friends of the Animals’ board or directors.

Langtree at the Lake will include lakeside condominiums, village-center lofts, specialty shops and boutiques, restaurants and small cafés and Class A office space. The development will also have 40 acres of green space, including : 2 1/2 miles of walking trails around a man-made lake and over a mile of Lake Norman shoreline.

Read more: http://www.thatsracin.com/2010/03/26/30487/nascar-driver-plans-no-kill-shelter.html#ixzz0jOhGXprY

http://www.edboks.com/

Austin City Council adopts "No-Kill" plan

2010-03-27T01:20:00.000-07:00

The Austin City council voted unanimously March 11 in favor of a plan to reduce animal euthanizations, and also approved a $12 million contract to build a new animal shelter in east Austin.

The ‘no-kill’ plan aims to reduce euthanizations to 10 percent of the animal shelter population, down from about one-third now. City staff estimated the euthanization rate could be achieved within approximately two years. The city proposed moving toward a no-kill shelter program in 1997.

The reduced euthanization plan involves about 35 ideas, including more free sterilizations, expanded foster care programs and off-site adoption programs. If implemented the plan would cost about $1 million per year, tentatively. Many of the measures could be implemented at no cost, and council members did not commit to allocating any funding.

As part of the plan, council members approved a $12 million contract to build a new animal shelter at the Betty Dunkerley Campus of the city’s Health and Human Services Department, located at 7201 Levander Loop.

The new facility is scheduled to be finished by summer 2011, replacing he Town Lake Animal Center, 1156 W. Cesar Chavez St. Voters approved funding the new facility in a 2006 bond election.

City staff recommended keeping the Town Lake facility open for six months after the opening of the new facility.

http://www.edboks.com/

Ed Boks

2010-01-14T17:50:00.000-08:00

You can contact Ed Boks at ed@edboks.com or visit http://www.edboks.com/

Background: Boks began his animal welfare career while serving as a Pastor with Grace Chapel of Phoenix (1976/1997) where he also served as principal and high school teacher at The Centers for Learning, a K-12 private school associated with Grace Chapel. From 1985 to 1995, Boks concurrently worked with Maricopa County Animal Care & Control where he worked his way up the organizational ladder to Chief of Staff. Retiring from the ministry in '95, Boks focused on establishing and enforcing unique life-saving animal care, control and anti-cruelty policies and programs in 24 cities and towns and the unincorparated Maricopa County (an area larger than 17 states).

Boks left animal welfare for several years when he was recruited to develop and manage the Maricopa County Management Institute (1995/1998), a program recognized by Governing Magazine as one reason for Maricopa County’s selection as the “best run municipality in the United States”. The Institute was accredited by Arizona State University and Boks received a National Association of Counties (NACo) Achievement Award for the program.

Boks’ blend of ministerial and management experience soon caught the eye of Maricopa County Chief Administration Officer, David Smith, who asked Boks to return to an ailing Animal Care & Control as executive director (1998/2003). During this time, the Department became known as the most innovative and progressive animal control program in the nation. Boks transformed the Department into the highest volume pet adoption agency in the United States, while achieving the lowest pet euthanasia rate in its recorded history. He led the Department through its first Strategic Planning process; built a coalition of nearly 100 Arizona based animal welfare organizations; negotiated cost-recovery contracts with 20 cities (which more than doubled revenue and ended decades of deficit-based budgeting); established the nation’s first municipal no-kill Pet Adoption Center; founded Maricopa County Friends of Animal Care & Control as a fund raising auxiliary; helped obtain $6 million in grants; managed an $8 million operational budget, two 24/7 animal care centers, and 150 employees.

Boks received the first ever Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Award for Outstanding Leadership for his “outstanding leadership as the director of Maricopa County Animal Care & Control”. He also received his first Life Time Achievement Award - presented by In Defense of Animals for his “extraordinary life of compassion, commitment and achievement dedicated to ending animal homelessness and providing compassionate care for homeless animals.”

Boks’ success in Maricopa County was noticed by the Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, who recruited Boks to New York (2003/2006) where he propelled a second struggling animal care and control agency into becoming the highest volume pet adoption program in the United States, with the lowest pet euthanasia rates in the Department’s recorded history. Boks built a coalition of over 160 northeastern based animal welfare organizations; helped obtain over $15 million in grants; led the Department through its first Strategic Planning process; enrolled unprecedented community support; and managed an $8 million operational budget, three 24/7 animal care centers, and 150 employees.

Boks actually served as Executive Director of Maricopa County and New York City Animal Care & Control simultaneously for six months in 2003, managing the two of the largest animal control programs in the nation at the same time. Permitting this unprecedented arrangement is evidence of both Maricopa County and New York City’s confidence in Boks. At the conclusion of his tenure with New York City, Boks received his second Lifetime Achievement Award presented by the Friends of Animal Care & Control in New York City “for a career of extraordinary life saving work”. While in New York, Boks also received Alley Cat Allies National Award for Excellence for “transforming the way communities care for feral cats.”

When leaving New York City, Boks' boss, Public Health Commissioner, Dr. Thomas Frieden, M.D., M.P.H., (recently appointed by President Obama to serve as the director of the Center for Disease Control) had this to say: “At the time Mr. Boks was brought on as executive director, Animal Care and Control was in need of major improvement. Faced with significant challenges, Mr. Boks brought a new vision and energy to the organization, especially in the pursuit of making New York a no-kill city. Under his leadership, Animal Care and Control has made progress in improving conditions in animal shelters, increasing adoption rates, improving public perception of the organization, and growing the volunteer program. Mr. Boks was a key player in setting Animal Care and Control in a new direction and served effectively as a turnaround CEO. Mr. Boks is energetic, intelligent, knowledgeable and deeply committed to the field of animal welfare.”

Boks’ left New York City at the request of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa who asked Boks to serve as general manager of LA Animal Services (2006/2009). Once again, Boks transformed yet another department into becoming the highest volume pet adoption program in the nation, with the lowest pet euthanasia rates in its recorded history. Boks opened and staffed six LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Certified animal care centers (a $160 million project); led the Department’s first Strategic Planning process; updated and standardized all policies and procedures; recruited and managed the most progressive shelter veterinary program in the nation; recruited a record number volunteers; helped establish the Animal Cruelty Task Force; built a coalition of over 140 Los Angeles based animal welfare organizations; played an instrumental role in the development of two animal welfare television programs; helped author the nation's most ambitious spay/neuter law, managed a $22 million budget, seven 24/7 animal care centers, and 450 employees.

While with LA Animal Services, Boks was honored by Voice For The Animals for “his commitment to protecting the welfare of animals in Los Angeles” and by The Pet Place Television Show for “his coming to the aid of animals and displaying selfless acts of courage, heroism and compassion.”

Concerning Boks’ tenure with LA Animal Services, Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa said, "Under Boks’ leadership this City revamped the way we treat and care for our pets and animals. The ‘no kill’ policy became a central component of our animal services strategy. Pet adoptions are up, shelters expanded at a rapid rate, and ‘spay and neuter’ has become more than just a call to action; it is the law in Los Angeles. We look forward to building on his legacy and continuing to make [Los Angeles] the gold standard for pet protection.”

Boks' approach incorporates strategic planning with organizational development. His strengths include Visioning; Strategic Planning; Public Relations; Communication (Oral and Written); Team Building; Recruitment; High Performance and Transparent Management; Contract Negotiation; Public Speaking; Consulting; Teaching and Training; Curriculum Development; Lobbying; Multi-Million Dollar Capital Project Management; and large scale Animal Welfare Program Management.

Since July 2009, Boks has served as a consultant to both Foundations and municipalities; facilitating strategic planning processes, Board development, crafting business plans, and lobbying. If you would like to contact Mr. Boks, he can be reached at ed@edboks.com.

To Declaw or Not to Declaw

2009-11-03T17:55:00.000-08:00

I have been asked to explain my comments at a recent Santa Monica City Council meeting. The Council was deliberating over whether or not to enact a Ban against Cat Declawing within the city limits of Santa Monica. A similar measure was defeated in Malibu two weeks earlier.

My position is a difficult one, but an honest one and I think my comments speak for themselves. I don't stand alone in my position, it is shared by the San Francisco SPCA who released the following statement, "Our mission is to save animals’ lives and we understand that, in some instances, [declawing] may be the only way to prevent abandonment, relinquishment, or euthanasia."

The San Francisco SPCA issued the above statement denouncing San Francisco's move to ban declaws even though the group advocates against the procedure. Being against a Ban is NOT being for declawing. I share the SF SPCA's concern that frustrated owners with no option to declaw cats will be forced to decide to abandon or relinquish their pet.

“Keep it legal, keep it rare” is the position of virtually every national animal welfare and veterinary association. It is also the position of most shelters committed to reducing the number of animals killed in their communities. The suggestion that most European countries have already enacted a ban is disingenuous.

Click on this link to read the Los Angeles Chief Legislative Analyst Report to the LA City Council. The CLA busted three myths propagated by Ban Proponents. He found that declawing is "not cruel" (a position I am not prepared to take). He found that declawed cats relinquished to LA shelters are "a rarity". And he called into question the City's authority to oversee the practice of veterinary medicine, and said that even if the City has this authority, it does not have the resources or staff to do so.

To further clarify my "last resort", and I do mean LAST RESORT position, I am sharing my comments from the recent Santa Monica City Council meeting with links to documents that help explain and support my position. Again, I do NOT support declawing, however, I don't support a Ban either because of the unintended consequences that are sure to follow:

"Good evening. My name is Ed Boks and I am here as an animal welfare advocate with nearly 30 years experience in animal care and control and over 12 years experience managing three of the largest animal shelter systems in the United States, including New York City and Los Angeles. As an experienced shelter manager, I can tell you that an uncompromising ban on cat declawing in the City of Santa Monica will result in more cats abandoned on your streets and more cats relinquished and killed in your shelter.

Like Ban Proponents, I abhor the practice of Declawing, but I abhor the abandoning, relinquishing and killing of cats even more, and I’m here to tell you that is what a Ban will lead to.

It is interesting that you are told that Declawing is mutilation by the same people who embrace other forms of mutilation! Some Ban Proponents approve cutting the tip off the ear of otherwise healthy feral cats for the convenience of being able to identify them in a colony.

Other Ban Proponents promote invasive surgery for the convenience of reducing dog and cat populations; another form of mutilation in the minds of some.

And probably everyone in this room, on both sides of this debate will agree that these forms of “mutilation” are acceptable. Why? Because we know they save lives!

In the same way, when a veterinarian performs a declaw surgery as a last resort she is saving a life! You take that life-saving option away from a cat guardian and you will force them to relinquish their pets to a shelter, who, at a cost to the City, will try to re-home them, and if they can’t - these cats will be killed. Why, when we are all trying so hard to end the killing in our shelters, would we want to create another reason to kill?

In Malibu, Mayor Stern voted against a Ban explaining that he would have taken his cat to the Pound if he couldn’t have her declawed because his wife’s health is at serious risk to a cat scratch. Thank God he had this option!

Please don’t limit the life-saving tools available to licensed veterinarians or second guess their professional judgment.

When performed as a last resort, declawing is a life saving remedy that keeps cats and people together, cats who might otherwise be subject to abuse, abandonment, or death.

Please vote NO to a Ban. A No Vote is a life saving vote. Thank you."

For more information on this difficult issue, visit: http://www.advocatesforfacts.org/Cat_Declawing.html

The Truth About Black Cats and Holloween

2009-10-12T07:06:00.000-07:00

Black cats are awaiting adoption from local shelters this Halloween. Yet some shelters do not adopt out black or white cats in October for fear they will be tortured or used as a Halloween decoration or part of a costume.Each year animal shelters are faced with either holding the cats until after the holiday or euthanizing them. Because there is little documentation of animal tortures and a growing number of cats, animal shelters should adopt them out.

In the entire history of humane work, no one has ever documented or demonstrated any relationship between adopting out either black or white cats, or cats of any other color, and cats being killed or injured. There are no studies of the matter, and no relevant data. According to ANIMAL PEOPLE the belief that adopting out black or white cats to "witches" will result in ill consequences for the cat may be traced to three sources:

"1) Ignorance of the actual beliefs and practices of paganism. Witches do not harm their ‘familiars,’ who are supposed to be their eyes and ears in the spirit world. To harm a familiar would be to blind and deafen oneself, regardless of whether one is a ‘white’ witch, a ‘black’ witch, a purple witch, or any other kind of witch.

2) Misunderstanding predator behavior. Alleged sadists and Satanists were sought for purportedly stealing, killing and dismembering cats and dogs in at least nine states as Halloween 1998 approached. The supposed crimes drew sensational media coverage, lent emphasis to humane society warnings against letting pets run at large, and rewards of up to $10,000 were posted in some cases for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the killers.An accurate description of the suspects, however, in all but a handful of the animal deaths and disappearances, would include either four legs and a tail or wings, and none would be either werewolves or griffons.

Similar panics have developed each summer since. They coincide with the emergence of young foxes and coyotes from their mothers' dens and with the first hunting by newly fledged raptors. The panics gain momentum approaching Halloween as public attention to witches, ghouls, goblins, and other things that go bump in the night rises toward a crescendo. The panics virtually stop each year after Halloween distinctly unlike cases involving actual human sadism.

Trained to investigate human-inflicted cruelty, police detectives and humane officers typically have little background in predator behavior. Veterinarians tend to expect --wrongly--that injuries done by coyotes, the most frequent wild predator of pets will resemble those done by domestic dogs. Forensic evidence is thus misread by sincere people, acting in good faith, who incite witch-hunts at possible expense to professional credibility.

Predators, in contrast to human sadists, are astonishingly quick and efficient. Except in instances when predators take disabled but still living prey back to a den or nest to teach young how to kill their own food, predation victims tend to make little sound, if any, rarely even having time to know what hit them.

Predators try to avoid wasting time and energy inflicting unnecessary injuries.Their teeth and claws usually cut more cleanly than any knife. Predators don't leave much blood behind: that's food. If interrupted in mid-attack, they run or take flight with the parts they most want to eat. If able to eat at their leisure, they consume the richest organs, such as the heart, and leave what they don't want.

Coyotes and foxes typically attack small prey such as cats and rabbits from behind and to one side, with a scissors-like jaw snap to the backbone and midsection that frequently cuts the victim in half. If startled, they tend to flee with the larger back half and whatever internal organs come along, leaving the head and forepaws. These are among the cases most often misread by investigators, who mistake the discovery of the head as an indication of ritualistic crime.

Coyotes have an entirely different attack pattern against prey larger than themselves, such as sheep and deer. Against these animals, they go for the throat and belly. They then consume the viscera first.Cats, both wild and domestic, tend to leave inedible organs in a neat pile.

Cats also have the habit of depositing carcasses, or parts thereof, at the doorsteps of other cats or humans they are courting. When cats kill much smaller animals, such as mice, they consume the whole remains, but when they kill animals of almost their own size, such as rabbits, they may leave behind heads, ears, limbs, and even much of the fur.

Tomcats, especially interlopers in another tom's territory, often kill kittens. Instead of eating them, however, kitten-killing toms sometimes play with the carcasses as they would with a mouse, and then abandon the remains in an obvious place, possibly as a sign to both the mother and the dominant tom.

Coyotes, foxes, and both wild and domestic felines often dispatch prey who survives a first strike with a quick skull-crunching bite to the head. ANIMAL PEOPLE actually resolved several panics over alleged sadists supposedly drilling mysterious parallel holes in the skulls of pets by suggesting that the investigators borrow some skulls of wild predators from a museum, to see how the mystery holes align with incisors.

