Installment #1
Important information about LAAS "no kill" seminar
This is a lengthy but extremely important and eye opening e mail. I urge you to read in its entirety.
Anonymous for now, if you recognize my writing you are welcome to contact me.
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. 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.
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.
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
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.
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? 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?
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? 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?
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.
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.
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.
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 created a way of misleading the city of
Los Angeles and its mayor.
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.
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.
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.
|
TOP
Installment #1 (Cont'd): What Ed Boks instructive responses really mean.
This is my response to Ed Boks Blog below.
My response is in RED italics.
Anonymous
From the Desk of Ed Boks
Nothing
featured here represents the official position of the City of Los
Angeles or LA Animal Services unless otherwise specifically noted.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Boks Provides Instructive Responses to Anonymous Attack
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.
Ed,
you state that you have 8 locations with 7 being open 24/7. The only
one not operating 24/7 is administration and that is where the layoffs
should occur.
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 left
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.
By
your own admission there has been a tremendous increase of animals
entering your system. To date there has been an increase of
approx 300%, of animals. Are you seriously claiming that 300% more
animals are going to use 30% less food.
The
layoffs are the result of authorized hiring done specifically to
prepare for the opening the new Mission (Northeast Valley) Center.
No
Ed, the layoffs are due to bad planning, bad budget management and a
lack of a real plan to reduce the overpopulation of animals other than
through continued killings decided by programs with cute names like
"Heart to Heart".
.
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.
No
matter what reason was behind the hiring of these ACT, given the
increased numbers of animals under your care, these ACTs are needed in
order to care for the animals and help the public adopt them. Make cuts
from the top Ed, not from the bottom. It is inconceivable that any
General Manager would need 2 AGM, 2 Directors of Field Operations and 4
District Supervisors totaling approx $826,000.00 in salaries and
benefits a year. The city's budget states that the entire cost saving
of NOT OPENING the North East Valley shelter is approximately $860,000,
about the same amount that you waste on management fat.
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%.
The
reason for the 22% reduction of euthanasia in 2007 was not due to a
plan that you implemented. It was due to the new shelters and
consequent addition kennel space.
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.
This
is precisely why you are resorting to mislabeling animals as having
illness and behavior issues that warrant death and claiming 95% of the
thousands you kill are unadoptable.
In
April of 2008 you killed 1257 animals, approximately all but 63 of
those animals were killed for medical or behavioral reasons.
Another words,1194 animals in your shelter were killed, in one month
alone, for being medically and behaviorally unadoptable.
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.
Ed, you have just confirmed what we always knew about your numbers.
YTD
from January 1 to Aug 19, 2008 according to Chameleon the number of
euthanasia is 11,829 and according to you your statement above it is
10,217. I am not certain where you got your numbers as they differ from
Chameleon. According to Chameleon the total amount of Cat killed YTD as
of Aug 19, 2008 is 7,360 and total amount of dogs killed is 4,469
for a total of 11,829.
So
according to these numbers 7,242 cats were deemed so unadoptable YTD as
of August 19, 2008, that they had to be euthanized and 4,085 dog
were considered so unadoptable they had to be euthanized YTD as of
August 19, 2008.
Just
to be clear, YTD ending Aug 19, 2008 a total of 11,327 dogs and cats
were killed due to being medically and behaviorally unadoptable while
the total number of dogs and cats killed YTD was 11,829.
Ed,
you are insulting the intelligence of the humane community, the tax
payer, the mayor and city council of our city by making this outrageous
claim .
YTD, the Department is over 95% on its way to achieving Phase I of No-Kill.
Ed, just mislabel a few more and you will reach 100%
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 areā¦
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".
Ed,
you are failing to answer or recognize the question and instead
claiming success where there is obviously none. Let me restate the
question. How is it possible that approximately 95% of animals killed
in LAAS are too ill or behaviorally unsound to be considered adoptable?
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.
Ed,
provide us with the report that came with the above mention conclusion
and the supportive documentation showing the life saving surgeries done
and how many.
Moreover,
currently you have 8 severely injured and ill dogs in your North
Central Shelter waiting for help? Why are you not going to "tremendous
lengths" or performing "amazing life saving surgeries" for them.
As far as keeping animals for half a year or more, it is called warehousing.
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.
ED,
WE DO NOT SEE HOW THE MAYOR HAS ANY AWARNESS OF YOUR LIES AND FAILURES,
SET UP A MEETING WITH US AND THE MAYOR AND I WILL REVEAL MY IDENTITY.
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 created 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.
Again,
set up a meeting with the mayor and we will share with him all of the
ideas presented to you in the past by numerous New Hope partners and
tax-payers which you ignored.
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.
Heart
to Heart is Pasadena's H.A.R.T Program which you took as your own
without giving them credit. More important, it cannot work without
a)Temperament Testing (which you are NOT allowed to do) and b) A
functioning program of professionally trained trainers and a shelter
system that is willing to extend all possible medical need to save the
animal.
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.
Ed,
complaints and dissatisfaction will occur in any system. What the
Humane Community and Staff stand united on is that you are not doing
your job. Ed, stop trying to deflect blame onto others when the problem
is you and Linda Barth.
