Ed’s Blog

Posted on

IMPLEMENTING THE “NO-KILL EQUATION” IN LOS ANGELES – Part I: Feral Cat TNR Program

LA Animal Services has long been committed to making Los Angeles a “no kill” community for animals. Over the past several years the Department has implemented numerous programs and policies to achieve this goal with some remarkable success.

Recently there has been a little buzz in the animal welfare community about a “No Kill Equation” for local government animal care and control agencies. Advocates of this book claim it to be a revolutionary formula for achieving “no-kill.” In fact, the “No-Kill Equation” is neither new nor revolutionary but is actually comprised of ten common sense, long-standing practices embraced and implemented by LA Animal Services with remarkable results.

I am beginning a series of blogs designed to assess and compare the so called  “No-Kill Equation” to LA’s programs and practices. Over the coming weeks I will share each No-Kill Equation recommendation followed by an analysis on how LA Animal Services has been addressing the same issue for, in some cases, many years.  I will begin this series with the first of the No-Kill Equation recommendations which is Feral Cat TNR Program.

The Ten “No-Kill Equation” Recommendations are:
1. Feral Cat TNR Program
2. High Volume/Low-Cost Spay/Neuter
3. Rescue Groups
4. Foster Care
5. Comprehensive Adoption Program
6. Pet Retention
7. Medical and Behavioral Rehabilitation
8. Public Relations/Community Involvement
9. Volunteers
10. A Compassionate Director

The No-Kill Equation will appear in font.

The analysis of LA Animal Services’ efforts will follow in italics.

I. Feral Cat TNR Program
Many animal control agencies in communities throughout the United States are embracing Trap, Neuter, Return programs (TNR) to improve animal welfare, reduce death rates, and meet obligations to public welfare and neighborhood tranquility demanded by governments. In San Francisco, for example, the program was very successful, resulting in less impounds, less killing and reduced public complaints. In Tompkins County, an agreement with county officials and the rabies control division of the health department provided for TNR as an acceptable complaint, nuisance and rabies abatement procedure. In specific cases, the health department paid the Tompkins County SPCA to perform TNR.

Ed’s Analysis:  The Los Angeles Board of Animal Services Commissioners in 2005 embraced trap-neuter-return (TNR) as a preferred policy and the Department informally aids feral cat rescuers on a non-programmatic basis.

The Department has no formal TNR 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 unacceptable. They insist that the City of Los Angeles must complete a full environmental review to show that such a program will not harm bird species and habitat despite numerous reports from respected environmental organizations stating the real threats to bird species and habitats are urban development, habitat destruction and the effects of global warming.

Research and data does not support a dispositive conclusion that feral cats are responsible for species decline and the National Audubon Society supported prior state legislation, Assembly Bill 302, the “Feline Fix Bill,” requiring among other things that cats permitted outdoors be spayed or neutered.

Nonetheless, LA Animal Services is working with the Bureau of Engineering’s environmental unit to prepare appropriate documentation to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. There may be no other locale in the United States where environmentalists have actively attempted to block TNR without either considering a compromise or offering to help design a viable program that addresses their concerns. 

The Department prefers to form a partnership with environmental groups as done in the state of New Jersey where the Audubon Society and The Burlington County Feral Cat Initiative are working together to craft humane and environmentally friendly solutions to reduce the feral cat population. It is LA Animal Services’ desire and duty to care for all of the City’s animals in need and the Department is currently looking to resolve these issues as expeditiously as possible via the environmental clearance process.

In the meantime, LA Animal Services’ North Central Spay/Neuter Clinic is currently devoted to cat sterilization. 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 programs. There is no record of any municipality funding more feral cat surgeries annually than LA City.

I think it might be helpful to explain my commitment to TNR.

Without question, one of the biggest challenges to achieving no-kill in Los Angeles is implementing a program to effectively reduce the number of feral cats in our neighborhoods. Estimates on the feral cat population in LA are difficult to make, but they range from the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands.