Any common predator, but especially coyotes and raptors, may be involved in alleged ‘skinned alive’ cases. The usual victims are dogs who--perhaps because parts of their bodies were hidden in tall grass--are mistaken for smaller prey. The predator holds on with teeth and/or claws while the wounded victim runs. The result is a set of sharp, typically straight cuts that investigators often describe as "filets." The editor of ANIMAL PEOPLE once witnessed a cat pounce and nearly skin a rabbit in such a case, and unable to intervene in time to prevent the incident, euthanized the victim. The attack occurred and ended within less than 30 seconds.

Raptors tend to be involved in cases where viscera are draped over cars, porches, trees, signs, and mailboxes: they take flight with their prey, or with a road kill they find, and parts fall out. They return to retrieve what they lose only if it seems safe to do so.

Birds, especially crows, account for many cases in which eyes, lips, anuses, and female genitals are removed from fallen livestock. Sometimes the animals have been killed and partially butchered by rustlers. Others are victims of coyotes or eagles. The combined effects of predation and scavenging produce ‘mutilations’ which may be attributed to Satanists or visitors from outer space, but except where rustlers are involved, there is rarely anything more sinister going on than natural predators making a living in their normal way.

3) Fan behavior during some of the first World Series games ever played. Early 20th century New York Giants manager John McGraw was notoriously superstitious, so fans (especially gamblers) would sometimes pitch black cats in front of the Giants' dugout to jinx him. In response to this, some early humane societies suspended adopting out black cats during the World Series, which was and is played just before Halloween.

An informal baseball rule was adopted during this time against continuing a game if an animal is on the field. Major League Baseball, Inc., made this rule official in 1984, after then-Yankees outfielder Dave Winfield threw a ball that killed a seagull during a game in Toronto. The rule has multiple purposes, one of them being to keep expensive ballplayers from getting hurt.”

THE MORE YOU KNOW... HAPPY HALLOWEEN! Keep your pets safe, indoors, and for Heaven’s sake, don’t dress them up or feed them candy.

Cruel Oil

2009-08-04T14:27:00.000-07:00

How Palm Oil Harms Health, Rainforest and Wildlife

What can you do to improve your health while helping to save the environment and wildlife? According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest you can start looking at the ingredients in your food and pass on products containing palm oil. You will be surprised how many products contain palm oil.

According to the Center, Keebler, Oreo, Mrs. Fields, Pepperidge Farm and other companies use palm oil in some of their cookies. Further, they claim it is found increasingly in crackers, pastries, cereals, and microwave popcorn and all Trader Joe’s products...

Not only does palm oil promote heart disease, but the vast plantations that grow oil palm trees contribute to the destruction of the rainforest and wildlife of Southeast Asia. Those side effects are not broadly recognized--and avoided--by governments, food manufacturers, and consumers.

Check out this website for more info: http://www.cspinet.org/palm/

Join the Pet Health Consortium

2009-07-28T09:57:00.000-07:00

The Pet Health Consortium, is a new group forming to educate Congress and the public on the importance and benefits of pet health insurance. Aside from educating the public, among the Consortium’s primary goals is to include pet health insurance as an optional pre-tax benefit provided to employees through Section 125 cafeteria plans. Cafeteria plans commonly include a number of options such as cash/credits, health insurance, medical and flexible spending accounts, adoption and childcare assistance, life insurance, automobile insurance, business travel accident insurance, and 401(k) contributions, etc.

There is no cost to join the Pet Health Consortium. You and your organization may become as actively involved as it chooses to be. It is hoped that organizations would agree to inform their members about the benefits of pet health insurance and the initiative to include the benefit in Section 125. There will be opportunities to become engaged in an advocacy campaign. Those desiring to meet with lawmakers and their staffs are optional. At the very least, Consortium members are asked to demonstrate their support by lending their name to the cause. It is up to each organization to decide how actively engaged it chooses to be.

Once the Consortium has heard from a requisite number of organizations a planning meeting will be scheduled with the individual designated by each group. If your group opts to join the Pet Health Consortium you will need to designate a primary point of contact and email their full name, title, contact information including mailing address, email and phone number to gluke@avma.org. Please respond no later than July 2.

The Pet Health Consortium believes adding pet insurance to cafeteria plans will appeal to the public. Given the opportunity, it is believed pet owners would avail themselves of pet insurance if it were offered as part of a cafeteria plan. Many pets are beloved by their owners and care is of great concern. Their guardians want what’s best for their animals, including access to high quality and affordable veterinary care. Cafeteria plans that include pet insurance will enjoy support among employers who will likely view it as a value-added benefit for their employees.

It is believed this issue will gain traction in Congress as a viable addition to Section 125 as the health care reform debate advances. In addition, there are physiological benefits of pet ownership that positively influence human health including reduced blood pressure, decreased stress hormones and enhanced weight loss for those who walk a dog.

It is hoped that the membership of the Pet Health Consortium is both diverse and inclusive of a broad range of strategic partners who, like NAPHIA and the AVMA are interested in improving pet health and providing affordable options for pet owners.

If you have questions about the Consortium, please contact Gina Luke at AVMA Governmental Relations Division, 202-289-3204, gluke@avma.org.

Possible Solution to Horse-Drawn Carriages in New York City

2009-07-13T11:12:00.000-07:00

Following the traffic-related death of a horse named Spotty in 2006, New York League of Humane Voters (NYLHV) became one of the leading organizations advocating for a ban on horse-drawn carriages. NYLHV strongly believes that horses and traffic cannot co-exist and that the only humane solution is to retire the horses to sanctuaries.

The main argument against a ban on horse-drawn carriages has always been job loss. However, a new organization called New Yorkers for Clean, Livable & Safe Streets (NY-CLASS) proposes replacing horse-drawn carriages with eco-friendly replicas of vintage cars. NY-CLASS claims this 21st century version of the" horseless carriage" is a humane and safe alternative to the horse-drawn carriage and will serve as a model of eco-tourism for cities throughout the world. It will also preserve and create "green" jobs.

This "horseless carriage" solution is viewed as an unprecedented opportunity to help horses while promoting a fun, exciting alternative. You can weigh in by asking the New York City Council to support this innovative proposal by going to http://editor.ne16.com/etapestry/rd.asp?desturl=http://www.ny-class.org&name=Link%202&tapMemberId=6010&tapMailingId=54901 and clicking on the “Take Action” link. By doing so you can help support a safe and humane alternative to the horse carriage industry!

Should Compassion be Outlawed?

2009-07-03T10:15:00.000-07:00

That is the question being debated in Beverly Hills this month. The debate officially began on Wednesday, July 1^st, when a 65-year-old Feral Cat Colony Manager named Katherine Varjian appeared before a judge in the Beverly Hills courthouse charged with the crime of feeding feral cats.

To be sure there are some technical issues regarding the law and Beverly Hills' contract with LA Animal Services, but this case begs a fundamental question, “should compassion be outlawed?”

While I am sure no one in Beverly Hills wants to outlaw compassion, it should be understood that criminalizing the feeding of feral cats does just that. Although municipalities may deliberately or inadvertently outlaw compassion by ordinance, they can never stop it. When compassion is outlawed compassionate people will turn outlaw before denying their better angels. Ms. Varjian may be a case in point.

This case presents Beverly Hills with the opportunity to once again take a national leadership position; just as they did in December, 2008 when they officially became a “Guardian City.” In that decision, the Beverly Hills City Council demonstrated their compassionate intentions by “recognizing animals as Individuals, not objects”, adopting programs designed to “change public attitudes towards animals and provide positive impacts on local communities”, and “decrease animal abuse and abandonment.”

Surely this commitment and this case present a unique opportunity for the City of Beverly Hills to expand the circle of compassion to include feral cats.

What Are Our Choices: Communities typically employ one of three methodologies to deal with feral cats: 1) Do nothing, 2) Eradication, or 3) Trap/Neuter/Return (TNR).

While it is easy to understand why doing nothing has little effect on reducing feral cat populations (and, in fact, encourages growth), it may not be as easy to understand why eradication does not work.

Although some communities continue to employ eradication (“do not feed” "catch and kill") as a remedy, decades of eradication efforts in communities across the United States has irrefutably demonstrated that this methodology does not work. There are two very real biological reasons why eradication fails every time.

Wild animals tend to have strong biological survival mechanisms. Feral cats, which are wild animals, typically live in colonies of six to twenty cats. You often never see all the cats in a colony and it is easy to underestimate the number of feral cats in a neighborhood. When individuals or authorities try to catch cats for extermination this heightens the biological stress on the colony.

This stress triggers two survival mechanisms causing the cats to 1) over breed, and 2) over produce. That is, rather than having one litter of two to three kittens per year, a stressed female could have two or three litters per year of six to nine kittens.

Even if a community was successful in catching and removing all the feral cats from a neighborhood, a phenomenon called "the vacuum effect" would be created.

When some or all the cats in a colony are removed, cats in surrounding neighborhoods gravitate toward the ecological niche vacated. When a colony is removed but the natural conditions (including food sources) remain, the natural deterrents offered by an existing colony of territorial cats evaporate and the neighboring cats quickly enter the newly open territory, bringing with them all the associated annoying behaviors.

As we’ve seen time after time in location after location all over the country, the end result of the "catch and kill" methodology is always the same: The vacated neighborhood quickly finds itself overrun again with feral cats fighting and caterwauling for mates, over breeding, and spraying to mark their new territory. "Catch and kill" never provides a lasting solution and can easily exacerbate the problem.

Albert Einstein defined "insanity" as doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. That is why so many communities are abandoning the failed "catch and kill" methodologies in favor of trying the newest and only humane, non-lethal alternative: TNR (Trap/Neuter/Return).

TNR is being practiced in more and more communities across the United States and around the world with amazing results.

While I was in Maricopa County, TNR was so successful that the County Board of Supervisors enacted a resolution declaring TNR the only viable methodology they would approve for addressing the feral cat problem in this County of 24 cities and towns (including Phoenix) spread out across nearly 1,000 square miles.

While in New York City, we observed a 73% reduction in the number of stray cats impounded in a targeted zip code on the Upper West Side of Manhattan over a 42-month period of practicing TNR. TNR, correctly administered, is the only methodology that guarantees a reduction of the feral cat population in a community.

When TNR is employed effectively, all the feral cats in a neighborhood are trapped, sterilized, and returned to the area where they were trapped. They are returned under the care of a Colony Manager. The Colony Manager is a trained volunteer in the neighborhood willing to feed, water, and care for the colony and watch for any new cats. Once the colony cats are all neutered, new cats tend to be recently abandoned domestics that can be captured and placed for adoption.

Ms. Varjian is a Certified Feral Cat Colony Manager; trained and certified by Dona Cosgrove Baker, President and Founder of the nationally recognized Feral Cat Caretakers' Coalition.

There are many benefits to TNR: 1) TNR prevents the vacuum effect from occurring. 2) TNR dramatically mitigates the troubling behaviors of intact cats: fighting and caterwauling for mates, and spraying for territory. 3) Altered cats provide rat abatement, a service many neighborhoods value, such as the Flower District in Los Angeles, and 4) because feral cats tend to only live one-third their natural life span the problem literally solves itself through attrition, provided TNR is implemented community wide.

TNR also addresses the concern that feral cats tend to create a public nuisance on campuses and in parks. There is an old adage that claims you can't herd cats. In fact, you can herd neutered cats because they tend to hang around the food bowl. Because neutered cats no longer have the urge to breed and prey, they tend to follow the food bowl wherever the Colony Manager takes it. Feral cats can be trained to congregate in campus or park areas out of the way of the public or other wildlife.

When you review LA’s statistics it is clear that free-roaming cats represent our biggest challenge to achieving No-Kill.

Nothing hinders Beverly Hills from joining the City of Glendale and other communities who have already embraced TNR. It is my hope that Katherine Varjian’s case will open the door to a deliberative dialogue on the effectiveness of TNR for our residents, our wildlife and our feral cats.

Citizens interested in voicing their opinion on this matter can attend the next Beverly Hills City Council meeting where the question of reinstating a prohibition on feeding feral cats will be reconsidered. The question is much bigger than feeding or not feeding feral cats. The quesion that needs to be answered is, can we as a community come up with a humane, non-lethal solution to our feral cat problems. I believe the answer is a resounding "Yes".

The next Beverly Hills City Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 4th at 7 p.m. at the Beverly Hills City Council, Rm. 400 (Council Chambers) located at 455 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210.

If you cannot attend you can voice your opinion by contacting your Beverly Hills representative by letter, e-mail, fax or phone. (Phone: 310-285-1013, Fax: 310-275-8159)

Setting the Record Straight

2009-07-02T07:28:00.000-07:00

Over the past few days the LA Daily News misrepresented LA Animal Services on two occasions. The first instance I’ll mention was an article by Rick Orlav entitled, "Valley's horse-rescue plan needs work".

While I’ll agree that all emergency response plans need to be subject to constant review and improvement, the article suggests LA Animal Services’ role in the Sayres Fire is not clearly understood. LA Animal Services was there. LA Animal Services rescued over 400 horses. However, no mention was made of the fact that LA County Animal Care & Control was a no show until the rescue effort was nearly complete.

The only confusion during this entire episode resulted from whether LA Animal Services should go into the County to rescue horses outside of our jurisdiction or wait until County Animal Care & Control arrived. When it was clear horses would be lost if we didn’t act quickly, we of course went in - and as a result no horses were lost.

I made the recommendation to include a representative from Animal Services in the Emergency Operations Center to Councilman Zine nearly two years ago but to date he has taken no action and seems unaware of LA Animal Services critical role in these matters.

LA Animal Services performed exceptionally well and effectively saved hundreds of horses. They should be recognized for this heroic achievement - not criticized for the shortcomings of another department that couldn’t even get there on time.

The next article was an op-ed piece that appeared a few days earlier. I understand editors apply less scrutiny to want-a-be reporters, but LA Animal Services is such an open book that at any time the Daily News could simply have made a phone call to verify the facts before propagating the malicious myths manufactured by a chronic critic.

I refer to the piece entitled, “Finally, the end of an Ed Boks era.” A Department critic attempts to revive an old rumor claiming that I was fired in NYC. I was not fired from Animal Care & Control of New York City. I left that agency voluntarily and at the request of Mayor Villaraigossa to come to LA.

Then the author suggests LA Animal Services is somehow broken and “spiraling out of control” and the only remedy is to follow his inexperienced advice. So, is LA Animal Services broken? Let’s look at the facts.

Keep in mind this partial list of accomplishments was achieved while the Department experienced its most historic growth and most severe budget cuts and staffing shortages simultaneously; a significant challenge for any manager.

Still, we built the highest volume pet adoption program in the nation; achieved the lowest euthanasia rates in the Department’s history; opened six LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Certified animal care centers; increased staff size 100%; and recruited a record number of volunteers.

We firmly established the Animal Cruelty Task Force; improved Pet Shop and Circus Animal Regulations raising the standards for humane care; formed a coalition of over 100 animal welfare organizations to enhance our adoption efforts; produced two animal welfare television programs, and established an exceptional veterinary medical program and executive team.

Not only is LA Animal Services not broken, it is better positioned than ever to help establish LA as the most humane city in the nation.

If you would like to be part of a winning team please consider volunteering with LA Animal Services by clicking here and/or by making a donation to one of LA Animal Services life-saving programs by clicking here.

All Creatures Great and Small

2009-06-28T06:37:00.000-07:00

There is no denying the fact that we have vast power over animals, and with such power comes great responsibility. We can choose to be kind and merciful or cruel and abusive. Kindness and mercy exemplify the best of the human spirit.

