Tag: animal cruelty

Posted on

Best kept secret in the battle to end animal abuse by Ed Boks

Ed Boks and Deborah Knaan
Attorney Deborah Knaan creator of the B.A.R.C. curriculum

I recently became reacquainted with an important program in Los Angeles.  Although, this program could be useful in every community in the United States, it appears to me to be one of the best kept secrets in the battle to mitigate animal cruelty and abuse in our communities.

I’m talking about the Benchmark Animal Rehabilitative Curriculum (B.A.R.C.).  B.A.R.C. is a unique online animal abuse prevention course designed to educate and rehabilitate individuals who have demonstrated a propensity to mistreat animals.

The B.A.R.C. course is appropriate for adults and juveniles (aged 15-17).  The course is only open to individuals referred by a member of the criminal justice system (judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, or probation officer); an animal control professional; a social services agency; an educational institution (teachers and school counselors); or a mental health professional. Continue reading “Best kept secret in the battle to end animal abuse by Ed Boks”

Posted on

Legislators challenge Arizona’s moral progress By Ed Boks

Mahatma Gandhi said it best, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” The same can be said of the states in a nation.

In fact, the greatness and moral progress of all 50 states can be traced through the years by the consistent strengthening of state laws against animal cruelty to include felony provisions. This moral and legal progress has been based on the growing understanding of the link between animal cruelty and violence against humans.

Today, academic journals and textbooks in child welfare, human-animal studies, sociology, child development, criminology, psychology, social work, veterinary medicine, and many other disciplines accept the incontrovertible link between animal abuse, domestic violence, child maltreatment and elder abuse.

Understanding this link, the FBI now requires local law enforcement to track and report animal cruelty the same way homicide, arson and assault are tracked – as a Group A felony.

So, why would any Arizona legislator want to turn back the clock on progress that has taken decades to achieve? Why would any legislator want to strip any animal of any protection provided by the law?

Why would Arizona legislators David Gowan and Brenda Barton work behind closed doors with corporate agriculture lobbyists to craft a bill (HB 2330) designed to repeal the few protections millions of animals have in Arizona?

HB 2330 is not an isolated attempt to repeal Arizona’s animal cruelty laws. Last year enough Arizona legislators supported a similar bill (HB 2150) that it would have been the law of the land today except for Governor Ducey’s veto.

Fortunately, this year’s coup against animal welfare may have died in the Agriculture, Water and Lands Committee when they wisely chose to not agendize HB 2330.

However, the bill could still be resurrected by the House Appropriations Committee this year or introduced in another permutation next year. Animal advocates must remain vigilant in a state where politicians seem strangely determined to weaken animal-cruelty laws.

Apart from some Arizona legislators, animal abuse is widely recognized and understood by law enforcement, public health officials and decent human beings everywhere to be part of a continuum of violence with serious implications for multiple victims and society as a whole.

While Gandhi drew our attention to the societal ramifications of how we treat animals, Immanuel Kant provided some insight into how we should judge politicians who deliberately put animals in harm’s way. “He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.” This maxim serves as a reliable gauge for assessing the character of politicians who have the power to impact how animals, and people, are treated on a massive scale.

Sponsors and supporters of last year’s HB 2150 and this year’s HB 2330 have telegraphed their agenda to reverse Arizona’s moral progress by revoking protections animals in Arizona have benefited from for decades. They have exposed their intent to put the welfare of millions of animals at risk without any corresponding benefit or legitimate justification. They need to know this is not going unnoticed.

Refer to my Feb. 17 column, “Lawmakers target animals again” to understand the risk of cruelty that HB 2330 posed for millions of animals.

Posted on

FBI calls animal cruelty ‘crime against society’ By Ed Boks

Many studies over the years have demonstrated conclusively that young people who torture and kill animals are prone to violence against people later in life if it goes unchecked. Finally, this knowledge is being applied by law enforcement in an effort to identify and intervene in the lives of young animal abusers before they become serial and/or mass murderers.

For years, the FBI has filed animal abuse crimes under the label “other” – thus lumping them with a variety of lesser crimes. This makes cruelty crimes hard to find, count and track. The bureau announced this month that it will make animal cruelty a Group A felony with its own category in the same way crimes like homicide, arson and assault are listed.

This new federal category for animal cruelty crimes will help identify animal abusers before their behavior worsens. It will also encourage prosecutors and judges to take these crimes seriously.

It is hoped this new category will result in more appropriate sentences, more influence with juries, and the ability to make more meaningful plea bargains.

The special category will also help law enforcement officials identify young offenders, and hopefully help offenders realize early that with the right help they need not turn into a Jeffrey Dahmer later.