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.
Ed
the conflict I am referring to is that the staff and the humane
community want a GM that gets the job done. The overwhelming complaints
are against you and Linda Barth.
If someone has a better approach to managing these situations, I'm open to discussing. I want what is best for the Department.
Arrange a meeting with the mayor, we will put the truth on the table and let the truth speak for itself.
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?
We
are all afraid of two things. First, retaliation. You and Barth have
been known to do so and our greatest fear is that you will prevent us
from saving the animals. Second, dialogue with you has only proven to
enable you to perpetuate your lies.
Posted by Ed Boks is the General Manager of LA Animal Services. at 3:11 PM
TOP
Installment #2
Official LAAS information behind the "no kill" claims of Ed Boks
As
you all know there has been an e mail exchange between Ed Boks and an
anonymous writer which Ed Boks has been responding to on his
Blog. Since you as rescuers are short on time, I have decided to
summarize these facts as they are extremely important for us as members
of the Humane community of Los Angeles.
I
am sending you this e mail as a fellow LA rescuer who has
probably worked alongside with each of you over the years. Due to some
security sloppiness in high level management, I obtained official
documentations which have confirmed what many of us have suspected for
a while. All of my statements
come from facts derived directly from LAAS Chameleon, e mail
records, SOPs (Standard Procedures of Operations) and LAAS
internal memos.
Ed Boks states "the Department is over 95% on its way to achieving Phase I of No-Kill."
Ed
Boks would like us to believe that 95.75% of all animals killed
are too sick or vicious to be deemed adoptable. Here is how Ed
Boks latest "no kill" charade works.
1. Define no kill as killing only animals who are medically unhealthy and vicious.
2. Label 95.75% of your dead animals as medically unhealthy or vicious.
3. Using these labels leaves only 4.25% of the dead animals labeled as killed for time and space.
4. By using these labels you have found a way to call yourself over 95% no kill.
As rescuers we all know that those odds are impossible.
Although Ed Boks claims over 95% "no kill", this is what really happens. In real number terms, out of the 11,829 dogs and cats killed YTD as of August 19, 2008, 11,327 were deemed medically or behaviorally unfit for adoption.
In
using Ed Boks numbers varified by Chameleon records, roughly 1 out
of every 3 animals impounded into LAAS are so hopelessly sick or
vicious that they must be killed.
At this rate all Ed Boks needs to do is mislabel a few extra animals and he gets 100% no kill.
The number of Animals in LAAS has increase by 300% and Boks/Barth have reduced the food budget by 30%
Ed
Boks claims that his department goes to tremendous length and performs
surgeries to treat the sick and injured. This morning alone,
counting only two district shelters , 16 dogs are in the shelter
hospital severely injured and are not receiving the treatments he claim.
Ed Boks is laying off 28 ACTs yet plans to spend close to $830,000.00 to fattened up his upper management.
I
will reveal my identity when Ed Boks and the mayor agree to meet with
me and the rescue community and put the truth on the table. If you
would like to join me in addressing city officials regarding
Boks/Barth, I invite you to contact me at MadisonBark22@gmail.com I promise to keep your response and identity confidential unless you tell me otherwise.
Thank you for now, more information to come.
Anonymous.
TOP
Installment #3
PLUS ONE /MINUS ONE
First,
I have received e mails inquiring why I am remaining anonymous,
using the pseudonym Madison Barkley. Revenge by Boks/Barth is
only one small reason. Most important is that if I reveal my name the
flow of information that I now have at hand will promptly
stop.
Three
weeks after Ed Boks took over as head of LAAS, he implemented his "PLUS
ONE / MINUS ONE" program. According to Ed's January 26, 2006
intra-department correspondence, the basis of this program is "very
simple: the daily goal of each District is to have at least one
additional adoption and one less euthanasia as there were on the same
calendar day from the previous year." In his memo, Ed uses the
following example "Last year, the East Valley district adopted out 10
animals and euthanized 5 on the last Friday in January...This year, for
the last Friday in January, goal for East Valley will be at least 11
adoptions and no more than 4 euthanasias."
Two
and half years later, the problem with Ed's "exciting new program"
is that it comes without any new and genuine strategies
to actually increase adoptions or decrease euthanasia. As such,
"PLUS ONE / MINUS ONE" cannot work. After all what do you do
when the shelter fills up on any given day and no one is coming
into the shelter to adopt? Without any adoption programs
and/or incentives the animals end up being warehoused.
As
of this morning LAAS has approximately 2317 cats and dogs
only. As you can see warehousing creates overcrowding, resulting in
illness and behavioral issues. This enables Ed Boks to have
another way to sign off animals for euthanasia due
to being medically and behaviorally unfit for adoption. Since the
medically and behaviorally unadoptable animals do not count as a kill
under Ed's "no kill" charade, warehousing is another method
that makes it possible for Bok/Barth to
claim their 95.75% "no kill" Phase I rate .
While
warehousing Ed Boks submitted a budget proposal to reduce 39 ACT
position which would have led to 28 layoffs. Thankfully, the
Mayor (not Ed) resolved the problem. However, the fact
that he proposed it in the first place shows his lack of concern and
lack of planning for the animals. Is Ed Boks waiting for the mayor to
resolve the warehousing issue too?