Feral cats are cats that have reverted to a wild state. They are born from tame unaltered cats that owners abandon or allow to run loose. These cats mate with other free roaming cats, and their offspring, raised without human compassion, are wild, or feral. These cats then grow up and breed with other feral and free roaming pet cats and the cat population increases exponentially.

Communities employ one of three methodologies to deal with feral cats: 1) Do nothing, 2) Eradication, or 3) Trap/Neuter/Return.

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

Although many communities employ eradication or “catch-and-kill” as a remedy to this vexing problem, 30 years of catch and kill in communities across the United States has irrefutably demonstrated that this methodology does not work.

There are very real biological reasons why catch and kill fails. Wild animals tend to be “survivors.” Feral cats, which are wild animals, typically live in colonies of 6 to 20 cats. You often never see all the cats in a colony and it is easy to underestimate the size of a feral cat problem in a neighborhood. When individuals or authorities try to catch cats for extermination it heightens the biological stress of a colony.

This stress triggers two survival mechanisms causing the cats to 1) over-breed, and 2) over-produce. That is, rather than having one litter per year of two or three kittens, a stressed female could have two or three litters a year of 6 to 9 kittens each.

Even if a person was successful in catching and removing all the feral cats from a neighborhood, that creates a phenomenon called, “the vacuum effect.”

When some or all the cats in a colony are removed, cats in surrounding neighborhoods recognize an opened ecological niche (especially a place with food sources). The removed colony actually kept surrounding colonies at bay. When a colony is removed, all deterrents evaporate and the surrounding cats enter the new territory to over-breed and over-produce, with all the associated annoying behaviors.

The end result of the catch-and-kill methodology is always the same: the vacated neighborhood quickly finds itself again overrun with feral cats fighting for mates, over-breeding, caterwauling, and spraying for territory.

Thirty years of catch-and-kill have taught us that this methodology only exacerbates the problem. It is not a solution at all.

Albert Einstein defined “insanity” as doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. That is why so many communities are trying the newest alternative, trap/ neuter/return, or TNR.

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

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

There are many benefits to TNR. 1) TNR prevents the vacuum effect from developing. 2) Altered cats display none of the troubling behaviors of intact cats: fighting and caterwauling for mates, and spraying for territory. 3) The cats continue to provide rat abatement, a service many neighborhoods rely on, and 4) because feral cats tend to live significantly shorter life spans than domestic indoor cats the problem literally solves itself through attrition, provided TNR is implemented community wide.

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

Clearly, TNR is the only viable, non-lethal, humane and cost effective solution to our communities’ feral cat problems. I look forward to the day in the not-too-distant future when Los Angeles can complete the thorough California Environmental Quality Act review required for the legalization of a formal TNR program here.

Posted on

A Century in Review and Looking Ahead… by Ed Boks

Ed Boks and Today ShowIn 2009 LA Animal Services will celebrate its centennial, one hundred years of providing service to the pets and people of Los Angeles.

Animal care and control is perhaps the most misunderstood animal welfare organization in many communities. To better understand LA Animal Services, and animal control in general, it may be helpful to look through the lens of history at how these programs evolved over the past century.

During the first quarter of the 20th Century, most communities were rural and sparsely populated. Dogs and cats were valued for what they contributed to this rural lifestyle. Dogs, for the most part, were working animals earning their keep on a local farm or ranch, or they were used for hunting to help put dinner on the table. Cats, and some small dogs, were used as mousers to help keep small rodents and rats out of home, barn and business. Cats and dogs were permitted to run free.

By the third decade of the 20th Century, free roaming dogs resulted in a dog overpopulation problem, and with it came an increase in rabies.

The seriousness of rabies in the early 20th Century was brilliantly depicted in the American literary masterpiece, “To Kill A Mockingbird.” Atticus Finch, a Southern small town lawyer was called upon to shoot a rabid dog in the middle of a neighborhood street as residents watched trembling behind locked doors and windows. The context suggests Atticus had been called upon to dispatch rabid dogs before, which may have earned him the respectful moniker “one shot Atticus”.