With this new category, law enforcement agencies will soon be required to report incidents and arrests in four areas: simple or gross neglect; intentional abuse and torture; organized abuse, including dogfighting and cockfighting; and animal sexual abuse.

“The immediate benefit is that it will be in front of law enforcement every month when they have to do their crime reports,” said John Thompson, interim executive director of the National Sheriffs’ Association who worked to get the new animal cruelty category instituted. “That’s something we have never seen.”

Law enforcement officials will soon understand that this data provides an important crime fighting tool, and its “not just somebody saying the ‘Son of Sam’ killed animals before he went to human victims, and 70-some percent of the school shooters abused animals prior to killing people,” said Thompson, a retired assistant sheriff from Prince George’s County, Maryland.

FBI studies show that serial killers like Dahmer impaled the heads of dogs, frogs and cats on sticks; David Berkowitz, known as the “Son of Sam,” poisoned his mother’s pet; and Albert DeSalvo, aka the “Boston Strangler,” trapped cats and dogs in wooden crates and killed them by shooting arrows through the boxes.

It will take time and money to update FBI and law enforcement databases nationwide, revise manuals and send out guidelines, Thompson said, so there won’t be any data collected until January 2016. After that, it will take several months before there are numbers to analyze.

The new animal cruelty statistics will allow police and counselors to work with children who show early signs of trouble, enabling professionals to intervene early when a preschooler is known to be hurting animals – so hopefully the urge to hurt can be mitigated before humans become targets.

The FBI’s category will track crimes nationwide and is bound to give animal cruelty laws in all 50 states more clout. Many states are seeing more of those convicted of animal cruelty being sentenced to prison in marked contrast to years past.

Whether talking about state laws or the FBI change, it is clear “that regardless of whether people care about how animals are treated, people – like legislators and judges – care about humans, and they can’t deny the data,” said Natasha Dolezal, director of the animal law program in the Center for Animal Law Studies at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon.

Posted on

Cruelty to animals a sign the abuser is disturbed, dangerous by Ed Boks

Adam and Nancy Lanza (Reuters:Facebook)
Adam and Nancy Lanza (Reuters:Facebook)

Many of us are still attempting to cope with one of the most senseless crimes in our lifetime, perhaps in our nation’s history – the cold-blooded murder of 20 children and six teachers.  In the aftermath of this heinous crime, law enforcement, educators and mental health professionals are again asking themselves if there are ways we can predict and perhaps prevent such tragedies.

In a Dec. 22 USA Today article, “Predicting violent behavior isn’t easy,” experts described five characteristics that mass killers exhibit that lead to accurate predictions of who is most likely to kill. Those five characteristics are previous violent or aggressive behavior; being a victim of physical or sexual abuse; guns in the home; use of drugs or alcohol; and brain damage from a head injury.

I was surprised to find that one of the most recognized risk factors for future violence was not even mentioned: animal abuse.

Both the American Psychological Association and the FBI recognize animal abuse or torture as an important indicator of future violent behavior toward humans. So serious is animal abuse that it is a felony in every state except North and South Dakota. In Tennessee, even hunting for the “pleasure” of killing the animal without the purpose of hunting for food consumption is considered aberrant behavior.

Research has found that most animal abusers suffer from low self-esteem, lack of emotional maturity, feelings of resentment toward others or society, displaced aggression (the helpless animal is blamed for the killer’s unhappiness), loneliness, and an inability to establish constructive social relationships. Abusers often suffered from childhood neglect and/or physical abuse themselves. Animal abusers almost always suffer from mental illness and require professional treatment.

Arizona law stipulates that cruelty to animals is a Class 6 felony which, if convicted, could result in a year of jail time and as much as $150,000 in fines. According to Arizona State Statute § 13-2910 a person commits animal cruelty when the person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly subjects an animal to cruel neglect or abandonment; fails to provide medical attention necessary to prevent protracted suffering; inflicts unnecessary physical injury; or subjects an animal to cruel mistreatment.

So the big question is, can we predict (and hopefully prevent) who might commit heinous crimes, including mass murder? Some studies suggest that we can. Many researchers are confident that animal abuse is an early indicator of future violence towards humans. One study of 314 inmates published in the journal Child Abuse & Neglect (1997) conducted by University of Iowa professors Karla Miller and John Knutson found that a high percentage of the subjects charged with violent crimes, including murder, initially engaged in various types of animal cruelty.

There are more than 55 national organizations, including several in Arizona, whose mission it is to prevent, stop and help prosecute individuals who engage in animal cruelty. Reporting abusers not only protects our community, but may prevent the individual from committing serious crimes against humans, including mass murders and other highly aggressive and destructive behaviors in the future.