More to come in the next installment.
Madison
TOP
Madison 4th installment (8/28/08) Boks/Barth new idea will kill more LAAS animal
Below is an internal LAAS E mail (in Red italics)
dated Aug 14, 2008 and written by Linda Barth to upper management.
Note that E mail was written by Linda and Ed is copied on it.
When Ed Boks wants to test his ideas he has someone else deliver
them. This way, as always, if the idea works he takes the
credit, if it fails, he can throw someone else under the
bus.
LOOK AT HOW MANY MORE ANIMALS BOKS/BARTH WILL KILL AS A RESULT OF THIS LATEST IDEA.
Please note that this is not intended to criticize Gillian Lange or The Lange Foundation.
Here is what Linda Barth says in her Email:
For
what I hope are only the remaining months that Northeast may still be
non-public use, we should consider the possibility of experimenting
with some unusual ideas that we can try there but would be too hard to
do at the animal care centers operating at full capacity.
Months
ago, Ed spoke to several different New Hope groups, at various times
and for various reasons, who asked if they could use 5 to 10 kennels at
our care centers to hold animals when they have a shortage of fosters.
That doesn't seem practical right now at centers struggling at peak
capacity. The question is: could we try out some versions of that idea
at Northeast in order to learn what, if anything might work in the
future?
Several
of you are aware that a similar request has recently come from Gillian
at the Lange Foundation. Let's be prepared to discuss the pros and
cons, but first let's lay out the issues.
Start
with the idea that a New Hope Partner in good standing would make a
formal request to use 5-10 kennels and maybe some cat cages for some
period of time. They would handle all expenses, bring their own
supplies, and have staff there or coming regularly to take care of the
animals completely. Our responsibility would be to allow access, maybe
some storage, and intervention (medical or otherwise) if something
happens and the rescue partners are not present or readily available.
We
need a list of all the details we would need to consider and make a
decision about, in order to sketch out a program. Please make some time
today or tomorrow, and send back to all parties, what you think are the
key terms that would have to be included in such a program, and major
issues that should be considered. Think positiveā¦this could be a first
try of an idea that matures and evolves to something terrific.
In the above e mail Boks/Barth ask for "issues to be considered".
The
following are issues that Boks/Barth clearly did not consider while
dreaming up this latest excuse for not opening the Northeast Valley
shelter, even now that the Mayor gave Boks the money for staff to get
the shelter open and keep shelter operating hours as they are:
1. Misuse of city Proposition F property:
City taxpayers voted approval of the $19-million Proposition F
shelter to be used as a public animal shelter. No one voted "yes"
so their tax dollars would subsidize private rescue groups.
2. Waste of city resources and also enabling unfair competition with other rescue groups:
I
wonder how Boks/Barth propose New Hope partners pay the city
for use of the five to ten kennels Boks/Barth want to give a New Hope
partner at the taxpayer-funded public animal shelter. Have
Boks/Barth had the city appraiser determine the fair market rental
value of that space, and will they charge that amount to NH partners.
3. Misuse of city staff resources: Boks/Barth
state LAAS staff would be available to provide "intervention (medical
or otherwise)". Boks/Barth want LAAS staff to provide that added
service for a private rescue group when LAAS does not have enough
staff, as is, to take proper care of the existing and growing number of
animals in their care. From one side of their mouths, Boks/Barth
just told us they have such a huge financial deficit that they had to
lay off 28 workers. Even after Council member Alarcon and the
Mayor found a way to give Boks/Barth the money for the 28 workers,
Boks/Barth still claim such poverty that they plan to cut back the
shelters' public operating hours and raise adoption fees for public,
and they already raised adoption fees for the rescue groups who do
Boks/Barth's jobs for them by rescuing LAAS shelter animals, providing
them needed veterinary and other care, socializing them and finding
them permanent homes, It is remarkable that Boks/Barth now
have the money to pay staff to take care of privately owned animals.
4. Security problems:
Boks/Barth will give a New Hope partner's volunteers "access"
to the NE Valley shelter. There is a city taxpayer paid security
guard at Northeast Valley. LAAS management claims it is afraid of
terrorists. Yet, Boks/Barth are willing to give "access" to
non-city volunteers. Are they prepared to allow all city
volunteers and NH partners the same 24/7 access to all LAAS facilities?
5. Unreliability of 24/7 volunteer care; potential for animal neglect; potential liability for privately owned animals:
Boks/Barth say the NH partner's volunteers will "have staff
there or coming regularly to take care of the animals regularly."
What exactly do they mean by "regularly"? Will New Hope
partners be sending volunteers round the clock, seven days a week,
365 days a year to care for five to ten kennels of animals in Mission
Hills, or will our tax dollars be spent for LAAS staff to take care of
privately owned animals who are using taxpayer funded city resource
real property? More important, unless New Hope
partners will provide volunteers round the clock for 365 days
a year to care for their animals, LAAS employees would have to do it at
the cost of taking the time and care away from the LAAS animals.