Our Moral Duty to Protect Animals

Religious values call upon us to show kindness and mercy to animals. The HSUS Animals and Religion program works with people and institutions of faith to act on these beliefs and advocate for compassionate treatment of animals.

“Animals are more than ever a test of our character, of mankind’s capacity for empathy and for decent, honorable conduct and faithful stewardship. We are called to treat them with kindness, not because they have rights or power or some claim to equality, but in a sense because they don’t, because they all stand unequal and powerless before us.”
Matthew Scully, Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy.

You can learn what the largest religious denominations in the U.S. say about animal protection issues at http://www.humanesociety.org/religion/.

HSUS has produced a compelling 26-minute documentary entitled, "Eating Mercifully". This film examines U.S. industrial animal agriculture from several Christian viewpoints. The film is narrated by Robert P. Marin, Executive Director of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production and features commentaries from:

Elaine and Dale West, Founders Rooterville, A Sanctuary, Inc. Florida
Greg Boyd, Ph.D, President Christus Victor Ministries, Minnesota
Rev. Laura Hobgood-Oster, Ph.D., Southwestern University, Texas
Peter McDonald, owner McDonald Farm, New York
Sister Rosemarie Greco, D.W. Connecticut

You can order a free copy of Eating Mercifully on DVD, or view the film and download adult and teen study guides at www.humanesociety.org/religion.

The Parrots and People Paradox

2009-06-23T20:52:00.000-07:00

The CBS News Sunday Morning show aired an informative segment entitled, Bye, Bye Birdie. This important story describes the perils of parrot ownership.

Should you find this report interesting, you can click on "Share" and email it to your friends and family. (Just wave your cursor over video.) Not only do you share an important story with the ones you love, but you also let CBS know that this is an important story because they count the number of “Shares” forwarded to determine public interest in a story.

You can also let reporter Bill Whitaker and the CBS Sunday Morning news team know you appreciate the story at http://tinyurl.com/mjwkub by selecting “CBS News Sunday Morning" from the drop down menu and expressing your appreciation in the space provided.

For more information on exotic bird exploitation go to: http://www.parrotpress.net/. Mira Tweety, featured in the report welcomes comments or queries about the piece, or parrots as pets. She can be reached at Tweti@ParrotPress.net. You can also purchase an autographed copy of her books, Of Parrots and People and Here, There and Everywhere. Proceeds will help fund a parrot welfare feature documentary already in production.

Food, Inc.

2009-06-17T11:51:00.000-07:00

This past weekend I saw an important film entitled "Food, Inc."

In Food, Inc., filmmaker Robert Kenner lifts the veil on our nation's food industry, exposing the highly mechanized underbelly that's been hidden from the American consumer with the consent of our government's regulatory agencies, USDA and FDA.

Our nation's food supply is now controlled by a handful of corporations that often put profit ahead of consumer health, the livelihood of the American farmer, the safety of workers and our own environment. We have bigger-breasted chickens, the perfect pork chop, insecticide-resistant soybean seeds, even tomatoes that won't go bad, but we also have new strains of e coli--the harmful bacteria that causes illness for an estimated 73,000 Americans annually. We are riddled with widespread obesity, particularly among children, and an epidemic level of diabetes among adults.

Featuring interviews with such experts as Eric Schlosser (Fast Food Nation), Michael Pollan (The Omnivore's Dilemma) along with forward thinking social entrepreneurs like Stonyfield Farm's Gary Hirshberg and Polyface Farms' Joe Salatin, Food, Inc. reveals surprising -- and often shocking truths -- about what we eat, how it's produced, who we have become as a nation and where we are going from here.

Here is what others are saying about this film:

“See it. Bring your kids if you have them. Bring Someone else’s kids if you don’t.
- David Edelstein, NY Magazine

“More than a terrific movie – it’s an important movie.”
- Owen Gleibeman, Entertainment Weekly

“Does for the supermarket what ‘Jaws’ did for the beach.”
- Variety

Food, Inc. opened in these locations June 12:

San Francisco, CA:
Embarcadero Center Cinema 5

West Los Angeles, CA:
Nuart Theatre

New York, NY:
Film Forum

Coming Soon to a Theatre Near You. See it!

Thinking Outside the Boks...

2009-05-19T09:25:00.000-07:00

Since announcing my resignation (effective June 30^th) as general manager of LA Animal Services, I have received a tremendous response from the community and I thank all of you who took the time to contact me with your comments and support.

Even some of the Department’s (and my) most resolute critics expressed their regards. Many thanked me for my years of service, many expressed regrets over my leaving, and some expressed concern for the future of LA Animal Services and the many lost and homeless animals who find their way into our shelters.

While the past several years have been some of the most progressive in the agency’s one hundred year history, I am convinced that its best years lay ahead.

The reason for my confidence is the foundational work we accomplished over the past three-and-a-half years. During this time we built the highest volume pet adoption program in the nation while achieving the lowest pet euthanasia rates in the Department’s recorded history. We opened and staffed six LEED Certified state-of-the-art animal care centers and increased staff size 100%.

We enhanced our training programs and developed the Department’s first Strategic Plan. We updated and standardized all the Department’s policies and procedures. We recruited and managed a record number of volunteers, including a spirited group of professionals to spearhead our historic and effective Spay/Neuter PR campaign.

We firmly established the Animal Cruelty Task Force, partnering with LAPD and the City and County Attorney. We improved the Pet Shop Permitting Rules and Regulations. We built a coalition of over 140 animal welfare organizations. We developed two animal welfare television programs; The Home Shopping Petwork on City Channel 35 and another to be unveiled soon.

We implemented many innovative, life saving programs and partnerships. We built and fully staffed an exceptional shelter medical program. We modernized our website, and developed a culture and respected reputation for transparency.

But most important to the Department’s future success, we established a compassionate performance-based executive team comprised of two exceptional Assistant General Managers, an outstanding Chief Veterinarian, an effective, experienced Volunteer Program Manager, a capable Human Resources Director and a remarkable budget team - all of whom have shown their mettle in a difficult multi-year City budget crisis.

This was all accomplished as the Department experienced its largest, fastest, most historic growth while at the same time sustaining severe budget cuts and staffing shortages.

As I said in my letter of resignation, I am proud of the Department I leave behind. I leave the City of Los Angeles an Animal Services Department committed to improving accountability, effectiveness and correcting long-term organizational empowerment and accountability issues. LA Animal Services is uniquely positioned to help establish the City of Los Angeles as the most humane city in the nation.

While some choose to focus on a spay/neuter fundraising event proposed by Hooters, a worthwhile Pit Bull Academy effort and our wanting to ensure funding existed for ongoing spay/neuter programs, the most important accomplishments went largely unseen and unrecognized. But these accomplishments will be the longest lasting and most telling. LA Animal Services now has a stable infrastructure, an able management team, and a solid foundation on which to truly build a world-class animal welfare organization.

Concerning my resignation, Mayor Villaraigossa kindly said, “Ed deserves our gratitude for his efforts and our best wishes in the years ahead.” For this I am grateful. He then acknowledged not only what was accomplished but what can yet be accomplished: “We look forward to building on his legacy and continuing to make the Department of Animal Services the gold standard for pet protection.”

There is still much work to be done and I trust the entire LA humane community will pull together to keep making things better for the animals. That hope is why I am convinced the Department’s best years are yet to come.

Should LA Abandon Its No-Kill Goal?

2009-05-07T15:42:00.000-07:00

A recent editorial in a local newspaper initiated debate about whether the City of Los Angeles can achieve a No-Kill status and should even be trying to. Instead, the editorial advocated a retreat to focusing on “core functions” such as humane sheltering, law enforcement activities and pet adoption.

No reasonable observer would dispute the importance of accomplishing core functions, but the author of the editorial clearly did not understand the concept of No-Kill as it has been defined in Los Angeles the last few years, and as it is more widely defined in the animal welfare community across the country. No-Kill means ending the use of euthanasia as a means to control pet overpopulation; terminally ill, terminally injured animals and dangerously aggressive dogs are not included in this goal and these animals will, of course, always be humanely euthanized if and when they must be euthanized.

Although the terminally ill, terminally injured and dangerously aggressive animals are not included in achieving the No-Kill goal, these deaths are included in the City’s euthanasia statistics. This skews the discernment of the City’s policymakers and the Department’s constituency of our progress towards achieving this goal.

Can the City of Los Angeles achieve No-Kill? I contend we can, and further, I suggest we are closer than many realize (and that some have been willing to admit). But to be totally successful will take the whole community working together and must include targeted, affordable spay/neuter programs for needy pet owners.

In the drive to achieve No-Kill there are two commonly recognized hurdles to clear. A community’s progress towards No-Kill usually stalls at the first hurdle which is typically found when its pet euthanasia rate is reduced to between 12 and 10 shelter killings per 1,000 human residents annually (13.8 is the current national average).

Once a community achieves this rate, further significant reductions are stalled until the community decides to implement aggressive spay/neuter programs to achieve further euthanasia reduction goals. With effective, targeted spay/neuter programs progress toward the second hurdle can be steady. Clearing the first hurdle becomes apparent after a community has successfully persuaded all the people who are likely to fix their pets to do so.

The challenge then is to persuade the more difficult populations, which include the poor, the elderly on fixed income, individuals with negative attitudes about spay/neuter, people who speak languages other than English, and those who live in relatively remote areas.

The second hurdle in the drive to achieve No-Kill has been characterized as “the wall”. Few communities have been able to break through "the wall". A community hits “the wall” when it reduces its pet euthanasia rate to between 5 and 2.5 shelter killings per 1,000 human residents annually (in 2007, Los Angeles reduced its euthanasia rate to 3.7).

Hitting “the wall” signifies the success of an earlier generation of effectively targeted programs. To break through “the wall” requires a new generation of programs to address the needs of special populations not met by earlier programs, which typically includes bully dog breeds, and feral, domestic and neonate cats.

Breaking through the wall requires comprehensive data collection, assessment, and implementation of programs targeted to meet the special needs of residual populations. Finding more creative and effective ways to reach out to the public and market the adoption of hard-to-place pets becomes an even greater priority, and implementing and maintaining targeted spay/neuter programs remains paramount.

LA has been doing this, and has been doing this successfully for many years, despite the protests of a small group of misinformed, vocal and media savvy critics.

To abandon the No-Kill goal now would be nothing less than criminal. LA is close to becoming the first major metropolitan community to achieve this goal and the eyes of the nation are on us. Once this goal is achieved we will have stripped away from every other community any excuse for continuing to employ killing as a methodology for controlling dog and cat populations. Even in an era of tight budgets and big challenges, LA Animal Services should remain dedicated not only to its so-called core functions, but also to striving toward No-Kill. In fact, this is a city that has made No-Kill a core function. We have no choice but to succeed.

Before deciding to abandon the No-Kill goal please review these reports:

The 2008 LA Animal Services Annual Report:

http://www.laanimalservices.com/PDF/reports/annual/2008%20Statistical%20Report%20LA%20Animal%20Services.pdf

The 2008 National Comparison Report Issued by ANIMAL PEOPLE:

http://www.laanimalservices.com/PDF/reports/annual/ANIMAL%20PEOPLE%20National%202008%20Stats.pdf

The Mayor's Response

2009-04-30T14:46:00.000-07:00

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa released the following statement regarding the resignation of the Department of Animal Services’ General Manager, Ed Boks:

“I thank Ed Boks for his years of service at the Los Angeles Department of Animal Services.

"Under his leadership, this City has revamped the way we treat and care for our pets and animals. The ‘no kill’ policy has become a central component of our animal services strategy. Pet adoptions are up and shelters have expanded at a rapid rate. And ‘spay and neuter’ has become more than just a call to action; it is the law in Los Angeles.

“Ed deserves our gratitude for his efforts and our best wishes in the years ahead. We look forward to building on his legacy and continuing to make the Department of Animal Services the gold standard for pet protection.”

My Letter to Mayor Villaraigosa

2009-04-25T11:18:00.000-07:00

April 24, 2009

The Honorable Antonio R. Villaraigosa
Mayor, City of Los Angeles
200 North Spring Street,
Room 303, City Hall
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Dear Mayor Villaraigosa:

This letter serves as my formal notice of resignation, effective June 30, 2009.

I am proud of the work that LA Animal Services has been able to accomplish over the past three and a half years including, but not limited to, development of the most successful municipal pet adoption program in the nation (over 26,000 adoptions annually); successfully opening six new state-of-the-art animal care centers; embarking on the Department’s first Strategic Planning process (scheduled for completion before I leave); updating and standardizing policies and procedures to ensure a well-run Department; and building the finest animal care and control medical and executive teams in the nation. Gratefully, all of this has successfully contributed to the lowest three years of pet euthanasia rates in the Department’s recorded history with every reason to expect continued improvement.

This was all accomplished while the Department experienced the largest, fastest, and most historic growth in service demand. LA Animal Services is finding its balance in an environment of severe budget cuts, unprecedented demand for expansion of services, and a severe staffing shortage. I am proud of the Department I am leaving behind. I leave you a Department committed to improving accountability and effectiveness and to continuing to identify and correct long-term organizational empowerment and accountability issues.

I have given a great deal of thought to my experience as general manager. As I depart I would like to leave LA residents with a call to action that unifies rather than divides. The greatest challenge to Los Angeles’ No-Kill goal is effective, affordable, convenient spay/neuter options. As a community we must help prevent unwanted pets from being born while our city shelters are filled to capacity with healthy beautiful animals waiting for loving homes. Pet overpopulation is a community problem that requires constructive community involvement and unity to solve.

As I step down, I ask for your assistance in calling LA’s pet loving residents to the following actions:

1. If you have a pet, spay or neuter your pet. It is now the law.
2. If you can help someone who can't afford to spay and neuter their pet, go to www.LAspay.org and make a donation to help provide spay/neuter surgeries.
3. Ask your friends, colleagues and employers to match your donation.
4. If you have room in your home and your heart for a pet, adopt one from your local shelter.
5. If you love your pet, license your pet. The number one reason pets die in shelters is because we can’t find their owners.

It is time LA pulled together to solve this societal problem. I would like to thank you for all of the support that you have shown me and our shared goal of creating a truly humane LA during my tenure with the City of Los Angeles. I've enjoyed working with you and your team, and value the relationship we have built over the years.

Please feel free to contact me in the future if I can ever be of assistance. Thank you once again for giving me the opportunity to serve the City of Los Angeles. It has been an honor.

Sincerely,
Edward A. Boks, General Manager
Department of Animal Services

Calling All Fosters

2009-03-11T13:54:00.000-07:00

There is a fundamental tenet held among most animal welfare and animal rights advocates that we accept as incontrovertible. That precept was perhaps best articulated by Mahatma Gandhi when he said, “the greatness of a nation and its moral progress is best judged by how we treat our animals”. This principle expresses the belief that when a community is compassionate enough to care about the needs of its animals there can be a reasonable expectation that the bar is raised on how we care and treat one another.

The reverse is also true. If we can dismiss the needs of our animals it becomes easier to dismiss the needs of our infirmed, aged, and needy human populations. Caring about animals serves as the ultimate litmus test for determining a community’s capacity for compassion.

This test is applied to the City of Los Angeles every day, but never more than in the spring and summer months.