Any parent who sees this type of behavior in their children should immediately seek out professional help for the child. Treating animals cruelly are not isolated incidents; almost every serial killer has a history of animal abuse. This is a fact, not a coincidence.

If you want to help animal victims of cruelty in your community, please send a designated donation to your local animal shelter.

Posted on

Animal abuser registries would protect all of us By Ed Boks

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.

Posted on

Let officials know your concerns regarding animal cruelty By Ed Boks

It is disheartening to learn of acts of animal cruelty that seem to continue despite the concerted efforts of so many animal welfare agencies dedicated to the prevention of animal mistreatment. We recently learned of an incident where a young man hiking in the forest found two Chow mix puppies that had obviously been abandoned. These little guys were no more than four weeks old, and had been left alone to face whatever fate might befall them.

Fortunately, the fellow who found these pups was able to locate a rescue agency that could take them, and it appears that these two are going to be OK. However, this form of animal cruelty seems to be on the increase. While the cases that are discovered can be quantified, we can only guess at the number of unknown instances that are now occurring with regularity.

Animal cruelty as defined by various statutes is clearly against the law in most jurisdictions. However, vigorous enforcement of the laws is the key to a successful outcome. In Maricopa County, for example, the sheriff’s office has dedicated a team of investigators to check out thousands of animal abuse reports that come in annually. This team has been in place for the past seven years. Involved officials say it’s a way not only to educate the public about the proper care of animals, but also to target abusers who could be working up to violence against humans. Some experts claim animal abuse is often the starting point of an escalation to child abuse, domestic violence, or murder and serial killing.

Closer to home, the Northern Arizona Animal Cruelty Task Force (NAACTF) was formed in cooperation with the Yavapai County Sheriff’s office. The mission statement of this group includes the following: “To increase awareness of animal cruelty laws in Northern Arizona; to enhance and coordinate enforcement of animal cruelty laws; and to educate law enforcement, animal care professionals and other agencies in aspects of animal cruelty and the relationship of animal cruelty to other forms of assault related behavior.” The members of NAACTF include representatives from most of the local animal welfare agencies.

The NAACTF has established an animal cruelty hotline you can call to report instances of animal cruelty. The phone number is 771-3595. You can leave a recorded message with the option of furnishing your name, address and phone number. However, we urge you to exercise good judgment and consider the seriousness of your allegation before making a report. Frivolous reports will only burden the system and dilute its effectiveness.

We acknowledge that much progress has been made over the years through education and various programs by animal welfare groups to increase public awareness of the widespread problem of animal cruelty. Yet it persists. And at times like the present, we seem to be losing ground, especially when we encounter those who don’t realize abandonment constitutes animal cruelty.

More effort needs to be expended. In addition to reporting animal cruelty, you can help by making your feelings known to elected officials. Also, when specific cases are involved, let the presiding judge and other officials know of your concern by insisting on strict enforcement of the existing laws.

Posted on

The elephant in the room… by Ed Boks

This weekend Los Angeles played host to British artist Bansky’s exhibit “Barely Legal”, that included a live elephant painted to blend into the wallpaper of a living room. The exhibit seems an apt metaphor for the awakening consciousness of Angelinos. LA is a community with arguably the most vocal animal rights activists, a strong public and politically supported “no-kill” initiative in our city shelters, an unprecedented Anti-Animal Cruelty Task Force comprised of Police and Animal Care Officers and City Attorneys, and internationally known celebrities who care enough about animal suffering to use their celebrity to speak on behalf of the voiceless.

As a community we are concerned about pet rabbits fed to snakes, dogs on chains, parakeets sold on Santee Alley, the fate of feral cats, and how animals are treated in the movies. But beyond all the conversations, discussions, protests, policy statements, rules, and laws there remains an elephant in the living room that nobody seems to see.

Until this weekend! Looking into Tai’s eyes, I could not help but think of Jeffrey Masson’s book “When Elephants Weep”. Looking into her eyes nearly brought me to tears. Dozens of people came up to ask me, “Is this right?” Somehow we seemed to know intrinsically that what we came to see was wrong, perhaps even profane.

It was as though there were two groups of people in the room. One group could not see past Tai, the other saw into her soul. George Bernard Shaw once said, “The worst sin towards our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them. That’s the essence of inhumanity.” There was an elephant in the living room and most of us could not see her. We saw an oddity, a freak or clever expression of “art”, but we failed to see the very essence of our inhumanity manifested through our indifference.