This all too common scenario occurring across America motivated state legislators to establish rabies and animal control programs to ensure dogs were vaccinated against rabies and licensed. Cats were not included because they were not a significant vector for rabies in most parts of the country. Over time dog vaccination and licensing programs effectively reduced the incidence of rabies in dogs to the level that naturally occurs in cats, that is, rabies became equally rare in dogs.

So successful were these programs that it is easy to forget the terror the word “rabies” evoked in the heart’s of communities. The fact that scenes like the one depicted in “To Kill A Mockingbird” are a thing of the past is a tribute to animal control professionals. And today they do it without firing a shot! They do it by maintaining and enforcing successful rabies vaccination and licensing programs.

Most communities never enacted laws to control cats. In fact, a silly and erroneous notion was promoted that claimed cats are “free roaming animals” that don’t need to be regulated. An exploding feral cat population is the consequence of this short sightedness and today feral cats are a significant public concern.

While animal control programs focused narrowly on controlling rabies a striking societal change was occurring in the human/animal relationship.

Advancing to the 60’s we find many Americans starting to reject the conventional wisdom that pets are meant to be kept outdoors. I recall discussing this societal shift with my father. I was around ten years old. I had bought my first dog with money I saved from cutting lawns all summer.

My father was raised in a rural Michigan community. He explained that he also had a dog when he was a boy. His dog lived in a doghouse in the backyard. The idea of a dog in the home was as incomprehensible to him as keeping a dog outside was to me. “Dogs don’t belong in the house,” he told me. However, I persisted, and the dog was eventually permitted in the house, albeit, in the basement, where I spent many a night comforting him through the anxiety caused by his separation from mother and siblings. As the months and years passed, he eventually took his place under the kitchen table during meal times and at the foot of my bed at night.

All across the United States similar scenes were taking place. As communities continued to urbanize, dogs and cats found their way out of the barnyard workforce into our hearts, our homes, and for some of us, into our beds. Pets were no longer staff; they had become part of the family.

Unfortunately, many animal control programs did not keep pace with this societal change and continued to view themselves solely as rabies control organizations implementing catch and kill methodologies.

An urban dog population explosion in the 70’s caused cities and towns to refocus their animal control efforts to simply getting dogs off the street. Unfortunately, little thought was given to any long-range strategic solutions or to even what to do with all these animals after they were rescued from the streets.

One merely needs to tour the municipal dog pounds built across the United States during the last century to understand the catch and kill thinking of most community planners. These facilities were clearly designed to warehouse dogs until they were “disposed of”. As free roaming and feral cats became a problem, these “dog pounds” were enlisted to warehouse terrified cats as well.

Los Angeles is the first major city in the United States to officially, and financially, respond to its community’s desire for a humane animal control program. LA did this with a $160 million commitment to build state of the art animal care community centers to replace its dog pounds.

The new Centers increase shelter space by more than four hundred percent to help better accommodate the average of 150 lost, sick, injured, neglected, abused, lost or unwanted animals entrusted to LA Animal Services every day.

The new Centers have wide aisles, solar and radiant heating, cooling misters, veterinary and spay/neuter clinics, park benches for visitors, fountains and lush landscaping – a world away from the grim conditions of the old shelters, where animals could become so agitated or depressed that they seemed ill-tempered and, thus, “unadoptable” by old school animal control reckoning. By transforming our animal shelters into places of hope and life, instead of despair and doom, we are already experiencing a measurable increase in our adoption rates and consequently one of the most significant declines in LA’s long history of declining euthanasia rates.

In the nearly ten years since the City of Los Angeles officially embraced the “No-Kill” ethic, the kill rate has plummeted from over 60,000 to around 15,000. Still too many, to be sure, but there is no denying progress is being made.

What is the future of animal care and control in the United States? There must be as much an emphasis on humane, non-lethal animal care programs today as there was on rabies control programs in the past.