Spring is the beginning of kitten season in Los Angeles. In 2008 LA Animal Services took in over 7,300 neonate kittens. Neonate means too young to survive for more than an hour or two without a mother. Sadly, most of the neonate kittens we take in are orphans. People find these babies in their garage, flowerbeds, and many other places where the mother felt safe from predators and intruders while she gave birth. Property owners find these crying babies within hours or days of birth and bring them to our Centers without the mother. Taken away from their mother they have no chance at survival without significant human intervention.

Neonate kittens represent over one-third of all the cats taken in by the Department. They also represent over 35% of all the cats euthanized and over 21% of our euthanasia rate in 2008. One in three cats and one in five animals euthanized in LA is a neonate kitten. On the up side, most of our healthy weaned kittens get adopted. So anything we can do to help our neonates reach full "kittenhood" improves the odds of their eventually finding a loving home.

Kitten season in Los Angeles starts around the end of March and lasts through September when it starts to slowly decline over October and November. That means now is the time for everyone wanting to help end the killing of these innocents to contact LA Animal Services to either volunteer to foster a litter of kittens or to make a donation to help others willing to make this commitment.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “foster” as providing parental care and nurture to children not related through legal or blood ties. If Gandhi viewed animals in general as the first rung on the compassion ladder then these little creatures must be considered the least of the least. They can be so easily overlooked and forgotten. In fact, California State Law defines “adoptable animals” as only those animals eight weeks of age or older; which means these little orphans have no legal standing in the State of California. They don’t even have to be counted in the City’s no-kill goal. Nonetheless, they are because we understand that our moral progress depends on our providing adequate care and nurture to these living souls with whom we have no legal or blood ties.

The problem is that we can’t save them all by ourselves. We need your help. During kitten season LA Animal Services can take in over 80 neonate orphans a day, over 2500 in some months. Depending on their age they may require four to 8 weeks of intense foster care. Though dozens of our dedicated employees volunteer to foster neonate litters above and beyond their daily duties, the majority will not survive without the additional help of members of the public willing to step up to the challenge. They will not survive without your help. If you are able and willing to help save these lives, LA Animal Services will provide the training, support and supplies you need to be a successful foster parent.

This is a big commitment and a true test of our compassion. Even with our best efforts not all foster babies survive. But they can all be loved. These babies need to be bottle fed every two hours around the clock for several weeks; making this the perfect family, club, or faith based organizational project. Fostering helpless neonates is an ideal way to foster compassion and respect for the true value and sanctity of all life in our community.

Have you saved a life today? Make a commitment to volunteer as a Baby Bottle Foster Parent. For more information and an application, please click here. Our kittens are hoping you do!

Lessons Learned

2009-03-06T17:04:00.000-08:00

LA Animal Services’ February 2009 statistics are now available. Something truly remarkable seems to be happening. Despite encountering the highest January/February impound rates in nearly a decade we were able to achieve the lowest January/February euthanasia rate in the department’s recorded history. And this was done without overcrowding our Centers! This is a tribute to AGM Kathy Davis, all our employees, volunteers and partners! Well done! Thank you for all your efforts!

So how did this happen? From lessons learned!

Over the past two years, LA Animal Services experienced the largest, fastest, most historic growth in service demand in its history. With the opening of our new and expanded Centers we experienced nearly a 250% increase in kennels and workload while Center staffing increased only 100%. The new facilities attracted a greater client base, leading to more animals turned in, redeemed, and adopted. More people are now coming in to adopt and relinquish pets, obtain information, more veterinary care is needed and provided, and more volunteers and trainers want to help. This is exactly the business of LA Animal Services, and it is all being managed with a minimum workforce.

As the Department moved into its new Centers we encountered a learning curve for effectively managing our new facilities and our enlarged shelter populations. As the new Centers began to open in late 2006 we realized in 2007 the lowest euthanasia rate (15,009) in the department’s long recorded history of statistics gathering (since 1960. Over 110,000 dogs and cats were euthanized in 1971).

The low euthanasia rate in 2007 was the result of many reasons, but most notable was our having more space to hold animals coupled with a robust adoption program. In 2008, as we were still moving into our new Centers, we experienced a 20% increase (54,191) in intakes due in large measure to the economic downturn. This increase was complicated by our inexperience managing so many animals in all this new space. Consequently, the shelters quickly filled up (sometimes to the point of overcrowding), animals got sick more often and we sometimes found ourselves forced to resort to euthanasia to bring populations under control again. The nearly 30% increase in adoptions in 2008 did not keep pace with our 20.5% increase (nearly 150 dogs and cats every day) in intakes.

LA Animal Services had to quickly find its balance in an environment of severe budget cuts, unprecedented demand for expansion of services, and a severe staffing shortage. The Department had to re-group, tone-up and empower staff (especially at the mid-management level) to improve accountability and effectiveness.

Having gone through this painful growth experience, our Center Managers are now constantly looking for ways to better promote their adoptable animals more effectively. They are on the lookout for more and better off site adoption partners and events. The Department is exploring partnerships with pet stores interested in abandoning puppy mill sources. Our veterinarians are spaying or neutering some animals in-house. This allows our adopters to take their new pets home on the day of adoption. And our Veterinary team is implementing an enhanced cleaning regimen designed to help maintain a healthier shelter population.

We are aggressively transferring animals to one or another of our six adoption Centers or another municipal or private shelter when appropriate to increase adoption options. We've developed and are strictly adhering to a Population Assessment Management program that maintains our Center populations at least 10% below maximum capacity to allow sufficient space for incoming animals.

Another significant innovation that we are in the process of implementing is a program called, "Heart-to-Heart". This program focuses on animals in our Centers longer than two weeks. Each Center has a Heart-to-Heart team that includes the Center Manager, the Center Veterinarian, the ACT Supervisor, and the New Hope Coordinator or their designees. This team works together to help decide the best options for animals that don't get adopted in their first two weeks in a shelter. The team is charged with considering and exhausting all avenues of release, including but not limited to mobile adoption events, New Hope and other marketing pleas, transfer to another Center or agency, etc, etc.

So, are these strategies responsible for the positive statistics below? Time will tell. The Department will continue to monitor, tweak, manage, and modify as we continually learn from our mistakes, our successes, and the counsel of others.

Intakes/Rescues: February 09 Intakes were up over 7% (from 3,010 to 3,225). This is the highest February Intake since collecting data electronically began in 2001. February 2001 Intake was 3,079. Year to Date (YTD) Intakes are up over 4% (from 6,275 to 6,542). This is the highest January/February Intake since 2001 when 7,034 animals were taken in. This is a disturbing trend continuing from 2008.

Adoptions: February 09 Adoptions are up nearly 18% (1,607) compared to February 08 (1,377). YTD Adoptions are up 17.6% (from 2,848 to 3,351).

New Hope: February New Hope Placements are down nearly 7% (from 329 to 306). YTD New Hope Placements are down just over 10% (from 714 to 638).

Return to Owners (RTO): February RTOs are down 2% (from 376 to 368). YTD RTOs are down 6.5% (from 793 to 741).

Euthanasia: February Euthanasia is down 11% (from 748 to 665). YTD Euthanasia is down 14% (from 1,568 to 1,345). This is nearly 3% lower than the historic 2007 low of 1,384).

Again a sincere Thank You to all our employees, volunteers and partners for all their efforts to help support these life saving strategies.

LA Spay Day 2009: A Huge Success!

2009-03-02T05:41:00.000-08:00

As mentioned last week, Councilmembers Alarcón and Cárdenas introduced a resolution declaring February 28, "LA Spay Day 2009".

In celebration of this wonderful event, the two Council Offices partnered with LA Animal Services, Social Compassion, Clinico, The Sam Simon Foundation and The Amanda Foundation to host a free spay and neuter event for residents of the Northeast San Fernando Valley. Local residents were encouraged to bring their unaltered dogs and cats to the Mission Hills Animal Care Center.

The event goal to alter 165 dogs and cats was achieved! Exactly 165 pets were spayed or neutered and dozens more were scheduled for surgery in the coming weeks. Local residents were so very grateful for this free service. The event was made possible through the donations of many who are dedicated to ending euthanasia by providing free spay and neuter as the preferred method for controlling pet overpopulation.

I want to thank all our donors along with the organizations mentioned above and the employees and volunteers of LA Animal Services and the two Council Offices for making this such a successful event.

It is our hope to provide a Big Fix Spay Day every quarter in a different part of the City. If you would like to make that possible please consider making a donation to Social Compassion and indicate that it is to be used for the LA Big Fix program. Thank you!

Los Angeles Spay Day 2009

2009-02-27T15:30:00.000-08:00

Today, Councilmembers Alarcón and Cárdenas introduced a resolution declaring February 28, "Los Angeles Spay Day 2009".

In celebration of this wonderful event, the two Council Offices are partnering with LA Animal Services, Social Compassion, Clinico, The Sam Simon Foundation and The Amanda Foundation to host a free spay and neuter event for residents of the Northeast San Fernando Valley.

Local residents are encouraged to bring their unaltered dogs and cats to the Mission Hills Animal Care Center (15321 Brand Blvd, Mission Hills, CA 91345).

This is a first come, first serve program with intake beginning at 6:30 AM (spots will fill up quickly). Animals must be picked back up by 3:00 PM.

Pets cannot be fed from midnight the night before. Dogs must be on a leash and cats must be in a carrier.

Councilmembers Alarcón and Cárdenas are true champions for increasing spay and neuter in Los Angeles. On February 12, 2008 the City Council passed one of the most comprehensive spay & neuter ordinances in the nation, requiring pet owners to spay or neuter all cats and dogs over the age of four months, unless the animal falls under one of several exemptions. An oversight and advisory committee was also formed. The Mayor signed this ordinance into law on February 26th, 2008. Since the law became enforceable on October 1st, 2008, LA Animal Services reports city spay and neuter services increased 23%.

Each year, untold numbers of cats and dogs are born in the City of Los Angeles. Left unaltered, these animals reproduce far beyond the capacity of our local shelters and overwhelm animal rescue groups and the community at an extraordinary cost.

Please help us get the word out that February 28th is LA's Spay Day and if you own a pet in the City of Los Angeles over the age of four months it is time to have your pet neutered!

Behind the Scenes of the Furry Valentine Adoptathon

2009-02-15T21:41:00.000-08:00

Working at LA Animal Services is often compared to working in a MASH unit; with so many critical activities occurring all at the same time. This past weekend is a classic example of just how true that comparison is. While employees and volunteers were busily adopting an amazing 343 pets into loving homes during our Be My Furry Valentine Adoptathon on February 14th and 15th (a 100% increase over the same weekend in 2008) there were, as there always are, many other amazing stories playing out.

For example, consider this remarkable story. It all began on Monday, January 26th, when LA Animal Services rescued a little 2 year old, female Whippet/Chihuahua mix from the streets of San Pedro. Her name is Mya and she was found with a severely injured right rear leg, probably resulting from being hit by a car. An extensive section of her skin was completely torn off the underlying tissue, severing the blood supply and exposing her tendons. (This is called degloving by analogy to the process of removing a glove.) She was rushed to our Harbor Animal Care Center where she was stabilized.

On Wednesday, January 28th, our medical team determined Mya’s leg was so seriously injured that amputation was the only viable choice available. Mya was transferred to our West LA Animal Care Center where she underwent this surgery. She responded well and adapted quickly to her new condition learning to walk expertly on 3 legs.

On Thursday, February 12th, Mya was spayed at the West LA Center. During surgery she developed severe respiratory distress and almost succumbed. Our medical team acted quickly. Chest x-rays were taken and a severe diaphragmatic hernia was discovered. This means that when Mya experienced the original trauma (probably hit by car) her diaphragm was ruptured and her abdominal organs were crammed into her chest cavity leaving little room for chest expansion. She bravely masked this condition until she was under anesthesia and her breathing became very labored.

On Saturday, February 14th, (St. Valentine’s Day) our extraordinary medical team (behind the scenes and during one of our most successful Adoptathons ever) successfully repaired Mya’s diaphragmatic hernia during a difficult 2 hour surgical procedure. Mya is breathing much better now and she is expected to make a full recovery. Mya should be available for adoption on Thursday, February 19th at our West LA Animal Care Center. Mya is a very sweet and gentle little dog and after all this trauma she deserves a wonderful home.

The surgeries LA Animal Services performed on Mya probably would have cost over $5,000 at a private veterinary hospital. LA Animal Services was able to perform all Mya’s surgeries for a fraction of that cost using our own resources. If you would like to help ensure all the injured, abused, and neglected animals rescued by LA Animal Services receive the loving care they need, like Mya did, please consider making a life saving donation to our STAR (Special Treatment And Recovery) program.

If you are interested in adopting Mya, she may be available at our West LA Animal Care Center as soon as this Thursday, February 19th at 8 a.m.

LA Animal Services responds to LA Times article "Tracking the City Coyote"

2009-01-31T14:13:00.000-08:00

The following message is from Officer Greg Randall, LA Animal Services' Wildlife Specialist

In the days following the LA Times article "Tracking the City Coyote" (January 27), LA Animal Services has received a flurry of calls from upset Angelenos concerned that the City of Los Angeles contracted a wildlife trapper to track down and kill urban coyotes. This belief no doubt stemmed from a photo depicting a coyote in Griffith Park over the statement, "Trapper Jimmie Rizzo is hired to help keep kids and pets safe from the predator, but more say the method is cruel."

The City of Los Angeles did not hire Mr. Rizzo or Animal Pest Management. Despite the unfortunately misleading photo and caption, the article does make clear that the trapping is taking place at the Huntington Library in San Marino, CA, outside the jurisdiction of the City of Los Angeles.

LA Animal Services’ policy is to take an educational approach to wildlife encounters. We encourage residents to employ deterrents, property alterations and the reduction of wildlife temptations like food, water and shelter, rather than use a pest control company or other methods of trapping, which ultimately is an ineffective way of dealing with the issue. The vilification and persecution of coyotes over the years has led to many myths about coyotes. If you are interested in learning more about how to co-exist with coyotes and other wildlife, please visit: http://www.laanimalservices.com/aboutani_wildlife.htm.

Happy New Century - LA Animal Services celebrates 100 years of service

2009-01-05T14:25:00.000-08:00

LA Animal Services celebrates its centennial this year; 2009 marks one hundred years of providing services to the pets and people of Los Angeles. Los Angeles established a characteristic progressive direction in 1909 by creating its original Animal Services Department, charged with protecting the public from rabid dogs, as a Board of Humane Animal Commissioners. The Department today continues to maintain the safety and security of the City’s four million residents by controlling animals and eliminating animal-related safety and health hazards.

However, from its modest beginnings in 1909 LA Animal Services has also been at the forefront of advancing the most progressive and innovative animal welfare programs in the nation. These programs have been designed to ultimately end the use of euthanasia as a methodology to control pet overpopulation. In large measure they have proven very effective.

A Centennial seems an appropriate time to look back and review the path that got us to where we are today.

At its inception in the first decade of the 20th Century, LA Animal Services served an emerging urban community where dogs and cats were owned by families who were used to having pets because of what they contributed to a more rural lifestyle. Dogs, for the most part, were considered working animals earning their keep on a local farm or ranch, or were used for hunting to help put dinner on the table. Cats, and some small dogs, were used as mousers to help keep small rodents and rats out of home, barn, yard and business. Consequently, both cats and dogs were permitted to run free.

By the third decade of the 20th Century, free roaming dogs resulted in a noticeable dog overpopulation problem with an accompanying increase in canine rabies.