In 1780 another Brit, an attorney by the name of Jeremy Benthem, wrote a book entitled, “An Introduction to the Principle of Morals and Legislation.” In his book there is what many consider the most quoted footnote of all time: “The question is not, can they reason? Nor can they talk? But, can they suffer?”

That was an original question in 1780 when scientists and clergy alike truly felt animals could not suffer as humans do. To answer that question today you only had to look into Tai’s eyes. Animals are a test of our character. How we treat them is the measure of our humanity as a community, and there is no greater sin than to be indifferent.

Los Angeles is a city that has made many people wealthy through the exploitation of animals. We see wild and exotic animals everywhere: in the movies, commercials, TV shows, billboards, ads, art exhibits, and even in the homes and yards of the rich and famous. Dare we admit there is a suffering elephant in our living room? Will we have the courage to ask if our indifference is causing animals to suffer? Can we talk and reason together about how to end animal suffering? Because if we don’t, the elephant won’t suffer alone, we will all surely suffer the loss of some part of our humanity.

Posted on

Understanding Animal Cruelty Investigations by Ed Boks

I am often asked why Animal Control Officers and our Cruelty Task Force sometimes impound animals and other times give warnings when they observe violations of laws such as having too many animals or animals that appear to be neglected. This is an excellent question deserving an answer.

First of all, it should be noted that Animal Services’ ultimate goal is to find safe and happy homes for all animals. This does not excuse a person from neglecting their companion animal(s) or violating local laws. But we also know from years of experience and thousands upon thousands of contacts with the community that the overwhelming majority of animal caregivers don’t intentionally abuse or hurt their animals. However, there are countless factors that may result in an animal being neglected.

Neglect sometimes results from a family or financial crisis; ignorance regarding the proper care of an animal; or any number of other reasons. Sometimes a person’s compassion for animals exceeds their capacity and they take in more animals than they can responsibly care for. These aren’t excuses. But they may be reasons that, if corrected quickly, can avoid an animal being taken to an already over-crowded shelter. With proper intervention and instruction a neglectful caregiver is often provided the information and motivation needed to become responsible.

Realizing this and based upon solid experience and statistics, Animal Control Officers throughout the country have learned that over 90% of animal caregivers who are found to have an animal in need of medical or other attention will comply with warnings, or a “Notice to Comply”, as we call them in Los Angeles. Typical situations involve dogs and cats with flea and other parasite infestations, unsanitary conditions including excessive feces and urine residue in the house and backyard or failure to provide adequate food, fresh water and shelter.

In the vast majority of these situations when an Animal Control Officer gives the caregiver a Notice to Comply, that caregiver responds and the animal’s safety and welfare is restored without the necessity of removing the animal from its home and placing it in a municipal shelter. Impounding an animal into a shelter may seem preferable at first glance but the community needs to know that even the most modern and sanitary shelters expose animals to a variety of diseases and stresses that can negatively impact an animal’s health and happiness.

Animal Services in Los Angeles is doing everything we can to make our new shelters as safe as possible, including the installation of state-of-the art ventilation systems, architectural designs that discourage the spreading of disease, and providing medical support to maintain an impounded animal in the best condition possible. But the best efforts of any municipal shelter can never provide the safe and comfortable environment that a responsible caregiver can provide in his or her home. If necessary for the animal’s welfare, impoundment may be appropriate. But if we can save a home for an animal by warning and assisting the caregiver, it is certainly worth the effort.

So, you may ask, just when do we choose to take (impound) animals from their caregivers instead of give a warning? Our policy is firm and clear (and supported by California law). LA City Animal Services will impound animals that are in imminent danger or when it is obvious that a warning to a caregiver will be ignored. But, again, if an animal is not in imminent danger and the caregiver appears responsible and able to correct a situation such as providing non-emergency medical treatment, flea or tick removal and control, or cleaner housing conditions, then there is no question that it is in the best interest of the animal that we issue a Notice to Comply with follow-up to insure that the caregiver has done whatever was necessary to correct the situation.

To be sure, the City does not issue warnings because it is easier or because we don’t care about an animal’s welfare. It is only because we know from decades of experience, both here in Los Angeles and around the country, that most people will correct problems if given a written warning with follow-up to insure compliance.

There is one particular situation that is rather unique and often times reported in the news…and that is the infamous “hoarder”. A hoarder is a term of art that refers to persons who not only have more animals than the law allows but more animals than they can properly care for. Studies show these people often suffer from a form of obsessive-compulsive behavior and will rarely respond to a warning to reduce the number of animals or provide proper care. The nature of this disease is such that these persons are not even aware of how they are neglecting the animals in their household.