Additionally, what is Boks/Barth's plan if a New Hope partner volunteer
is not at the shelter when two NH partner dogs have a serious
fight and both are injured, who will be liable? Who will pay for
the emergency veterinary care if the private groups claims it was not
needed?
6. Liability to private volunteers:
With volunteers showing up at all hours, what if one is hurt or killed
at the shelter, or in the parking lot? Who is liable? Is
there any chance that one penny of tax dollars would pay for liability,
or pay to defend against liability? I wonder what the city attorney
would think of this. In fact, since it is city property, what if
one of New Hope''s animals bites a NH volunteer. Given the budget
crisis LAAS is facing, can LAAS afford a law suit.
It
is disturbing that Boks is waisting more of his time and more of middle
management's time to work on a cost and liability-riddled idea
when their time would be much better spent in implementing real
solutions and developing creative ideas that will increase adoptions
and reduce euthanasia. Wasted management time like this illustrates why
Boks is planning to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on six more
middle managers. While Boks/Barth spin their wheels birthing
these ideas, they need a second AGM and lots more middle managers to do
the actual department work.
Boks/Barth's idea to give away LAAS kennel space to a private group will lead to EVEN MORE KILLING, when killing is already up over 37% per Ed Boks' own admission:
Boks/Barth are killing animals for time and space. Ed Boks claims
"only" 4.25% of animals are killed for time and space. As
discussed in my previous e mails, that is a charade created by Ed Boks'
mislabeling and warehousing. Whether going by Ed Boks' nonsensical
claim of 4.25% killed for time and space or the truth which is
enormously more killed for time and space, he is still killing animal
for time and space. Then why is he giving that needed LAAS kennel
space to a rescue group rather than providing it for the LAAS
animals. HOW MANY MORE ANIMALS WILL BOKS/BARTH KILL TO MAKE
SPACE FOR NEW HOPE PARTNERS TO BE ABLE TO PUT THEIR ANIMALS IN
LAAS CAGES?
How dare Boks/Barth kill even one LAAS animal when they are using even one LAAS cage space for a private party.
More soon to come in installment #5
Madison
TOP
Madison's installment #5 What did Ed Boks do with 1,000 LAAS UNWEANED KITTENS?
Ed looks the Mayor and City Council straight in the eyes and lies about his "success."
Given
the transparency Ed Boks claims, why do his numbers not add up?
In a recent Email, we looked at the monstrous lie by Ed Boks that he
has reached "95.75% No-Kill." That claim is insultingly false. By
Boks' own admission, euthanasia is now UP by 37% (click on link to
view) http://www.laanimalservices.blogspot.com/. That charade required use of LABELS to hide Boks/Barth's killing.
TODAY'S
EMAIL ILLUMINATES ANOTHER CHARADE BOKS/BARTH USE TO HIDE THEIR
KILLING. This one is simple. They just DON'T REPORT
IT.
Boks
claims he is transparent because his statics are posted on
LAAnimalServices.com. Let's go there. Under "About Us"
click on "Statistics". Scroll down and click on "This Month's
Statistics for Department" (which really shows multiple year
statistics). We know that Ed Boks has failed to do anything new
to reduce the crisis of unweaned kitten overpopulation and euthanasia,
so let's look at the statistics for unweaned kittens. Look with me if you like: http://laanimalservices.com/PDF/reports/UnweanedKittensIntakeNOutcomes.pdf
Here
are all categories of kitten outcomes Boks/Barth report; some show live
release and some show other than live release. Also, if you
scroll to the very end, you see impounds. Here, for the last
fiscal year, 2007 to 2008, are Ed Boks' "transparent" statistics:
Unweaned Kittens |
2007/08 |
Live Release |
|
Adoptions |
441 |
New Hope Placements |
1,050 |
Returned to Owner |
4 |
Total Live Releases |
1,495 |
|
|
DOA |
29 |
|
|
Died in Shelter (Not Euthanized) |
331 |
Euthanasia |
3,447 |
Escaped |
4 |
Stolen |
0 |
Total Other Than
Live Release |
3,782 |
|
|
TOTAL OUTCOMES
INCLUDING DOA |
5,306 |
|
|
Impounds |
6,474 |
|
|
KITTENS UNACCOUNTED FOR
(Impounds less total outcomes including DOA) |
1,168 |
What
does this mean? It means that Ed Boks and Linda Barth are hoping
you, the media and the Mayor will look at the kitten outcomes they DO
give you, and not notice that they are hiding the outcomes of 1,168
kittens by simply not reporting them to you. That is, of the
6,474 unweaned kittens impounded in 2007/08, Boks/Barth think it is
okay to not tell you what happened to a full 1,168 kittens. They
admit to killing 3,447 kittens, while another 1,168 kittens disappear
from Boks/Barth reporting before your very eyes. We just aren't
told what happened to them.
IN
WHAT PRIVATE INDUSTRY AND IN WHAT RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
CAN SOMEONE SIMPLY FAIL TO ACCOUNT FOR 1,168 OUT OF 6,474 OF SOMETHING
AND KEEP THEIR JOB?
Boks/Barth
have failed to report what happened to 1,168 out of 6,474 unweaned
kittens, or over 18% of the unweaned kittens in their "care."