The reason so many animal welfare organizations sprang up across the United States during the 20th Century is because most municipal animal control programs misunderstood or were unable to implement animal care programs to compliment their animal control programs. Animal welfare organizations filled the gap because inadequate funding and the threat of rabies forced most animal control programs into advancing expedient catch and kill methodologies rather than long term humane, non-lethal solutions.

Dogs and cats running loose is a symptom of a dysfunctional community. The cause is irresponsible pet guardians. However, many municipalities contribute to this dysfunction by developing the most costly and ineffective response to the problem. That is, they ask their animal control programs to chase, impound, warehouse, kill and dispose of pets. To be responsive in today’s communities, animal care and control organizations must take the lead in implementing cost effective non-lethal (no-kill) strategies.

Strategies like LA’s Big Fix that provides $1.2 million worth of free or low cost spay/neuter for 45,000 pets belonging to residents on public assistance annually. Strategies like TNR (Trap/Neuter/Return) a feral cat program that is having a dramatic impact on solving neighborhood feral cat problems all across the United States. And of course, humane, inviting shelters that serve as pet adoption and community centers.

The 21st Century animal care and control must represent the most proactive, innovative programs. Programs designed to humanely solve the problems of irresponsible pet guardianship, not exacerbate them, which is what “catch and kill” methodologies do.

LA is already experiencing the long-term payoff of such programs. By continuing to work together we will soon see the day when euthanizing a healthy, adoptable animal is as rare as shooting a rabid dog in downtown Los Angeles.

Posted on

U.S. shelter killing toll drops to 3.7 million dogs & cats by Merritt Clifton and Ed Boks

U.S. animal shelters as of mid-2007 are killing fewer dogs and cats than at any time in at least the past 37 years, according to the 15th annual ANIMAL PEOPLE evaluation of the most recent available shelter data.

The rate of shelter killing per 1,000 Americans, now at 12.5, is the lowest since data collected by John Marbanks in 1947-1950 suggested a rate of about 135–at a time when animal control in much of the U.S. was still handled by private contractors, who often simply killed strays or sold them to laboratories instead of taking them to shelters, and unwanted puppies and kittens were frequently drowned.

The ANIMAL PEOPLE projection each year is based on compilations of the tolls from every open admission shelter handling significant numbers of animals in specific cities, counties, or states. The sample base each year is proportionately weighted to ensure regional balance. Only data from the preceding three fiscal years is included.

Using a three-year rolling projection tends to level out flukes that might result from including different cities, counties, and states each year, but has the disadvantage of sometimes not showing significant changes in trends until a year or two after they start. Thus the effects of the post-2001 slump in funding for dog and cat sterilization programs only became evident in 2004. Comparably, trends involving Internet-assisted adoption, adoption transport, feral cats and pit bull terriers that were just gathering momentum in 2004 are major influences on the 2007 findings.

As of 2004, about a third of all U.S. dog and cat adoptions were believed to be Internet-assisted, via web sites where animals’ photographs and descriptions are posted. Anecdotally, at least two thirds of adoptions are Internet-assisted today, with dogs benefitting most, since dog adopters are more likely to be seeking a specific breed or mix, who may be readily found only through web-searching. Adoption transport also chiefly benefits dogs, since cats are still abundant in all parts of the U.S., but small dogs, puppies, and purebreds are relatively scarce in shelters along both coasts and in the northern Midwest.

Soaring shelter receipts of pit bull terriers in 2001-2004 outpaced progress in sterilizing feral cats, causing total shelter killing to soar by the end of 2004 to the highest level since 1997. For the first and only time since ANIMAL PEOPLE began quantifying shelter killing, more dogs were killed in 2004 than cats. The 1997 toll was 53% cats, 47% dogs, about the same balance as had prevailed since the mid-1980s, but the 2004 toll was reversed, at 47% cats, 53% dogs. [Boks: In LA it is 65% cats and 35% dogs.]