The seriousness of rabies in the early 20th Century was brilliantly depicted in the 1960 Pulitzer Prize-winning novel by Harper Lee, “To Kill a Mockingbird.” In the novel, Atticus Finch, a Southern small town lawyer, is called upon by his community to serve as an Animal Control Officer. He is conscripted to shoot a rabid dog in the middle of a quite neighborhood street as residents watched trembling behind locked doors and windows. The account suggests Atticus had been called upon to dispatch rabid dogs before, earning him the deferential moniker “one shot Atticus”.

Although Los Angeles was forceful about licensing and establishing a leash law, this all too common scenario occurring across America through the late 1950s motivated state legislators to establish rabies and animal control programs to ensure dogs were vaccinated against rabies and licensed. Cats were not included because they were, and are, not a significant rabies vector. Over time LA Animal Services’ dog vaccination and licensing program effectively reduced the incidence of rabies in dogs to the level that naturally occurs in cats, that is, rabies today is equally as rare in dogs as it has always been in cats.

As recently as the early 1960s, dogs running free and biting people presented the very real threat of rabies, with dozens of cases seen every year, many resulting in death. Aggressive enforcement of leash laws and licensing requirements were keys to controlling this public health crisis resulting in the virtual eradication of rabies in our city.

So successful was this program that it is easy now to forget the terror the word “rabies” once evoked in the hearts of Angelenos. The fact that scenes like the one depicted in “To Kill a Mockingbird” are a thing of the past is a tribute to animal control professionals who today maintain and enforce successful rabies control programs without firing a shot.

Effectively gaining control of the dreaded disease rabies led to a striking societal change in the human/animal relationship. In the late 1950s and early 1960s many Angelenos started to reject the conventional wisdom that pets were meant to be kept outdoors and a significant number of dogs and cats found their way out of the backyard into our hearts, our homes, and for many of us, into our beds. Pets were no longer considered staff; they had become part of the family.

By the early 1970s LA was experiencing a serious pet over population crisis and LA Animal Services was killing over 110,000 dogs and cats annually. Los Angeles was the first major city in the United States to tackle this problem head on. In 1971, LA Animal Services opened the first municipal spay/neuter clinic in the United States. Thanks to LA Animal Services progressive Big Fix-style spay/neuter programs over the past 37 years nearly 500,000 surgeries were either fully funded or partially subsidized. These extraordinary efforts resulted in LA’s pet euthanasia rate plummeting an astonishing 86% during the same time that LA’s human population increased 42%.

In 2007, 15,009 animals were euthanized. Sadly, in 2008 the euthanasia rate increased to the 2006 level due to an unprecedented housing foreclosure crisis leading to the number of animals taken in by LA Animal Services spiking to the 2002 level. Despite this regrettable setback, it is important to remember that the past three years were the lowest euthanasia rates in LA history and LA Animal Services is committed to continuing this 37-year trend moving forward into the future. The current economic downturn also led to the development of such programs as “A House is not a Home without a Pet” and “Operation Safety Net” to respond to aspects of this crisis.

In addition to progressive programs, Los Angeles is also the first major city in the United States to officially, and financially, respond to community expectations for a humane animal control program. A $160 million commitment to build state of the art animal care community centers serves as a daily reminder of this promise.

The new Centers increased shelter space by more than two hundred and fifty percent and better help accommodate the on average 150 lost, sick, injured, neglected, abused, lost or unwanted animals entrusted to us each day.

The new Centers, with their wide aisles, solar and radiant heating, cooling misters, veterinary and spay/neuter clinics, park benches for visitors, fountains and lush landscaping are a world away from the typical “dog pound,” where animals become so agitated or depressed that they may 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, we experienced over a 40% increase in our adoption rates over the past two years - despite the current economic downturn. LA Animal Services is the largest-volume pet adoption program in the world with over 25,000 live placements in 2008.

To be sure, LA Animal Services cannot achieve these remarkable results alone. Los Angeles is fortunate to have so many wonderful adoptive families, donors, animal welfare and rescue organizations partnering with us in accomplishing our shared mission and vision to make Los Angeles the first major metropolitan community in the United States to sustain the abolition of euthanasia as a methodology to control pet overpopulation.

LA Animal Services’ second century will see a continued emphasis on humane, non-lethal animal care programs as effective as our rabies control program has been. By working together we will soon see the day when killing a healthy, adoptable animal in our shelters is as rare as shooting a rabid dog on a street in downtown Los Angeles.

Grim Puppy-Mill Shipment Makes L.A. Take Notice

2008-12-30T19:25:00.000-08:00

By National Public Radio's (NPR) National Desk reporter Carrie Kahn who covers news from Los Angeles. Kahn's reports can be heard on NPR's award-winning news programs including All Things Considered, Morning Edition, Weekend Edition, and Latino USA.

Morning Edition, December 30, 2008 · Purebred dogs go for top dollar in pet stores around the country, but buyers of cute, cuddly puppies may not know that some come from unregulated breeding mills overseas. So-called puppy-mill dogs are showing up sick and dehydrated at major airports around the country.

In Los Angeles, one recent shipment of dead and ailing puppies from South Korea got the city's attention. Twenty of the dogs in the shipment seized at Los Angeles International Airport either had died or had to be euthanized after the trip. The 10 survivors were turned over to the city's shelter.

Five months later, those survivors — five miniature Maltese and five tiny Yorkshire terriers — were ready for adoption. Hundreds of animal lovers, many wrapped in blankets to keep warm, lined up on a chilly morning in front of L.A.'s East Valley Animal Shelter for a chance to bid on the dogs.

Ed Boks, the general manager of L.A. Animal Services, is required by City law to hold an auction when more than one person wants an animal.

"I want to begin with a few facts that you won't commonly hear from your local pet store concerning puppies just like these that can often times go for $3,500 or more," he told the crowd.

Boks said the 10 minipurebreds arrived with forged health certificates. The documents put their ages at 5 months, but they were actually only 5 weeks old.

"These puppies are the product of a cruel, factory-style dog breeding operation that produces animals with chronic health problems, temperament issues and hereditary defects, so our message to all of you this morning is buyer beware," he warned.

Overseas Puppy Mills Proliferate

Puppy mills began proliferating overseas about five years ago, at about the same time that U.S. authorities started cracking down on unscrupulous domestic breeders.

Tom Sharp of the American Kennel Club says that's when he started seeing bulldogs arriving from Russia and Yorkies from South Korea. With the help of the Internet, Sharp says, dishonest pet stores and breeders could easily get puppies overseas.

"That way, they don't have to be inspected by the different organizations and the governments here in the U.S., and avoid all the requirements," he says.

Right now, the only federal requirement an importer has to follow is to provide proof of a current rabies vaccine — documentation that is easily forged.

Federal regulators say that rule was written at a time when the only dogs coming into the United States were companion pets. Nina Marano of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says Congress just passed a law banning the importation of dogs under 6 months old for resale.

But Marano says it will take at least two years for the ban to be enforced.

"We can try to regulate our way out of it, but another part is, I think, the issue about demand — that there needs to be a lot more public education about the demand that is being created for these puppies," she says.

A Winning Bid

The demand was high for Los Angeles' puppy-mill survivors.

One winning bidder was Debbie Garringer. "I was really lucky, and I'm happy, so happy, and I will take care of it so much and it will have a beautiful home," she said.

All 10 of the purebred puppy-mill survivors got new homes, as did 52 other pets from the shelter. In all, Animal Services raised more than $20,000 and got its message out: Adopt, don't shop.

To listen to this NPR report, click here.

A Tribute to Dogs

2008-12-22T14:39:00.000-08:00

George Graham Vest (1830-1904) served as a United States Senator from Missouri from 1879 to 1903, and became one of the leading orators and debaters of his time. This delightful speech is from an earlier period in his life when he practiced law in a small Missouri town. It was given in court in 1855 while representing a man who sued another for the killing of his dog.

During the trial, Vest ignored the testimony, but when his turn came to present a summation to the jury, he made the following speech and won the case.

* * * * *

Gentlemen of the Jury:

The best friend a man has in the world may turn against him and become his enemy. His son or daughter that he has reared with loving care may prove ungrateful. Those who are nearest and dearest to us, those whom we trust with our happiness and our good name may become traitors to their faith. The money that a man has, he may lose. It flies away from him, perhaps when he needs it most. A man's reputation may be sacrificed in a moment of ill-considered action. The people who are prone to fall on their knees to do us honor when success is with us, may be the first to throw the stone of malice when failure settles its cloud upon our heads.

The one absolutely unselfish friend that man can have in this selfish world, the one that never deserts him, the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous is his dog. A man's dog stands by him in prosperity and in poverty, in health and in sickness. He will sleep on the cold ground, where the wintry winds blow and the snow drives fiercely, if only he may be near his master's side. He will kiss the hand that has no food to offer. He will lick the wounds and sores that come in encounters with the roughness of the world. He guards the sleep of his pauper master as if he were a prince. When all other friends desert, he remains. When riches take wings, and reputation falls to pieces, he is as constant in his love as the sun in its journey through the heavens.

If fortune drives the master forth, an outcast in the world, friendless and homeless, the faithful dog asks no higher privilege than that of accompanying him, to guard him against danger, to fight against his enemies. And when the last scene of all comes, and death takes his master in its embrace and his body is laid away in the cold ground, no matter if all other friends pursue their way, there by the graveside will the noble dog be found, his head between his paws, his eyes sad, but open in alert watchfulness, faithful and true even in death.

Operation Safety Net Announced

2008-12-17T16:20:00.000-08:00

I was joined today by LA City Council Member Herb Wesson to announce the implementation of a wonderful new life saving program called, "Safety Net."

2008 will be remembered as a very difficult year for many Angelenos, especially those who felt coerced by the economic downturn to surrender their beloved pet to a shelter. Over the course of the past year, LA Animal Services has seen a 20% increase in animals coming into our Animal Care Centers.

Dog owners relinquish their pets for many reasons, but we were finding that many of those reasons did not seem reason enough to give up on a beloved member of the family.

So two weeks ago we started asking the question, “What would it take to keep your dog from entering a shelter?” That one question saved seven dogs from entering the South LA shelter over the past two weeks. While that may not seem like a lot, it represented the birth of "Operation Safety Net".

Safety Net is a public/private collaboration involving LA Animal Services, Downtown Dog Rescue, Karma Rescue, and Paw'd Squad; three extraordinary organizations with tremendous experience working with large breed dogs, the very types of dogs more frequently relinquished and euthanized at our shelters. LA Animal Services is thrilled to be working with them on this life saving program.

Safety Net is officially starting today in our South LA Animal Care Center. A sign is prominently displayed in our Center lobby informing dog owners how they can keep their pet despite the fact that they may feel as though they have run out of options.

Dog owners sometimes feel forced to surrender their dog because they can’t afford to feed, vaccinate, spay/neuter, treat a minor medical issue, get basic obedience training, or even pay for a $15 dog license. With Safety Net, LA Animal Services staff and volunteers encourage the dog owner to take his beloved pet home and call the Downtown Dog Rescue phone number on the postcard given to them. Safety Net is a wonderful program that enables a community to work together to solve one of the most basic and traumatic problems a family might face.

When the dog owner calls the Downtown Dog Rescue Hotline Phone Number a volunteer will return the call within 48 hours to help address the situation that brought the dog owner to the shelter. Often, ‘the problem’ is a combination of issues. Many dogs need to be spayed or neutered, vaccinated, licensed, or trained. Sometimes it's just not having enough dog food to get through a difficult time. But surely, none of these reasons are good enough to give up a family member. Operation Safety Net is designed to help keep pets and families together.

Safety Net is designed to help dog owners who really want to keep their dog if only they had the resources to do so. The program is modeled after Downtown Dog Rescue’s successful 13 year-old Skid Row program to help homeless dog owners.

For more information on how to keep your pet visit Safety Net.

LA Animal Services Makes Overseas Puppy Mill Survivors Available for Adoption But Cautions "Buyer Beware"

2008-12-11T12:52:00.000-08:00

This morning LA Animal Services hosted a well attended Press Conference at our East Valley Animal Care Center where we discussed a very troubling reality, the horrors of the “puppy mill” industry in both the United States and abroad.

The term “puppy mill” is perhaps an unfortunate expression. Many who do not understand this cruel industry may think a “puppy mill” refers to a wonderful place to buy a puppy. In fact, puppy mills are cruel, factory-style dog-breeding operations that produce puppies with chronic health problems, temperament issues, and hereditary defects.

These puppies come from female dogs who are bred over and over again until they sometimes die from sheer exhaustion. These animals are forced to live in crowded, filthy cages with little or no human contact. Their sick and under-aged offspring are shipped around the world to pet stores who, for profit, are compelled to satisfy the public’s seemingly insatiable demand for purebred puppies.

It is important for the public to know, that with rare exceptions, when you buy a puppy from a pet store there is a strong likelihood that you are supporting the puppy mill industry just as surely as you are supporting an illegal drug cartel when you purchase drugs from a pusher on the street.

That is why we say “Buyer Beware” and encourage the public to adopt a pet from a shelter, and save a life, rather than buy a pet from a pet store, off the internet, or from a newspaper ad which leads to the incalculable suffering of untold thousands of animals.

I was joined by Los Angeles City Councilmember Tony Cardenas' Chief of staff Jose Cornejo, LA County Public Health Senior Veterinarian, Dr. Karen Ehnert, film and stage actor and Chief Advisor to Congressman Dennis Kucinich's Animal Welfare Program, Mariana Tosca, and Senior Director of the Hollywood Office of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), Beverly Kaskey. Together we introduced ten fortunate survivors of one South Korean Puppy Mill and discussed their significance to our local pet overpopulation problems, international trade, public health, and homeland security.

In June of this year, three shipments of puppy mill dogs were flown into LAX from the Far East on Seoul, Korea-based Asiana Airlines. They were intercepted and confiscated by LA Animal Services and LA County Public Health officials. Ten dogs survived: five underage Yorkies and five eight week-old Maltese puppies; accompanying health certificates falsely claimed the puppies were four months old and ignored serious health issues. These 8 week old animals arrived at LAX ill and seriously dehydrated, having just survived over 14 hours of transport in tiny carriers with no food or water.

These puppies represent an all too typical example of how the demand for purebred puppies has created a situation ripe for abuse.

The interception and rescue of these puppies prompted the formation of a multi-agency animal cargo task force to conduct a three-week survey of incoming animals at LAX. The goal of the survey was to determine the volume, types and condition of animals entering the country via international air carriers.

The Task Force, led by LA Animal Services, LA County Public Health, and the Southeast Area Animal Control Authority, also included the Los Angeles World Airports, U.S. Centers for Disease Control, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, U.S. Transportation Security Administration, and several local animal control agencies including the Humane Society of San Bernardino Valley, Inland Valley Humane Society, Long Beach Animal Control, Santa Ana Animal Control, Orange County Animal Care Services, Pasadena Humane Society, Riverside Animal Services, and SPCA-LA.

The findings of the Task Force demonstrated the fact that puppy mills are not a U.S. problem alone. Overseas commercial mass dog-breeding facilities - that put profit above the welfare of dogs - are attempting to flood the U.S. market.

That is of particular concern to the City of Los Angeles, and all U.S. communities, because it undermines our efforts to increase shelter adoptions, fight pet overpopulation, and ultimately end euthanasia as a pet overpopulation methodology. Also of great concern is the fact that imported animals can carry disease (including rabies) or be used in outlandish smuggling schemes representing both public health and homeland security threats.

The magnitude and impact of this industry highlights the need for domestic law enforcement officials to focus more collaborative attention on both the domestic and the international “puppy mill” industry. I want to thank all the members of the Task Force in helping us uncover this cruel attempt to flood the U.S. market with puppy mill puppies.