Worse,
Boks/Barth have reported the statistics in a way that misleads the
public and City officials into thinking things are not nearly as
horrible as they truly are. In glancing at the spreadsheet
provided by Boks/Barth it is easy to be lulled into believing that it
is accurate and that Boks/Barth are doing something about the unweaned
kitten overpopulation crisis, when in fact they are not.
If
Boks/Barth try to tell you that the missing kittens are still in the
shelter, then the shelter should have roughly 1,168 unweaned (only
those under 8 weeks of age) kittens. Interestingly, the number of
unweaned kittens in LAAS shelters on August 31, 2008, per Pet Harbor,
were no more than 160. (515 were under one year of age, including
the unweaned kittens.) 1,168 unaccounted for minus no more than
160 unweaned kittens held in the shelter leaves at least 1,012 unweaned
kittens unaccounted for by Boks/Barth.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REMAINING OVER 1,000 UNACCOUNTED FOR KITTENS!
One
more time this begs the question, what are Boks/Barth doing with
numbers. No matter what their reasoning, the best that can be said is
that Boks/Barth have completely failed in their duty to properly track
and report their department's activity and have again given reason to
doubt anything coming out of their mouths or their keyboards.
Madison
TOP
Madison's installment #6 Unmasking Ed Boks "No Kill Equation"
In this and following installments, I will be addressing each one of the "Ten No-kill equation recommendations" stated in Ed Boks' document "IMPLEMENTING THE NO-KILL EQUATION IN LOS ANGELES " which appears on the LAAS website http://www.laanimalservices.com/PDF/ED/No-killanalysis.pdf .
Recommendation 1. FERAL CATS TNR PROGRAM
In this document Boks states that "The
Department has no formal TNR (Trap/Neuter/Return for feral cats)
program yet because a proposal to change City law to officially permit
such a program has been delayed by threats from environmental and
wildlife organizations insisting that TNR is unacceptableā¦"
Boks goes on to say that "Since 2006 the Department spays or neuters over 8,000 feral cats annually independent of and in addition to any formal spay/neuter or TNR programsā¦"
However,
as we have see too often Boks' numbers do not mirror
the truth. The 8,000 feral cats he quotes in the LAAS document is NOT
the number he reported in the Los Angeles City 2008-09 budget
found on the LA mayor's website.
Click on http://www.lacity.org/cao/budget08-09/2008-09bluebook-Volume1.pdf and go to page 44 of the PDF document (although it is marked as page 26 of the document). The heading of the page is INDICATORS OF WORKLOAD (continued). On the left is a column title PET STERILIZATION PROGRAM, scroll down 14 lines where you will find "Pilot Feral Cats Program". Continue across the page where you will see that Boks reports that the number of feral cats the department actually spayed or neutered since he became LAAS General Manager is NONE.
Now we
know that LAAS did spay and neuter some feral cats. Most of them
were done in that North Central spay/neuter clinic by the operator that
was only there a short time and then left the city (to go to
Burbank). But here is what Ed tells the Mayor he did and it
sure does not jive with the JIVE BOKS TELLS THE PUBLIC. Kinda like the
jive he tells the mayor about his 95.75% no kill "phase I" when in actuality the completion of "phase I" is not even in sight.
To add insult to injury, Boks goes on to state, " There is no record of any municipality funding more feral cat surgeries annually than LA City." Not according to Ed Boks' annual budget reporting to the Mayor which the Mayor posts to his website.
Boks
continues on with TNR information which is correct but as always his
diatribes are hypocritical. Similar to the hypocritical diatribes he
delivers about LAAS achieving "no kill", Boks does not do what he
advocates.
In the LAAS document, Boks states, "TNR is being practiced in more and more communities across the United States and around the world with amazing results". Sadly for our city's feral cats LA is not one of those communities and Ed Boks is not moving us in that direction.
Ed goes on to say " TNR is practiced in lots of places." Then why not here in LA? Simple! Because although Ed tells you some of the obstacles, he has not done anything to face, manage or eliminate any of them. Kinda
the same way he has done nothing about "no kill" except preach theory.
While Boks blogs, preaches and theorizes, animals including feral cats
keep dying.
Madison
TOP
Madison installment #7 Boks/Barth are not following up on spay/neuter of LAAS animals.
Thanks
to Ed Boks and Linda Barth's mismanagement from March 2008 continuing
to the present, every month approximately 350 dogs and cats were
released from LAAS shelter to new owners without being spayed or
neutered.
For
each of these animals LAAS keeps a record (called a D-300). Until March
2008 the POP officers followed on all the LAAS D-300. Starting in March
2008 Boks/Barth implement another bad idea and took the POP officers
away from their duties following up on these D-300.
Guess
who they put onto the project of following up on unsterilized animals
released to new owner by LAAS to make sure those animals get spayed or
neutered.
NO ONE!
Thus,
since March 2008, LAAS has release nearly 2100 unsterilized dogs and
cats. For those unsterilized dogs and cats released by LAAS, Boks/Barth
have had no mechanism in place to even find out if the animals are
getting sterilized, let alone to insure that they do get spayed or
neutered.