About half of the dogs who were killed in 2004 were pit bull terriers, ANIMAL PEOPLE confirmed by surveying shelter directors in 23 representative metropolitan areas.

Salathia Bryant of the Houston Chronicle was shocked in February 2007 to discover that local shelter intakes of pit bulls had increased from 5% of all dogs in 2000 to 15% in 2002 and 27% in 2006. Actually this was right on the national norms found by ANIMAL PEOPLE nearly two years earlier.

Los Angeles residents were shocked in June 2007 when Department of Animal Regulation chief Ed Boks lamented that 40% of the dogs who were killed in the city shelters during the preceding year were pit bulls. Yet as many as 70% of the dogs killed in some other major cities are pit bulls–who are reportedly 65% of the animal control dog intake in Milwaukee, and may account for more than two-thirds of the dog intake in Detroit and Philadelphia.

While pit bull intake has not slowed down since 2004, and appears to be still rising, the total canine death toll in U.S. shelters has fallen by more than 750,000 since 2004, with pit bulls the main beneficiaries.

Increasing use of standardized temperament tests to determine whether dogs are safe for adoption appears to be driving the change. Traditionally, behavioral suitability for adoption tended to be judged from anecdotal assessments by animal control officers, kennel workers, and people who surrendered animals to shelters. Relatively few shelters ever categorically refused to adopt out pit bulls and other breeds of dog who are considered high-risk, though some did and still do, but the breeds of dogs tended to weigh heavily, if not always consciously, in the judgments.

When most shelters were killing a relatively high percentage of the dogs received, and no one breed predominated, this was not an issue. As pit bulls came to disproportionately fill shelters, however, concern about “breed discrimination” on the one hand and soaring liability insurance costs on the other caused shelter directors to seek ways to support their decisions. Standardized temperament tests offer shelters a way to explain in relatively objective terms why a particular dog may be unsuitable for adoption, and to adopt out some pit bulls with confidence that the adoptions will succeed.

Whether temperament tests really prevent dog attacks and liability is still a matter of debate, with several relevant court cases pending. ANIMAL PEOPLE in January/February 2002 published data suggesting that the breed-specific patterns of fatal and disfiguring attacks among dogs who have cleared behavioral screening are the same as among all dogs.

However, though pit bulls tend to flunk the most popular standardized behavioral tests more often than any other breed, enough pit bulls pass that they have become the breed most often adopted in New York City and Los Angeles. Despite several high-profile failures of pit bull adoption programs in the 1990s, many other cities are now trying similar approaches, based on checklists of behavior that can be taken into a courtroom more persuasively than the intuitive and subjective opinions of animal handlers. [Boks: please visit The Truth About Pit Bulls for more information on pit bull temperament that varies from ANIMAL PEOPLES’ analysis.]

Currently, U.S. shelters kill about 1.4 million dogs per year, including about 750,000 pit bulls and close mixes of pit bull. [Boks: In the City of LA we kill about 6000 dogs annually of which nearly 2,300 are pit bull/mixes.]

While fewer pit bulls are dying in U.S. shelters, the cat toll is rising again for the first time since neuter/return feral cat control caught on in 1991-1992. Across the U.S., the shelter toll is now 63% cats, 37% dogs–the most lopsided that it has ever been. [Boks: In the City of LA our cat intake is 45% and dog intake is 55%.]

Tweety and Sylvester

The 2006 projected total of 2.3 million cats killed in shelters represents an increase of about 300,000 from the level of the preceding several years. [Boks: In the City of LA we decreased cat euthanasia every year for the past six years. 28% decrease in cat deaths over the past six years with a 13% decrease over just the past twelve months.]

Yet this is not because there are more cats at large. Repeatedly applying various different yardsticks to measure the U.S. feral cat population, including shelter data, road-kill counts, and surveys of cat feeders, ANIMAL PEOPLE has found since 2003 that the projections consistently converge on estimates of about six million feral cats at large in the dead of winter, with about twice that many after the early summer peak of “kitten season.” This is down by more than 75% from the feral cat population of circa 1990, which was up by about a third from the total indicated in the studies done by John Marbanks in 1947-1950.