However, in these dire fiscal times, enforcement alone cannot be the only answer, the best response to this insidious industry is “Don’t Shop, Adopt!” There are hundreds of thousands of puppy mills around the world (over 720,000 in South Korea alone) that produce untold millions of puppies annually, while at the same time more than 4 million pets die in U.S. shelters each year. The puppy mill industry exists because of public demand. Only the public can end it. I encourage all Americans to follow President-Elect Obama’s example and Don’t Shop, Adopt a Shelter pet and save a life.

NOTE: The ten puppies rescued in June will be available for adoption on December 20th, at our East Valley Center. With interest in them running high, LA’s Municipal Code Article 3, Section 53.11 requires that each one be made available through an auction if more than one party wants to adopt the animal.

While these puppies are more fortunate than many puppy mill survivors, having been in the loving care of LA Animal Services for five months, the Department is still concerned that these survivors could develop other types of physical or behavioral issues as a result of improper breeding and poor living conditions during their formative first weeks of life. LA Animal Services is utilizing the City ordinance required adoption-auction process to help ensure that the new owner/guardians of these puppies will have sufficient financial means to afford the medical costs they are likely to incur over the lifetime of these animals. These are Puppy Mill puppies; Buyer Beware. Click here for more information on the Puppy Mill Survivor Auction.

Don't Shop: Opt to Adopt!

2008-12-07T09:26:00.000-08:00

As the Holidays approach many consider purchasing a puppy from a pet store. The intent is to place a cute bundle of joy under the tree to be found on Christmas morning to the delight of a child. This is understandable; a puppy does bring a tremendous sense of warmth and love into a home any time of the year, but especially, it seems, during the Holiday Season.

But Buyer Beware!

If you want a dog in your life, please don't buy a puppy mill puppy. Unfortunately, avoiding them requires tremendous discipline and awareness. Pet store clerks and other sellers never willingly admit their dogs come from puppy mills, despite laws that require retailers to clearly and accurately identify the source of the animals they have for sale so that customers can be aware that their purchase supports a horrific and cruel industry.

An edition of “Oprah” earlier this year focused national attention on the “puppy mill.” A puppy mill is a dog-breeding operation intended to provide a non-stop supply of often purebred puppies to a public that seems to have an insatiable appetite for them, an appetite that has created a situation ripe for abuse.

Puppy mills force dogs to produce litter after litter just for profit. These dogs and their puppies are often plagued with suffering, resulting from disease, malnutrition, and loneliness. Oprah Winfrey’s intrepid investigative reporter found bitches who, when rescued from these unconscionable conditions, could barely walk after living a life of immobilized confinement. Most people don't know that when they buy a puppy from a pet shop, a newspaper ad or from the internet, they are often supporting a cruel and inhumane industry.

We owe these dogs the favor of educating ourselves and others about the reality of puppy mills. No matter what kind of dog we desire, we can’t let ourselves be duped. We must resist buying a puppy from a pet store, newspaper ad or website, where dogs from puppy mills are typically sold. Still, the temptations are difficult ones.

It’s easy to gaze into the sad eyes of the puppy in the pet store window and want to "rescue" the lonely pooch...

Or you read an ad in the newspaper, and the couple seems so trustworthy, with their decades of experience breeding dogs...

You find a website with photos of green hills and beautiful puppies that insist the "little darlings" and "bundles of joy" were born in paradise and will only be sold to "loving families"...

But watch out! A cruel, mass dog-breeding facility could hide behind each of these scenarios. Even if you missed Oprah’s exposé, most likely you've heard about these puppy factories. Puppy mills frequently house dogs in shockingly poor conditions, particularly for the "breeding stock" animals who are caged and continually bred for years, without human companionship, and then killed, abandoned or sold to another "miller" after their fertility wanes.

These adult dogs are bred repeatedly to produce litter after litter, without the prospect of ever becoming part of a family themselves. In addition to an abused mother (and we’ve occasionally seen heartbreaking examples of abandoned overbred females come into the City shelters), the result is hundreds of thousands of puppies churned out each year for sale at pet stores, over the internet, and through newspaper ads. This practice will end only when people stop buying these puppy mill puppies.

How do you separate fact from fiction?

1. Pet stores cater to impulsive buyers and consumers seeking convenient transactions. Unlike responsible rescuers and breeders, these stores don't interview prospective buyers to ensure responsible, lifelong homes for the pets they sell, and the stores may be staffed by employees with limited knowledge about pets and pet care.

2. Puppy mill puppies often have medical problems. These problems can lead to veterinary bills in the thousands of dollars. But pet retailers count on the bond between families and their new puppies being so strong that the puppies won't be returned (though the law requires them to accept returns). And guarantees are often so difficult to comply with that they are virtually useless. In addition, poor breeding and socialization practices at many puppy mills can lead to behavioral problems throughout the puppies' lives. In the event a puppy purchased from a store does experience medical problems, the buyer should file a Pet Seller Complaint Form.

3. A "USDA-inspected" breeder does not mean a "good" breeder. Be wary of claims by pet store staff that they sell animals only from breeders who are "USDA-inspected." The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) enforces the federal law called the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which regulates commercial breeding operations. But the act doesn't require all commercial breeders to be licensed, and the USDA establishes only minimum-care standards in enforcing this law and its inspection team is chronically understaffed. Breeders are required to provide food, water, and shelter, but not love, socialization, or freedom from confining cages. Sadly, many USDA-licensed and inspected puppy mills operate under squalid conditions with known violations of the AWA. But federal law constrains state and local authorities from blocking the shipping and sale of these animals across state lines, and current efforts to regulate their importation from overseas leave something to be desired, placing that much more of a burden on the customer to make the right choices.

4. Many disreputable breeders sell their dogs directly to the public over the Internet and through newspaper ads. They often sell several breeds of dogs, but may advertise each breed in a separate place and not in one large advertisement or website. These breeders are not required to be inspected by any federal agency and, in many states, are not inspected at all.

5. Reputable breeders care where their puppies go and interview prospective adopters. They don't sell through pet stores or to families they haven't thoroughly checked out.

6. Purebred "papers" do not guarantee the quality of the breeder or the dog. Even the American Kennel Club (AKC) readily admits that it "cannot guarantee the quality or health of dogs in its registry."

I can’t say this enough: If you’re looking for an animal to join your family, you should not buy from a pet store, and you should be very wary of websites and newspaper ads. Above all, don't ever buy a dog if you can't physically visit every area of the home or breeding facility where the seller keeps the dog.

Puppy mills will continue to operate until people stop buying their dogs. Putting them out of business should be a goal of every dog lover (and we should be so fortunate as to be faced with the dilemma of what to do with the remaining mothers and puppies if and when we succeed). We urge you to visit your local shelter or to do business with a respectable rescue individual or organization. You are likely to find a wide selection of healthy, well-socialized puppies and adult dogs—including purebreds—just waiting for that special home—yours.

For more information on the insidious puppy mill industry click here.

Hold the turkey...

2008-11-29T09:48:00.000-08:00

The Thanksgiving edition of the Los Angeles Times included a huge article on the front page of the California section, titled, "Hold the turkey please. A vegan Thanksgiving -- where the birds are friends, not feast." The article, by Carla Hall, included interviews with many vegan animal advocates.

Karen Dawn was one of the activists interviewed, thanks to her having invited two turkeys to dinner, Bruce and Emily, who she is fostering until they are retired to Animal Acres as part of a "Thanking the Monkey" event there on December 14. Learn more about that event by visiting www.ThankingtheMonkey.com and clicking on "events."

The turkeys are named after actors Bruce Greenwood and Emily Deschanel who will be reading with Karen while helping to retire their namesakes.

The article opens with, "At Karen Dawn's Thanksgiving feast, there will be yams and stuffing with cranberries and a dessert of pumpkin-pecan pie, all set out on a table for eight.

"And there will be turkeys, two of them actually -- Emily and Bruce (or possibly Brucilla -- it's a little unclear). The two 20-pounders will have most of the privileges of Dawn's other sentient guests -- a Pacific Palisades patio, a view of the ocean and vegetarian nibbles.

"At Dawn's vegan holiday dinner, guests will ooh and aah over live birds. The only turkey plunked down on her table will be Wild Turkey bourbon.

"'It goes beautifully with the hot apple cider,' Dawn says brightly."

Hall offers some serious and important information in her article. She tells us, "Turkeys are smart -- contrary to popular opinion -- companionable and affectionate, animal advocates say."

And we read, "To animal welfare advocates, the process of raising, then slaughtering animals for food is a torturous one. The federal Humane Slaughter Act, which governs how animals are killed, does not protect poultry -- which constitute 95% of animals killed for food."

You'll find the whole article, including a fun picture of Bruce and Emily Turkey watching dining room preparations, on line at: http://tinyurl.com/5w9huu

Speaking as a grateful guest at Karen’s Thanksgiving Feast, I can only add that the experience was remarkable. I hope that such a life-affirming tradition will soon transition from anomaly to the norm.

Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade to feature Tamar Geller at LA Animal Services!

2008-11-20T13:22:00.000-08:00

Be sure to watch the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade on CBS. Tamar Geller, best selling author of "The Loved Dog" and dog trainer to the stars, will be appearing at LA ANIMAL SERVICES West LA Center to discuss such holiday-themed subjects as keeping your dog from begging at the table, keeping your dog from jumping on guests, and what to consider when adopting a dog as a gift?

Tamar can be seen during the Thanksgiving Day Parade broadcast on CBS, from 9 a.m. to Noon EST, on Thursday, November 27th.

In the meantime, consider adopting a pet from LA Animal Services to share the holidays with so you can put this great advice to work!

Looking for some love in your life?

2008-11-17T11:39:00.000-08:00

LA Animal Services had a fantastic adoption event at our East Valley Animal Care Center last weekend thanks to the Found Animals Foundation.

While nearly 70 animals went to new homes as a direct result of this fabulous event, a few of the Found Animals' favorites are still with us. These wonderul dogs have all been assessed and have started on basic obedience training by our good friends at K9s Only. Plus, if you adopt one of these sweethearts you'll get great support and resources from Found Animals.

Found Animals is on a mission to get these dogs into homes for the holidays, so please consider them if you have room in your life for a new friend - and forward this message on if you know anyone who needs some licks and wags this holiday season.

If you've never been loved by a bully you are missing out!

Please feel free to contact Found Animals if you have any questions or want a personal introduction to one of these dogs.

You may have to click on the pictures of the dogs at this site to enlarge them and make the legible.

Many thanks,
________________________________
found animals foundation ([p] 310.566.7373)

How a 3-legged dog inspired our next President to make history … and got a Congressional bill proposed in her name

2008-11-06T15:15:00.000-08:00

The following Op-Ed is by Jana Kohl, Psy.D., a psychologist, animal welfare advocate, and author and is posted with her permission.

During the campaign, then-Senator Obama and his wife promised their daughters that they would get a dog after the election. This made lighthearted news after the President-elect mentioned it in his acceptance speech, but there is a tragic side to the story, due to a special 3-legged dog named "Baby" who found her way into Barack Obama's arms when he was a newly elected Senator.

The public promise to adopt a rescue dog is unprecedented for a First Family, and has the potential to strike a crippling blow to one of the cruelest industries imaginable- dog breeding- an industry that costs taxpayers billions. Most Americans aren't aware that their hard-earned tax dollars are squandered to the tune of billions a year on animal control due to pet overpopulation, an epidemic perpetuated by the dog breeding industry. The economic crisis we now face demands that every sector be scrutinized for greed, mismanagement, and deception-not just Wall Street.

The houses-of-horror known as "puppy mills," where breeding dogs are locked in cages 24 hours a day, spinning endlessly in circles as they go insane from lifetime confinement, never allowed to walk on solid ground, covered in their own feces and that of the dogs stacked in cages above them, maimed or diseased yet still forced to breed every heat cycle, is an industry that has gone unchecked and is nothing short of legalized torture.

The scores of puppies churned out of these mills each year mean a death sentence for millions of homeless shelter dogs, who wait in vain for someone to adopt them, only to be dragged to the gas chamber. Every time someone buys a puppy from a dog breeder instead of adopting one of those deserving critters, it not only seals their sad fate, it costs you and me a bundle. And yet the dog breeders continue to churn out their cruel cash crop, an income that many brag is easily hidden from the IRS.

One survivor of these hellholes is a dog named "Baby" who found her way into the spotlight with then-Senator Obama. Known previously by a number, "94," tattooed in her ear, this gentle creature had her vocal cords cut by the mill owners so they wouldn't have to hear her cries to be let out of her cage, and after her rescue had her leg amputated as a result of osteoporosis that is common among breeding dogs.

When I learned the shocking truth about the dog breeding industry, I vowed to adopt rather than buy a dog from one of these animal abusers, and to tell the country their dark secret. I enlisted my new Senator, Barack Obama, to help tell Baby's story to the world, and several of his colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, as well as celebrities from all walks-Judge Judy, the New York Mets, Steven Tyler, Bill Maher, even rabbis and priests who I contacted to weigh in on animal cruelty from a religious perspective.

Those essays and portraits comprise the book, A Rare Breed of Love: The True Story of Baby and the Mission she Inspired to Help Dogs Everywhere (Fireside, an imprint of Simon & Schuster), which has sent Baby and me on a grueling cross-country tour the past several months, culminating in a proposed bill named for her that would ban lifetime confinement of breeding dogs. "Baby's Bill" (H.R. 6949/S. 3519) is co-sponsored by Representatives Sam Farr (D-CA), Jim Gerlach (R-PA), Lois Capps (D-CA), Terry Everett (R-AL), and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), and would require that breeding dogs be let out of their cages for 60 minutes of exercise a day-a baby step as far as I'm concerned, yet one that's likely to be opposed by dog breeders, "Cruella de Villes" that they are.

I remember the photo shoot we did with then-Senator Obama, when he held Baby close, snuggled and kissed her, distressed to hear of her abuse, and an email he later sent to his Illinois constituents, telling them about her and his commitment to stopping all forms of animal cruelty.

President-elect Obama has made history in so many ways, and now the incoming First Family has achieved another first that could not only end a cruel industry, but would also save taxpayers billions. The simple act of acquiring a family pet through adoption will undoubtedly inspire millions of Americans to follow their lead, meaning that millions of homeless dogs slated for death may instead find loving homes, drastically reducing the cost of animal control. The dog breeding industry will see their sales drop dramatically, and countless victims like Baby, locked away at this very moment, prisoners condemned to life behind bars, will be spared that nightmarish existence.

Like all the members of the House and Senate who posed with Baby for the book, Barack Obama understands that this kind of legalized cruelty must end. What the Obamas also see is a wonderful opportunity to teach their daughters a lesson in compassion and mercy by bringing a homeless pet into their family. One of the greatest ways to build character in our children is to encourage compassion toward animals, as the National Parent-Teacher Association states.

It was fitting that we chose the Lincoln Memorial as the backdrop for President-elect Obama's portrait with Baby. President Lincoln himself was an animal lover who once saved the life of a dog, a poignant story recounted in Baby's book. I believe the 16th President is looking down in approval upon our 44th, for so many reasons.

And little does a voiceless, 3-legged dog know, she has helped make history, too.

Jana Kohl, Psy.D. is a psychologist, animal welfare advocate, and author of A Rare Breed of Love: The True Story of Baby and the Mission she Inspired to Help Dogs Everywhere (Fireside, an imprint of Simon and Schuster). Having worked for the Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies for many years, she has long been concerned with how cruelty becomes legally sanctioned by society. She is a member of the board of HumaneUSA.