By
not following up to ensure spay/neuter of animals Boks/Barth released
to the citizens of Los Angeles, Boks/Barth are contributing to the
already overwhelming pet overpopulation of our city.
This, while the new spay/neuter ordinance has been in effect since late February 2008.
Gestation
for cats and dogs is approximate 63 days. It has been 6 months since
LAAS stopped following up. I wonder how many have been born due through
your negligence. Boks/Barth, are you going to blame this one on
the employees too? Or is it the foreclosure market again?
Madison
TOP
Madison installment #8--Boks/Barth claim to increased adoptions, unmasked
An
earlier installment revealed an outrageous claim that was later
confirmed by Boks/Barth. The claim that LAAS has reached over 95% Phase
I No-Kill.
This
installment will illuminate how Boks/Barth, who thus far have created
NO new adoption programs since they began management of LAAS, claim
that they are responsible for increased adoptions.
Let's
use a simple analogy. Two sweater boutiques open. Little boutique
contains 10 sweater shelves on the sales floor, while Big boutique
contains 100 sweater shelves on the sales floor. At the end of
the day Big boutique claims they had a more profitable day
because they sold 90 sweaters verses Little boutique which only sold 9
sweaters.
By
simply counting sweaters, one would agree that Big boutique is more
successful. In reality, or if we "normalize" (using a Boksism)
the number, Little boutique and Big boutique sold the same percentage
of sweaters. Big boutique has larger capacity space and therefore can
provide a greater selection, providing more customers with what they
need. So they bought more.
This may seem simplistic but it is precisely what Boks/Barth are claiming and the proof is below.
As
you can clearly see from the following series of charts, dog adoptions
fluctuated but did not increase substantially until one thing
happened. That thing is the opening of the new $159-million
dollar Proposition F animal shelters. Those shelters were
approved by voters on November 7, 2000 and had nothing to do with
Boks/Barth. Boks takes credit for the increased adoptions. But in
reality, Boks deserves no credit. He merely had the serendipity
of walking into Los Angeles right before the new
shelter started to open. You will remember that each shelter
opened at a different time. The time each shelter opened is noted
on the charts below and you will see, it matches.
*The numbers below appear on the LAAS website. Click on link, select the district shelter and click on "dogs". http://www.laanimalservices.com/about_stats_care_center.htm
North Central Shelter
Dog Adoptions |
Year ending August |
Dog
Adoptions/New Hope |
|
07/08 |
2,944 |
|
06/07 |
2,591 |
Ā¬ New shelter opened 10-2006 ($10.6-million) |
05/06 |
2,176 |
|
04/05 |
2,106 |
|
03/04 |
2,261 |
|
02/03 |
2,199 |
|
01/02 |
2,073 |
|
East Valley Shelter
Dog Adoptions |
Year ending August |
Dog
Adoptions/New Hope |
|
07/08 |
4,288 |
Ā¬ New shelter opened 5-2007 ($23.4-million)
|
06/07 |
3,522 |
|
05/06 |
3,214 |
|
04/05 |
2,980 |
|
03/04 |
2,948 |
|
02/03 |
2,785 |
|
01/02 |
2,727 |
|
West Valley Shelter
Dog Adoptions |
Year ending August |
Dog
Adoptions/New Hope |
|
07/08 |
2,773 |
Ā¬ New shelter opened 8-2007 ($17.8-million) |
06/07 |
2,192 |
|
05/06 |
2,130 |
|
04/05 |
2,072 |
|
03/04 |
1,862 |
|
02/03 |
1,915 |
|
01/02 |
1,985 |
|
West LA Shelter
Dog Adoptions |
Year ending August |
Dog
Adoptions/New Hope |
|
07/08 |
1,509 |
Ā¬ New shelter opened Nov-2007 ($25.5-million) |
06/07 |
834 |
|
05/06 |
875 |
|
04/05 |
828 |
|
03/04 |
869 |
|
02/03 |
910 |
|
01/02 |
908 |
|
Harbor Shelter
Dog Adoptions |
Year ending August |
Dog
Adoptions/New Hope |
|
07/08 |
956 |
Ā¬ New shelter opened June-2008 ($18.7-million) |
06/07 |
748 |
|
05/06 |
778 |
|
04/05 |
651 |
|
03/04 |
651 |
|
02/03 |
665 |
|
01/02 |
663 |
|
More proof:
If
adoption increases were due to any Boks/Barth adoption programs,
wouldn't they happen across-the-board at all the shelters? They
don't. Here is what happens:
The
increased adoptions took place at different times. That is
because the new shelters opened at different times. Not because
of any Boks/Barth adoption program.
There is no new SLA shelter. Consequently there is no significant increase in SLA adoptions.
South LA Shelter
Dog Adoptions |
Year ending August |
Dog
Adoptions/New Hope |
(No new shelter) |
07/08 |
3,700 |
|
06/07 |
3,675 |
|
05/06 |
3,338 |
|
04/05 |
3,329 |
|
03/04 |
3,248 |
|
02/03 |
3,575 |
|
01/02 |
3,238 |
|
If we want more adoptions, Boks/Barth better get busy asking voters for another $159-million.