Data collected for the National Council on Pet Population Study indicates that the U.S. pet cat population has not reproduced in excess of self-replacement since approximately 1994. The marked increase in the U.S. pet cat population over this time, from just over 60 million to about 90 million, has been driven by adoptions of feral cats–mostly feral-born kittens. Kitten removals from the feral population, together with neuter/return, has reduced feral cat reproductive capacity to substantially less than replacement. Taking feral cats’ places are other mid-sized predators including growing populations of urban and suburban coyotes, foxes, bobcats, hawks, owls, and eagles.

But intolerance of free-roaming cats, especially feral cats, is the longtime official policy of all U.S. federal government agencies, as well as many state agencies responsible for managing property where feral cats formerly dwelled. Under intense pressure from birders and conservationists trying to save endangered species of birds and small mammals, federal and state agencies have intensified efforts to extirpate feral cats.

Organized opposition to neuter/return feral cat management before 2003 came chiefly from the Humane Society of the U.S. and PETA, which held that feral cats were suffering and should therefore be killed to end their misery, and the American Bird Conservancy, a relatively small organization that originated as a project of the World Wildlife Fund. Soon thereafter, HSUS adopted policies favoring carefully managed neuter/return–but in April 2003 the National Wildlife Federation membership magazine National Wildlife came out strongly against neuter/return. Only The Nature Conservancy, whose policy is to extirpate all nonnative species from their land holdings if possible, has more influence among U.S. wildlife policymakers.

Feral cat colony caretakers have often not helped their cause by maintaining colonies near sensitive wildlife habitats, and by not sterilizing enough cats, fast enough, to reduce the visible population to none within the three-to-five-year average lifespan of a feral cat who survives kittenhood.

Cape May, New Jersey, for example, has had an active neuter/return network since 1992, encouraged by animal control chief John Queenan. ANIMAL PEOPLE mentioned the Cape May project as a model for other communities in 1993. But Cape May is perhaps the most frequented resting and feeding area for migratory birds along the entire Atlantic flyway. Many visiting species are in decline, including the tiny red knot, which flies each year all the way from the Antarctic to the Arctic and back. Cape May is also among the nesting habitats of the endangered piping plover.

The Cape May economy is driven by birders’ visits. When Cape May still had an estimated 500 feral cats in 2003, ten years into the neuter/return program, the city allowed neuter/return advocates to maintain 10 cat feeding stations and weather shelters, but the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service began demanding that feral cat feeding be ended.

Many cats were removed from sensitive areas and housed in two trailers, one belonging to Cape May Animal Control and the other to Animal Outreach of Cape May County, the primary local cat rescue group since 1995. On May 19, 2007, however, the trailers caught fire, killing 37 cats. Cape May is currently considering withdrawing support for neuter/return and prohibiting feeding cats outdoors.

A similar situation may have a happier outcome on Big Pine Key, Florida, home of the endangered Hefner rabbit, Sylivilagus palustris hefneri. The rabbit was named for Playboy magazine founder Hugh Hefner after he funded the study that put it on the U.S. endangered species list more than 20 years ago. Blaming feral cats for a catastrophic collapse in rabbit numbers at the National Key Deer Refuge, refuge manager Anne Morkill in June 2007 announced that the cats would be trapped and taken to animal control shelters, where they would probably be killed. Hefner then donated $5,000 to Stand Up For Animals, whose founder, Linda Gottwald, told Stephanie Garry of the St. Petersburg Times that she would use the funding to sterilize and relocate as many of the cats as possible.

Among the regional variations of note in the 2007 ANIMAL PEOPLE roundup of shelter killing data are that the dog/cat balance is 72/28 in the Northeast, 65/35 in the Midwest, 63/35 in the Mid-Atlantic region, and 60/40 along the West Coast, but is 54/46 in the South, where intakes and killing of both dogs and cats are highest. Among the possible explanations are that Southern animal control agencies may put more emphasis on picking up dogs, and that communities with more dogs at large tend to have fewer feral cats.