ED: Like the idea of a rescued dog in the White House? Check this out: http://www.ireport.com/ir-topic-stories.jspa?topicId=140565
Jana Kohl's comment is on the page with the Obama and Baby photo.

Boks' Unedited Response to LA Daily News Op-Ed

2008-10-29T07:30:00.000-07:00

A recent Daily News op-ed piece asked, “Where was Boks during fire crisis?” The short answer is that I was on a prescheduled vacation with my children in

Mexico

that began before the fires broke out.

The General Manager of Animal Services has many responsibilities and is expected – rightly or wrongly - to know the details concerning every aspect of the department’s operations, as well as all the details surrounding every animal in each of the City’s seven shelters at any given moment. So it seems the question, “Where was Boks during the fire crisis?” was inevitable.

For more than a decade this department could do little right in the view of its vociferous, media-savvy critics, and the fault for every shortcoming was always attributed to one person, whichever General Manager was presiding at the time.

So it should be no surprise when the department performs brilliantly as it did in response to the fires (expertly rescuing, sheltering and eventually reuniting over 450 animals with their grateful guardians) the attention of an old school critic is not on the heroic actions of the staff as it should be, but rather on my absence.

I am proud of the employees and volunteers of LA Animal Services who performed so admirably during this crisis. They earned well-deserved plaudits from both the public and their colleagues on the City’s emergency response team, and I am pleased to add my voice to the chorus. That someone feels my temporary unavailability mattered diminishes the expertise of staff and fails to give credit where credit is due: to the chain of command we worked so hard to establish so the department would function as the public expected it to.

It has not been easy and there is much work yet to be done. It has taken over two years to assemble an executive management team capable of responding to the department’s many challenges in a methodical and professional manner. The bringing together of performance-based managers with knowledgeable, experienced long-time employees signals a certain coming of age; for the first time in recent memory LA Animal Services can begin to focus on better meeting the needs of the animals and the demands of our human constituency.

The finger-wagging of the earlier article misses the point that the successful response to the Sesnon/Marek fires exemplifies what our experienced staff is capable of doing and that where I was at that particular moment was irrelevant.

Distractions will no doubt continue and resistance to progressive change may increase before it decreases. But I am confident that LA is on its way to becoming the most humane city in the United States and LA Animal Services is playing a leadership role in accomplishing that.

Rabbi Freehling's pet project

2008-09-25T17:29:00.000-07:00

The following article appeared in The Jewish Journal - Los Angeles and was written By Rachel Heller

Daylong synagogue attendance is rare among most Reform Jews. It's even rarer for their dogs.

For almost 12 years, Lucy traveled each day to University Synagogue in Brentwood with her owner, Rabbi Allen I. Freehling, then the synagogue's senior rabbi. The golden retriever mix soon became one of the most popular members of the Reform congregation.

"The kids coming in for Hebrew school used to arrive early, come to the rabbi's study, and hope that they would be the ones to take Lucy for a walk before going to class," Freehling recalled. "She was delighted to spend the whole day in my office. If there wasn't someone to pay attention to her, she would usually just sleep under my desk."

Freehling, now the executive director of the City's Human Relations Commission, found Lucy at a city-run animal shelter in the San Fernando Valley. Through a series of community workshops he is helping to facilitate for Los Angeles Animal Services, Freehling is urging other local residents to seek pets from city shelters, too.

L.A. Animal Services has been sponsoring its "Humane L.A." workshops -- a series of 11 free, public panel discussions -- every other week since August to educate Angelenos about what they can do to help make the city a "no-kill" haven. The workshops, which will continue through mid-December, focus on different facets of the agency's "no-kill equation," such as low-cost spay and neuter, rescue groups, foster care and adoption programs. Common-sense factors like these, the agency believes, can, in time, reduce the number of unwanted animals euthanized at city shelters.

"We do have a responsibility in terms of taking good care of the animals that are a part of our population," said Freehling, who is sharing the role of facilitator with three other members of the Human Relations Commission. "Spay and neuter has to become something that is accepted by everyone, because the only way to curtail the population of animals is if they are not reproducing on a regular basis. For people who wish to have animals, for them to consider adopting as opposed to purchasing would also be a step."

The senior rabbi at University Synagogue for 30 years, Freehling and his wife, Lori, adopted Lucy with social interaction in mind.

"Not wanting to leave Lucy home by herself, we purposely found an animal that would be good with adults and children," he said. "An animal is a marvelous provider of comfort. That was the role that she played at the synagogue. Being greeted by her was, more often than not, a comforting experience."

Lucy eventually died of cancer, and the Freehlings adopted Pearl, a black lab and pit bull mix, from an animal rescuer in Riverside. Pearl hasn't had the same opportunity to follow Freehling to work since he was appointed to the commission in 2002.

"Here at City Hall it's less likely that someone would bring an animal to the office on a regular basis," he said.

Asked if it's possible to make Los Angeles a no-kill city, the Chicago native does not hesitate before saying, "Yes." But profound changes must first occur in the local population's attitude toward its four-legged neighbors.

"I hope people will begin to understand what a no-kill city is all about and what our responsibilities are as part of that community, and not simply leave it up to a particular department within the city to solve the problem by euthanizing an extraordinary number of animals," Freehling said. "It's something we're all in together."

For dates and locations of the remaining "Humane L.A." workshops, visit www.laanimalservices.com/humanela.htm

Landlords Should Consider the Benefits of Allowing Pets

2008-09-05T11:39:00.000-07:00

The City of Los Angeles has a noble goal: To be the first major metropolitan city in the United States to end euthanasia as a tool to control pet overpopulation. Achieving this difficult goal requires robust community participation.

During this time of economic uncertainty, we especially need the help of an important constituency in our community, our landlords.

According to the 2000 Census LA has 1,275,412 households. Of these, 63% or 803,510 households are rentals. According to a report issued by The Foundation for Interdisciplinary Research and Education Promoting Animal Welfare in 2005, 50% of all rentals nationally prohibit pets.

Consider these other report findings: 35% of tenants without pets would own a pet if their landlord permitted; tenants in pet-friendly housing stay an average of 46 months compared to 18 months for tenants in rentals prohibiting pets; the vacancy rate for pet-friendly housing was lower (10%) than “no pets allowed” rentals (14%); and 25% of applicants inquiring about rentals in non-pet-friendly housing were seeking pet-friendly rentals.

The report observes: “With such a sizable potential tenant pool it would seem there would be enough pet-friendly housing to meet the current demand. In fact, according to economic theory, in perfectly functioning markets [where people make rational, profit-maximizing decisions, with full information and no significant transaction costs] pet-friendly housing should be available to renters willing to pay a premium to cover any extra costs to landlords.” Begging the question, “Do landlords overlook opportunities to increase profits by not adding to the pool of pet-friendly housing?”

With nearly half of American households having companion animals and over half of renters who do not have pets reporting they would have one or more pets if allowed, why are there so few pet-friendly rental units available?

Well, among landlords who do not allow pets, damage was the greatest concern (64.7%), followed by noise (52.9%), complaints/tenant conflicts (41.2%) and insurance issues (41.2%). Concerns about people leaving their pet or not cleaning common areas were rarely cited (5.9%).

Although 85% of landlords permitting pets reported pet-related damage at some time, the worst damage averaged only $430. This is less than the typical rent or pet deposit. In most cases, landlords could simply subtract the damage from a pet deposit and experience no real loss. In fact, the report finds landlords appear to experience no substantive loss, and further, there is little, if any, difference in damage between tenants with and without pets.

Other pet-related issues (e.g., noise, tenant conflicts concerning animals or common area upkeep) required slightly less than one hour per year of landlord time. This was less time than landlords spent for child-related problems and other issues. Whatever time landlords spent addressing pet-related problems was offset by spending less marketing time on pet-friendly units by a margin of 8 hours per unit.

While the study finds problems arising from allowing pets are minimal, the benefits frequently outweigh the problems. Landlords stand to profit from allowing pets because, on average, tenants with pets are willing and able to pay more for the ability to live with their pets, (especially in unregulated rent situations such as all market-rate apartment units built in Los Angeles since 1978, which are exempt from rent control).

In the City of Los Angeles nearly 17,000 pets were euthanized over the past twelve months. This is an increase over previous years, reversing many years of steady decline. The increase is attributed to the large number of pets surrendered to City shelters this year because of the housing foreclosure crisis. Imagine if just twenty percent of the 400,000 pet restricted households in LA permitted pets. That could create a demand far greater than the number of homeless pets dying in our shelters, allowing LA to finally achieve its goal.

Landlords have been hearing from their own colleagues and professional journals recently that permitting pets makes good business sense. Nonetheless, the lack of available pet-friendly rentals reveals there is a long way to go to meet current demand. The report reveals many landlords may be overlooking an opportunity to increase revenue and tenant pools/market size by allowing pets. While there are some costs to allowing pets, these costs are relatively low and the benefits appear to be even greater for landlords.

The benefits to the thousands of homeless pets who are dying for lack of a home each year cannot be overstated. Landlords can make a profitable, life saving choice by permitting pets. After all, a house is not a home without a pet.

LA Animal Services Announces New Pet Store Permit Requirements

2008-08-27T08:35:00.000-07:00

LA Animal Services is issuing new Rules and Regulations for Pet Store Animal Care, launching a new era of more rigorous oversight of pet shops in the city. Compliance with these Rules is a prerequisite to obtaining a Pet Store Permit from the Department.

Under Section 53.50 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, all pet stores are required to obtain an operating permit from the Department. As it renews and updates these permits, LA Animal Services will enforce standards for the care of animals in pet stores established by Section 122350 et seq. and Section 122125 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code, in order to ensure the humane treatment of animals and safeguard the public interest. These new standards were established by the passage of AB 1347 (Caballero) signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in October 2007, and become binding state law on January 1, 2009.

The combination of a strong state law and increased local enforcement should make a difference for these animals. I urge every pet shop to use the time between now and New Year’s Day to bring its facility into compliance.

The Department this week sent out a letter notifying all permitted pet store operators that these new requirements will become effective as of January 1st, 2009, and will work to inform those operating without current permits as soon as possible. The Department’s Pet Store Permit Inspectors are increasing efforts to inspect and assist pet store operators to come into compliance. It is the responsibility of pet store operators to ensure their store is in compliance by January 1st, 2009.

Visit LA Animal Services website to review the new Rules and Regulations. If you know of a pet store that is not in compliance with these Rules and Regulations you can let the Department know at 213.485.1135.

The Rules and Regulations can be accessed at http://www.laanimalservices.com/ under "Services/Permits.”

A House is not a Home without a Pet!

2008-08-25T13:02:00.000-07:00

LA Animal Services is proud to announce an innovative program proposed by Keller Williams Realty to help our community’s homeless animals. The foreclosure crisis in Los Angeles has resulted in a 28% increase in the number of pets surrendered to LA Animal Service since the beginning of 2008. This has led to the first increase in pet euthanasia in over six years. Keller Williams has decided to do something about that and to challenge all Los Angeles Realtors to help.

The program encourages real estate agents to purchase a $100 Gift Certificate from LA Animal Services to present to their clients at the close of escrow of their new home. The Certificate becomes effective 30 days after the close of escrow and is effective for one year. The Certificate is good towards the adoption of a dog, cat or two bunnies.

Keller Williams Realty of Beverly Hills is spearheading the program pioneered by Keller Williams Realtor Adele Langdon. The Beverly Hills Office encourages other Keller Williams Offices and Real Estate companies to get on board.

“Keller Williams is delighted to partner with LA Animal Services on this life saving program,” said Rob Aigner, Team Leader of the Beverly Hills Office. “’A House is not a Home without a Pet’ provides our agents and clients a wonderful opportunity to play a meaningful role in helping homeless pets, the silent victims of the housing crisis. It is our hope that all the real estate offices in Los Angeles will join this noble effort.”

“Finding good homes for our shelter animals is a top priority,” added Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, “and ‘A House is not a Home without a Pet’ is a great example of a public-private partnership that benefits those animals and homebuyers alike.”

“Foreclosure pets are a societal problem,” said Tony Cardenas, City Council Member for District 6 and a former real estate agent himself. "We have a responsibility to help solve this problem and I applaud Keller Williams for taking a compassionate lead. It is my hope that real estate offices everywhere will follow this example.” Tony Cardenas is the originator of the City’s Animal Cruelty Task Force and the co-author of the City’s new spay/neuter ordinance that goes into effect on October 1st.

Keller Williams is announcing the program with a full page ad in this week’s MLS Caravan magazine received by all LA real estate agents.

Boks Provides Instructive Responses to Anonymous Attack

2008-08-20T15:11:00.000-07:00

Another nasty e-mail is circulating the internet. The anonymous author seems intent on squashing any public dialogue in Los Angeles that would help lead our community to achieving its No-Kill goal and transform LA into the most Humane City in the USA. My responses to this anonymous person’s allegations are in bold. Anonymous is in italics. Please note that “anonymous” has no suggestions or recommendations to offer.

Anonymous: Tomorrow Wed August 20th, Ed Boks will be presenting one of his seminars on "RESCUE GROUPS".

There is NOTHING that Ed Boks can teach us about rescue that we do not already know.

ED: If you are a rescuer, I would largely agree. But these workshops are not for rescuers alone. They are for the entire community, most of whom don’t have a clue about the needs or our animals, our rescuers, and our department. These workshops are designed to help us think out side of the box (or the Boks, if you prefer) and come up with some new ideas, strategies and alliances to help save more lives.

Anonymous: If you know Boks and have worked with him, you know that the one value of attending any of his so called seminars is to support Ed Boks since he will use the attendance as evidence of his "success" in getting people to show up.

ED: Actually, my role in these workshops is that of a secretary, to document the ideas and suggestions of the community. A panel of rescuers and other experts will be present to engage on the topics being discussed.

Anonymous: The only possible value of attending would be to use it as a chance to get Boks/Barth to reverse the recent negative changes they made in the New Hope program.

ED: The purpose of tonight’s workshop is to discuss program enhancements, so we welcome discussion on this topic. To put the above allegation into context it is important to understand that there were only two significant changes in the New Hope program. One was reinstituting the $28 spay/neuter fee. This is a fee that rescue partners had routinely paid until the advent of the New Hope program in 2006. The department waived that fee for one year and there was no increase in the number of animals saved through New Hope. The fee was waived to help New Hope partners rescue more animals.

It was difficult to justify waiving the fee a second year when it had no measurable impact the first year. Nonetheless, the department secured a $160,000 grant from the Found Animal Foundation so we could waive the fee a second year. Unfortunately, there was still little increase in the number of animals saved and the grant money was spent. So the department had to reinstitute the fee this fiscal year to help off-set a 15% budget cut.

It would be great if the rescue groups would work together to obtain a grant to cover this fee, as the department did for the rescue groups in 2007.

The second change was asking New Hope partners to share adopter information with the Department so we can follow up on licensing. The Department is rightfully under a lot of pressure to increase licensing and we would appreciate our New Hope partners understanding this new requirement - and that it will lead to saving the lives of any licensed and tagged dog brought to any of our Centers.

Anonymous: However, remember that Ed Boke is famous for his lies and empty promises. He will charmingly agree to take your opinions under consideration but no change for the animals will take place unless it serves him personally.

ED: Serving as the general manager of LA Animal Services is a difficult job, particularly when personally criticized by anonymous mudslingers. However, every effort I make is dedicated to doing the best job I can for the City and the animals in my care.