Just
like the sweater analogy gives the illusion that Big boutique sold more
sweaters then Little boutique. This proves that the only reason
adoptions increased is due to the increased holding capacity in
the new shelters and that the adoption increases have nothing to do
with Boks/Barth.
We
have now unmasked that Boks' biggest claim to fame, increased
adoptions, was caused by the bigger new shelters and not by anything
Boks/Barth did and even with the increased adoptions, euthanasia
has still increased by 37%.
What exactly have Boks/Barth been doing?
Madison
TOP
Madison installment #9 Unmasking Ed Boks euthanasia directives.
Yesterday,
Thursday September 11, 2008, at approximately 5 PM, Ed Boks went to the
East Valley Shelter with three public adopters and an LAAS volunteer. Boks said he wants to speak to a supervisor regarding how they choose which animal will be euthanized.
Boks
first questioned the supervisor himself. Boks then instructed the
supervisor to submit to interrogation by members of the public and Boks
allowed the members of the public to continue interrogating the
supervisor. Exercising this employees right, the supervisor declined to
submit to the interrogation without union representation.
Ed Boks is setting up the employees to throw them under the bus for his own euthanasia directives.
It
was only two months ago that Ed Boks sent his e mail directive on
euthanasia. Boks sent his euthanasia directive on July 13, 2008. In it,
Boks states:
1. "Place ALL animals on the Red Alert immediately, with the exception of animals the Center Managers believe the public will adopt within a reasonable amount of time."
2. "Place all incoming stray and owner relinquished animals on the Red Alert at the time of impound."
3. "Animals
employees or volunteers (trainers) have a vested interest in can be
discussed and can be held up to 21 days, but only with Center Manager
approval. The animals are not to be held any longer without GM [Ed Boks] approval."
4. "Manage euthanasia decision using the Minus One Goal DAILY."
5. "I
[Ed Boks] will assist the respective Center Staff next weekend when the
bulk of these animals complete their seven day Red Alert to help them
select animals for euthanasia using Minus One goals as a guide."
.
Boks almost never visits the shelters. What is the special occasion that gets Boks to actually show up in a shelter? To help select animals to be killed.
Boks' directive covers the time span from impound through euthanasia, yet Boks NEVER mention ADOPTIONS.
Once again Boks solution is warehouse or kill.
When
Boks blames the shelter staff for their euthanasia decisions or numbers
let's remember the staff is simply following Ed's directives.
Madison
A clarification to Madison installment #9 regarding euthanasia directives
I would like to clarify the e mail I sent out this morning.
Ed
Boks' July 13, 2008 euthanasia directive was directed only to "East
Valley and SLA" the two shelters with the highest impound rate. Boks
states in his e mail directive "I
have directed East Valley and SLA to take the following steps to
respond to the overcrowding in these centers. These directives are to
continue until Center animal population are within reasonable limits."
Once again, Ed Boks offers only two solution WAREHOUSE or KILL!
In
response to a number of individuals asking me why center managers
are not planning their own adoption programs. Let me clarify the
matter. Adoption events require funding and administrative
support, the only people able to authorize adoption events are Ed Boks,
Linda Barth and Kathy Davis.
Madison
TOP
Madison installment #10 Boks euthanasia moratorium. NOT.
In
my last installment (#9), I addressed Boks directive to have all
animals at South LA shelter and East Valley shelter Red Listed
immediately including all incoming strays and owner surrenders
with the exception of animals the center Managers believe the
public will adopt within a reasonable amount of time. Boks directive
also stated that he would visit the Centers to help select the animals
to be euthanized.
Today,
I am unmasking Boks new directive that Boks sent to all LAAS
Centers, this time requesting a "moratorium on all behavior"
euthanasia.
Here is the e-mail Ed Boks sent to all LAAS Centers on Sept 11, 2008:
From: Ed Boks
TO: Anidept@lacity.org
CC: Louis.Dedeaux@lacity, Kathy.Davis@lacity.org
Date: 9/11/2008 8:01 PM
Subject: Moratorium
Starting
immediately, I am enacting a moratorium on all behavior related
euthanasia. Medical staff may continue to authorize medical related
euthanasia for humane reasons as appropriate. Center Managers may
continue to authorize space/time euthanasia as appropriate for shelter
population management. Center Managers are expected to effectively use
Plus One/Minus One, Green and Red Alert, and Heart to Heart tools to
manage shelter populations.
However, only AGM Kathy Davis, Captain Louis Dedeaux, and/or I may approve euthanasia for reason of behavior.
Any questions of this directive are to be directed to AGM Davis, but there is to be no delay in its implementation.
Remember
that, up until this new directive, it was perfectly fine in fact
encouraged to kill animals for behavioral. Why? Because medical and
behavioral DO NOT count as euthanasia according to Ed Boks' Phase I
"No-Kill" definition.
Now
Boks states that "Center Managers may continue to authorize space/time
euthanasia." However, in the same breath Boks states that he expects
the staff "to effectively use the Plus One/Minus One."
Well here is the problem.