“Hoarders” typically rescue animals from the streets and truly believe they are doing the best thing for the animals. Hoarders can live in a household that is filthy, infested with parasites, intolerable smells of urine and feces, and permanently stained and destroyed furniture…but even when confronted with the way they are living and neglecting their animals, they are literally unable to see the reality of the situation. It is like a person suffering from life-threatening anorexia who looks in the mirror and sees a fat, overweight person. It is a delusion of sorts.

So, in spite of our best efforts to help the average animal caregiver to correct neglectful situations, we know that “hoarders” will not (and cannot) correct a situation by themselves. Accordingly, our Animal Control Officers and the members of the multi-departmental Animal Cruelty Task Force are trained to recognize possible “hoarders” and distinguish them from those people in the community who have more animals than they can care for but do not suffer from this obsessive compulsive disorder. When there is a suspected “hoarder”, our investigators can also call upon the expertise of our veterinarians and City and County social services to confirm the person is in fact a hoarder.

When we do identify a hoarder with animals in need of immediate attention, make no mistake about it…we will not issue a Notice to Comply. As I said, this is because we know they are unlikely to correct a situation and it is in the best interest of the animals to immediately remove them from the household. We will often work with our New Hope partners and other qualified organizations in the community to coordinate resources so we can provide foster homes for seized animals so they don’t have to go to the shelter unless absolutely necessary.

Animal Services recently implemented a novel and proactive Foster Program for “evidence” animals. Historically, animals rescued by Animal Services from a hoarding or abusive situation were forced to languish in a City Shelter for weeks, months, or even longer as the case was adjudicated. Recently, with the help of the City Attorney’s Office and the support of the Animal Services Commission, Animal Services implemented a foster program for these needy animals so they don’t have to suffer the trauma of a prolonged shelter experience. If you are interested in participating in this program, please contact our Foster Program Coordinator for more information.

During this foster period, hoarding cases are fully investigated and referred to the City Attorney Animal Protection Unit for criminal prosecution or psychiatric evaluation as appropriate. Criminal prosecution is not usually effective with hoarders. Counseling, involvement with Clutterers Anonymous, and constant visits is required to help these folks. We have specially assigned prosecutors in the criminal justice system to make sure these goals are met and to get these animals into good homes as quickly as possible.

For those who have too many animals but do not fit the profile of a hoarder, we will issue a Notice to Comply with careful follow-up, knowing that almost all of these people will comply with our notice to provide the necessary medical care, cleaner or roomier housing conditions, and placing the “excess” animals in other suitable homes. Our investigators will do whatever they can to assist these people in complying with the law to provide a safe home for their animals including referring them to interested New Hope Partners and other qualified organizations and foster families to help bring about compliance in a reasonably short time…again with the animals interests coming first.

For non-hoarders who fail or refuse to respond to our written warnings (Notice to Comply), our Cruelty Task Force and Animal Control Officers will proceed with a formal investigation for neglect and other law violations and refer the matter to the City Attorney or District Attorney for criminal prosecution…and impound any animals suffering or in imminent danger.

In summary, Animal Services’ policy for issuing a warning versus immediately impounding animals is based on solid evidence and experience with one purpose in mind…to do the best thing possible for the animals as we work together as a community to make LA the safest City in the U.S. for our pets

Posted on

What’s new at LA Animal Services? by Ed Boks

Have you seen what’s new on the LAAS Website?www.laanimalservices.com 

You can now translate the website into nine different languages.

There is a new Blog below on the cruelty of tethering called, “Chains of Love or Abuse”.

The New Hope Program scheduled to roll out within the next month or so is described. The document on line is just to help the rescue groups get acquainted with the program. LAAS will have a public meeting to explain the program in detail within the next couple of weeks. The program will not be implemented until after the public meeting.

A report on Operation FELIX (Feral Education and Love Instead of X-termination) is now on line for your information. It details why TNR (Trap/Neuter/Return) is the only viable, humane, non-lethal method for effectively reducing the feral cat population in any community or location.

My position on many common sense approaches to humane animal care on a community wide level is also available under GM’s Position Statements.

Also read about Patrick, the Irish Setter mix, adopted by a member of the Mayor’s Office at a City Council meeting on St. Patrick’s Day!

And much more.

Also, don’t forget to check out Dana Bartholomew’s new article on LAAS in The Daily News.

Euthanasia for dogs and cats in January 2006 was down 25%, and down 33% in February, and we are on track to reduce euthanasia 40% in March (its at 39.79% as of this writing on March 24th) compared to the same months in 2005. Stay tuned!

Please consider being a life saving Foster mom or dad this puppy and kitten season. More info on our enhanced Foster Program coming soon or contact our volunteer Department for an update.

Together we can make LA the safest City in the US for our pets!