Anonymous: Ed Boks has already agreed to form several "committees" in the past ostensibly working to improve the New Hope program, improve conditions at the shelters and implement public educational programs. Nothing these committees brought to the table was ever implemented. All of the committees dissolve because Ed Boks not only refused to take recommendations and input for positive change but actually falsely claimed that these committees approved changes when they did not.

ED: Actually, the New Hope program we are discussing tonight is the result of the work of two separate committees, one in 2006 and one in 2007. The department is also working with a committee on the formation of a marketing strategy for the spay/neuter ordinance, with remarkable results you will soon all see. The department has a track record of working productively with committees. Not perfect, as some committees have gone astray from staying focused on the business of saving lives and improving procedures and practices, but we are determined to continue working with the community and individuals committed to developing and implementing life saving strategies!

Anonymous: If you do choose to attend the seminar I ask you to challenge Ed Boks on the following:

Why is the Northeast Valley animal shelter not open to rescuers without the need for an advance appointment during very restricted hours?

ED: The Mission (Northeast Valley) Animal Care Center is not open to the public with the exception of our New Hope partners. The Center has very limited staffing, so we have no choice but to meet New Hope partners there by appointment.

Anonymous: If he blames a poor economy read further and ask him the following: Why did he, while our economy is failing, hire a second Assistant General Manager?

ED: Hiring an Assistant General Manager for operations has been a two year process that obviously began long before the current economic slowdown. This position is critical to the success of the department and I make no apologies for filling it with the most qualified person I could find. Improving the direct oversight over shelter and field staff is a critical function in a department with our history.

Anonymous: No General Manager in the history of LAAS ever had two AGM. The cost of these AGMs is approximately $200,000 in salary and benefits a year?

ED: For years before my coming to LA, the local animal welfare community insisted the City find a General Manager who would hold the department accountable for results. The three cardinal principles for success are Leadership, Focus, and Accountability. You cannot hold the Department accountable for results if you don’t allow for leadership. One person alone cannot effectively manage an organization with eight locations, seven of which are open 24/7, with officers in the field 24/7 covering over 490 square miles that is Los Angeles, and taking in 150 animals a day. All one has to do is look at the stream of General Managers who have graced the revolving door known as LA Animal Services over the past few years to know this is true.

For any organization to be successful the first rule is to get the right people on the bus and then to get the right people into the right seats on the bus. That is not an easy task in LA, and it took time, but the results are the only way to evaluate success. I believe you will see the type of leadership and results the LA community has been demanding.

Anonymous: Why does Ed Boks need 2 Directors of Fields Operations at the approximate cost of $230,000 in salary and benefits a year? Why does Ed Boks need 4 new District Supervisors of Operations at the cost of approximately $407,000 in salary and benefit per year?

ED: See the above answer. LA Animal Services is sometimes viewed very simplistically, as a company of dog catchers and kennel workers who operate on autopilot. However, Animal Services it is a very complex and dynamic organization. The District Supervisor positions are positions that were mistakenly eliminated several years ago as a budget saving measure. What that did was eliminate any opportunity for Center Managers to grow into executive-level positions. Through the reinstitution of these positions we will establish a well run, accountable department that will be able to select its future GMs and AGMs internally and not from out of state.

Anonymous: All at a time when LAAS' budget has been cut to the point that the department is slated to lay off 28 ACTs and the animal food budget has been reduced starting in Sept 2008 from $7,125 per shelter per month to $4,750 per shelter per month. That is a reduction of approx $100,000 a year in the food budget while the number of animals under his care continues to increase.

ED: The food budget was over budgeted in the past and we never spent the entire line budget allocated for food. The layoffs are the result of authorized hiring done specifically to prepare for the opening the new Mission (Northeast Valley) Center. If the City continues in its decision to not open that Center and to reduce operating hours, then, under current circumstances we have no choice but to lay off the extra Animal Care Technicians we hired to staff it. Efforts are being made by members of the City Council and others to remedy the situation, but the results are not yet known.

Anonymous: The following is documentation we have that illustrate how Boks/Barth report their killing, and it is very disturbing. It appears that this is one way he can deliver his false no-kill claims. The numbers below came for LAAS documents.

Ed Boks declared March 2008 as a "No-Kill Month". That month one LAAS district shelter euthanized approximately 271 animals. All but 21 were killed for behavioral, medical and unweaned. So that means that 250 in one shelter in one month were so ill and aggressive that they had to be killed.

In April of 2008 two of the highest kill LAAS district shelters euthanized approximately 898 animals. All but 38 were killed for behavioral, medical and unweaned. So that means that 860 animals in 2 shelters in one month were so ill or aggressive that they had to be killed.

In June 2008, 223 animal were euthanized in one of the district lowest kill shelters and NONE were reported as being killed for time and space. So here again, 223 animals were killed in one shelter in one month due to illness and aggression.

In July 2008; 165 animals euthanized in another low kill LAAS district shelter, again, NONE for time and space.

Since "no kill" accepts euthanasia for the medically and behaviorally unadoptable animals, these euthanasia rates lead one to believe that the killing was only 5% of the animals actually killed in LAAS.

ED: The recent increase in animal impounds has led to an increase in the number of animals euthanized. This is the first increase in pet euthanasia in the past six years. The Department successfully reduced pet euthanasia over 50% in the past six years, and 22% in 2007. YTD 2008 has seen a 37.38% increase in euthanasia (10,217) compared to 2007 YTD (7,437). However, when the numbers are normalized to account for the increase in impounds, the euthanasia rate is up only 3.49%.

So, what does that mean to achieving No-Kill?

Phase I of No-Kill is achieved when no healthy animal is killed due to a lack of space or resources.

Phase II is achieved when we end the killing of animals in need of medical treatment.

YTD 118 cats and 384 dogs were killed due to insufficient holding space and/or resources. These healthy pets represent the challenge to achieving Phase I of the City’s “No-Kill” Goal.

YTD, the Department is over 95% on its way to achieving Phase I of No-Kill.

The Department has always welcomed and invited the closest scrutiny to how these numbers are collected and reported. To date, no one has taken us up on our invitation. But the numbers are what they are…

Anonymous: However, in closely reviewing these numbers, it begs the question how could it be that 95% of animals killed in LAAS are killed because they are unadoptable. How does Ed Boks define "behavioral, medical or IRS"? Any of us that have adopted or rescued out of LAAS know that those are impossible odds. As a matter of fact, most of the animals labeled aggressive or sick are not. However, without using such tactics Boks/Barth team cannot show the mayor that they have created any positive change in LAAS.

ED: I know, the animal welfare community finds this type of success impossible to believe. That is why the department has always shied away from reporting on this and has only reported its numbers in terms of “beating hearts in” and “beating hearts out”.

Our staff doesn’t evaluate animal’s behaviors, by directive of our Commission. But we do evaluate them by observation. Animals that demonstrate dangerous behavior are not placed for adoption BUT THEY ARE MADE AVAILABLE to our New Hope Partners. So no animal is arbitrarily euthanized for behavior without having an opportunity to be considered and evaluated for seven days by our 140 New Hope partners.

Anyone who truly works with the Department knows that we have animals in our Centers for half a year or more, you know that we perform some of the most amazing life saving surgeries, we go to tremendous lengths to save lives, more so than any other municipal shelter system in the country. In the last year, our veterinary team expended over $300,000 in medical supplies and medicines. So yes, only around 5% of the animals euthanized are healthy, sound animals.

The Mayor’s office pays close attention to the work of the Department as well as to the concerns of the humane community regarding our operations and our results and is well aware of the progress we are making in a number of areas as well as of the challenges we continue to face.

Anonymous: The numbers above are not to illustrate the euthanasia rate. We are all aware the "no kill" will take time and planning to achieve. These numbers prove that Boks/Barth have failed to create a viable no kill solution but have succeeded in reated a way of misleading the city of Los Angeles and its mayor.

ED: If anonymous wants to work with the Department in identifying just how we are deceiving ANYONE, I welcome them to come forward. Notice that anonymous provides no solutions or recommendations, only personal attacks. If anonymous – or anyone else – thinks they have something constructive to recommend regarding achieving “no kill” apart from promoting certain personalities who are either unqualified for or show no interest in working here, I welcome those ideas. I believe we are employing viable no kill solutions to the best of our abilities in a difficult environment, and they form the basis of the workshop series. Also, once again, the Mayor’s office is completely familiar with everything that is going on.

Anonymous: Another method they use to provide false numbers is warehousing the animals.

In July of this year Ed was accused of warehousing the animals to improve his numbers. To achieve the appearance of less killing, Mr. Boks warehouses the animals until they develop behavioral and/or medical issues and then euthanizes
them for being medically or behaviorally unadoptable. In so doing the time and space numbers remain minimal.

ED: This is not an easy task; and it does point to the already-mentioned need for a more accountable management structure. The Department is committed to achieving “No-Kill”. Yes, we keep animals a long time in an effort to find them homes. Our Centers have a cadre of dedicated volunteer dog trainers who work with the animals to make them more adoptable while they are with us and to help them stay as sociable and healthy as possible. As mentioned above, we have an improved - and remarkable - veterinary program dedicated to fighting the constant threat of disease and treating animals as quickly as possible as needed.

Are we slow to euthanize animals? Yes. And I am in the process of implementing a program to make the process even slower. Each Center has what we call a “Heart-to-Heart” Team. They are charged with evaluating the animals before deciding if they should be euthanized. The team is made up of the Center Manager, the Animal Care Technician Supervisor, the Veterinarian, and the New Hope Coordinator or their designees. They review the length of time the animal has been with us, the health of the animal, the behavior of the animal, and our New Hope and adoption options. Only when this team feels we have exhausted every live saving option for a particular animal is that animal euthanized.

5% of the time this difficult process leads to the death of a healthy animal to help alleviate overcrowding.

Anonymous: THESE ARE NOT SOLUTIONS TO NO KILL, THIS ARE ILLUSION THAT KEEP BOKS AND BARTH EMPLOYED.

Some of you may not know that the LAAS shelter staff is extremely unhappy with Mr. Boks. performance and would like a change to be made. The staff is behind the humane community 100% and will support all rescue groups in every effort. For the first time in the history of LAAS the staff and rescuers are on exactly the same page.

ED: I am well aware of the concerns of some staff and I try to be available to discuss them. I am absolutely confident in saying I know these statements about total unity between the staff and humane community are inaccurate. Complaints from rescuers and others about incidents involving staff have not disappeared into thin air as anonymous apparently would have us believe.

I try to support both my staff and the rescue community and doing so sometimes raises the ire of one or the other when conflicts arise. Those conflicts arise because staff and the rescuers are NOT always on the same page. The Department’s management team spends too much time working on solutions to these issues for this “unity myth” to be credible. Finding solutions to these challenges is the purpose of tonight's workshop.

If someone has a better approach to managing these situations, I’m open to discussing. I want what is best for the Department.

Anonymous: Do you really want to take out time and attend this seminar or any other of Boks' seminars? The only result will be that Ed Boks can show that someone showed up to support him and will continue to ignore what we tell him we need to help save the lives of our city animals.

ED: I cannot imagine what the value of squashing dialogue is. What is this anonymous person afraid of?

Ten Tips To Help Your Dog Beat The Heat

2008-08-18T07:08:00.000-07:00

NY Daily News, 11 August 2008

By Nicole Lyn Pesce

Dogs need protection from the heat, too.

The dog days of summer are just as miserable for our four-legged friends.

"Anything that feels uncomfortable to you is definitely going to feel uncomfortable and unsafe to your pet," says Tod Schadler, veterinarian and associate dean at Ross University's veterinary school.

Common sense can soothe cats and dogs begging to beat the heat. "What you would do to protect your child in the summertime is basically the same thing you would do for your pet," says Rashell Cooper of PetSmart.

Check out these expert tips for a safe summer with your pets.

1. Never Leave Pets Alone In Parked Cars. Even parking in the shade or cracking the windows isn't enough to keep your vehicle from becoming a 120-degree deathtrap in minutes.

2. Don't Overexert Your Pet. "If you're going to exercise your pet, don't do it when it's blazing hot in the middle of the day," says Schadler. Walk in the morning, late afternoon or evening, when temperatures are cooler.

3. Carry Water On The Go. "Just like a jogger takes some water along for themselves, take some water along for your pet, too," says Schadler. Signs of dehydration include dry tongues and noses.

4. Stick To Shade. Outdoor pets need shady spots in your yard. "It's always good in a grassy area," says Cooper. "It's cooler than being on concrete or dirt."

5. Have Backup Water Bowls. Scatter extra bowls around. "If they knock one over, there's always a fallback dish," says Schadler. Or fill a bowl with ice: "They can lick the ice cubes and the melting water stays nice and cool."

6. Keep Them Groomed. Brush and trim mangy or overgrown coats. "We recommend a professional groomer help you determine the length and what's going to keep them cool, but also protected from the sun," says PetSmart's Michelle Friedman.

7. Pets Need SPF. "If they're exposed to the sun a lot, they're susceptible to sunburns and skin cancer," says Cooper. There are pet sunscreens, but ask your vet about safe brands . "If dogs can get their tongue at it, they're gonna lick it off," Schadler says.

8. Protect Paws. Scalding sidewalks can cause serious burns. "You don't want to walk barefoot, and it's no different for your dogs," says Cooper. Try protective booties or walk on grass.

9. Watch Pets In Water. Some dogs aren't good swimmers. "Have them wear a life jacket for extra protection if they get tired," says Cooper. Don't let pets drink from chlorinated pools or from creeks and rivers crawling with microorganisms.

10. Know Heat-Stroke Signs. Look for excessive panting, disorientation, weakness, vomiting and very hot skin. "Call your veterinarian," says Schadler. "Describe what you're seeing. They'll let you know how much of an emergency it is.”

Rottie pair abused by con man need help

2008-08-14T16:00:00.000-07:00

In the last day or two, e-mails with the above subject line have been circulated on the world wide web. Here is an update on the situation:

On August 3, 2008, LA Animal Services West Valley Center contacted the LA Police Department regarding a serious incident involving one of our pets. Citizens visiting our Center alleged that they saw a man taunting and agitating a dog named Cesar, an adult Rottweiler, with an unidentified object. The witnesses also alleged that they saw him stomp on the dog’s paw in retaliation to a small bite he received during the taunting incident.

Cesar was found to have a cut along the top of his muzzle, which was immediately treated by our medical team. Fortunately, the cut was not serious and required no sutures. The individual was instructed by LAPD that he was not permitted inside any of our Centers and a report was filed and the matter has been referred to the Animal Cruelty Task Force (ACTF) for investigation.

We, at LA Animal Services, are deeply saddened by this serious incident and are thankful that Cesar is making a full physical recovery. We applaud the brave witnesses who came forward and recounted the facts to the Police. We are confident that the matter will be fully investigated and justice will be served on Cesar's behalf.

We appreciate your inquires regarding Cesar's well being. It is our fervent hope that Cesar and his best buddy, Cleo (also an adult Rottweiler), will soon have warm and loving homes available to them. Cesar and Cleo can be viewed on our website at http://www.laanimalservices.com/animalidsearch.htm. Just type in A0934326 for Cleo and A0934327 for Cesar. Our Best Buddy program allows you to adopt one animal for the full adoption fee and his/her buddy at one half the adoption fee.

Both Cesar and Cleo came into our Center on March 17th, five months ago, as lost pets without licenses or microchips. 100% of the lost animals that come into LA Animal Services with current identification go home. Unfortunately, 99% of the animals that come into LA Animals Services have no identification, and never go home again.

Cesar and Cleo are on our Green Alert which means any New Hope partner can rescue them and they are available to the public for adoption.