Remember,
Boks' Plus One/Minus One equation means that Center Managers MUST adopt
one more animal then they did the same day of the last year and kill
one less animal then they killed that same day last year. For example,
if last year a Center adopted 10 dogs/cats, then that center is
expected to adopt 1 more dog/cat same day this year, meaning
they are expected to adopt 11 dogs/cats same day this year.
If that Center killed 1 dog/cat same day last year, then that Center is
expected to kill one less dog/cat same day this year,
meaning no dog/cats be killed that day.
So
essentially Boks is stating in his new directive that "Center Managers
may continue to authorize space/time euthanasia", but are "expected to
effectively use One Plus/Minus one." The problem? What
do Center Managers do with the animals that cannot be killed
due to "Minus One"? Warehouse. Which will lead to inhumane conditions
and/or animals either fighting or becoming sick, leading to
euthanasia under medical because they are considered unadoptable under
medical. This will enable Boks to keep killing animals, while
maintaining the illusion of his 95.75% self-defying "Phase-I No Kill".
It is clear that Boks gave the staff directives that are impossible to adhere to and end up in the same result.
Note
that nowhere in this directive, as always, is there any mention of
fresh ideas that will increase adoptions or reduce intake.
Once again Boks solution is Warehouse or Kill.
An
additional problem with this particular directive is Boks' statement
that "only AGM Kathy Davis, Captain Louis Dedeaux, and/or I [Ed Boks]
may approve euthanasia for reasons of behavior."
Is
Boks planning to have AGM Kathy Davis, Captain Dedeaux (who held the
title of Animal Behavioral Health & Safety Coordinator, before
being assigned to manage the West LA shelter ) and himself, spend their
days running from shelter to shelter to assess the behavior of animals
being considered as behaviorally unadoptable. Who will be running
the WLA animal shelter, managing LAAS operations and writing Boks'
blogs while Captain Dedeaux, AGM Davis and Ed Boks are busy driving
around in LA traffic between 7 city shelters.
And are we doing temperament testing now?
Way to go Boks. Any population reduction ideas yet?
Note
that in this directive, as in all others, Boks does not provide the
staff any innovative ideas or resources for increasing adoptions and
reducing intake. Nevertheless, Boks does not hesitate to blame shelter
managers and staff for not increasing adoptions and not "managing
euthanasia".
Has Boks forgotten what his job title is?
Madison
TOP
Madison Installment # 11-- Boks claim that LAAS is the #1 adoption agency in the world, UNMASKED
This installment will illustrate how Boks/Barth just can't get their claims right.
On
September 9, 2008, with the knowledge that L.A. Animal Services staff
was about to present their vote of "No Confidence" in General Manager
Ed Boks and Assistant General Manager Linda Barth to the Los Angeles
City Council, Ed Boks wrote a letter to the City Council members.
The following is just one of the inaccurate claims Boks makes in his letter:
"In the past two years, we have become the number one pet adoption agency in the world, with over 25,000 adoptions annually."
Boks
is absolutely correct about the total number of LAAS adoptions. In fact
the exact number is 25,277 for the 12 months ending August 31, 2008.
http://www.laanimalservices.com/PDF/reports/CatNDogIntakeNOutcomes.pdf
But that does not make LAAS the "number one pet adoption agency in the world."
Ed,
please provide your data on this astounding claim. For example, I
am wondering how many annual pet adoptions are done in
Switzerland. I also hear adoptions are pretty darn good in New
Zealand. And France does well too. What data did you get
for those countries, Ed?
OK, we know you did not even ask. You just made it up. Does the mayor consider that ethical?
Let's
look at the real facts. It would take way too much time to research the
adoption rate of the world, so I have decided to stick to the USA.
Boks
conveniently chooses to report his number according to the method that
give the best illusion of his success. For example, in this same
letter, Boks uses a percentage and raw numbers for his increase
in spay/neuter (we will address this in future installment.).
However, when claiming to be "number one in the world" in
adoptions, Boks choose to use ONLY the raw number.
Why? Because as you will see in the chart below, the applicable
percentage is not very impressive. In fact it is nothing more than
average.
When
you are dealing with statistics you cannot just state raw numbers
without putting them in context. Outcomes depend on what comes
in. That is, we have to count number of impounded animals in order to
measure the success of how many animals were adopted.
Below
is a chart that presents both intakes and adoption for LAAS and the
national averages, representing adoptions in the context of impounds.
The
LAAS figures are the latest (12 months ending August 31, 2008) from
Boks' statistics. The national average figures for intake
and adoptions are the current estimates taken from the Humane Society
of the United States website showing HSUS estimates. http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/pet_overpopulation_and_ownership_statistics/hsus_pet_overpopulation_estimates.html
NATIONWIDE
Estimated Average
LAAS (HSUS figures)
Adoptions 25,277 3 to 4 million
Intake 51,040 6 to 8 million
Adoptions
as 49.52%
50%
Percentage of
Intake
Comparing Boks/Barth's LAAS results, we can see that the best Boks can claim is that LAAS adoptions are no better than AVERAGE. The national average adoption rate is 50% of intake. The Boks/Barth adoption rate is just shy of that.
Not
quite the greatest in the world. Hardly even the greatest
in the country. But it sure sounded good Ed. And some
people used to believe you.
Madison