Virginia and Florida data, however, more resembles the data from the rest of the U.S., reflecting the demographic influences of Washington D.C. and migration to Florida from other parts of the country.

Midwest progress

The Midwest has made the most impressive recent gains, almost catching up to the West Coast in reduction of dog and cat overpopulation through high-volume low-cost sterilization. Many of the most ambitious dog-and-cat sterilization projects started within the past decade are in the Midwest, including Pets Are Worth Saving, founded by Paula Fasseas in Chicago, and the Foundation Against Companion Animal Euthanasia, founded by Scott Robinson, M.D., in Indianapolis.

A global veterinary shortage is especially acute in the Midwest, where organizations including the Michigan Humane Society, based in Detroit, and M’Shoogy’s Animal Rescue, near Kansas City, have at times had to cut back services simply because they could not find vets to fill their open positions. [Boks: LA critics find fault with local veterinary shortages not recognizing this is a national crisis. Not withstanding, Animal Services has significantly rebuilt its medical program and has four outstanding veterinarians on staff and more applying all the time.]

The same problem afflicts the Appalachian states, where progress achieved in the 1990s has largely been lost, most markedly in Knoxville. Handling both city and county animal control sheltering out of a World War II-vintage Quonset hut, and operating a major local dog and cat sterilization program, the Humane Society of the Tennessee Valley had reduced shelter killing to 24.5 dogs and cats per 1,000 humans by 1999–well above the then-national average of 16.6, but among the best records in the South.

A coalition of local no-kill rescue groups then convinced Knoxville officials that a city-and-county-run shelter working cooperatively with them could operate on less money and save more animals. ANIMAL PEOPLE warned at the time that Knoxville could not realistically try to achieve no-kill sheltering until the animal control intake volume fell by at least half. Instead of lowering the shelter toll, the first five years of animal control under the new agency saw shelter killing increase by 22%.

Regions quit counting

A frustrating aspect of the 2007 ANIMAL PEOPLE shelter toll analysis is that while we received enough data from both the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions to project reliable totals and trends by comparison to past data, including the dog/cat balance, no individual or agency relayed complete enough new data from cities other than New York City and Philadelphia–the biggest cities in those regions–for us to list totals for any others.

This is markedly different from the first years of our annual updates, when the most complete counts we received were from the New England states, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland.

As shelter killing rates in those states have stabilized at very low levels, many of the agencies that formerly collected shelter tolls appear to have refocused on collecting information about adoption transport programs, a very small part of shelter activity 15 years ago, but now the source of half or more of the animals many shelters offer for adoption.
–Merritt Clifton

[Boks: Visit http://www.laanimalservices.com/about_stats.htm for two comparisons of national shelter killing stats. Click on 2007 National Stats or 2007 National Stats Direct Comparison.]

[ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide, founded in 1992. Their readership of 30,000-plus includes the decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations. They have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. E-mail: anmlpepl@whidbey.com Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org $24/year; for free sample, send address.]

Posted on

Urgent Action Needed for Kangaroos in California by Ed Boks

Ed Boks and kangaroos
Help stop legislation that would allow kangaroos to be killed in even greater numbers to supply soccer cleats to Californians

Senate Bill 880, a bill that would allow the sale of kangaroo skins and body parts in the state of California, is sailing through the legislative process. Sadly, it has now passed the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee and moves to the Assembly for a floor vote. This means that the kangaroos still need your help. So even if you have already taken action on this issue, please take this opportunity to speak out one more time in opposition to SB 880.

If this bill passes it would erase a law that was implemented in 1970 to protect kangaroos by prohibiting the sale of their skins. A similar bill passed the legislature last session that reversed this protection for alligators, allowing their skins to be sold in California. It is important that the same fate does not befall the kangaroos.

Remind Your State Legislator of these Kangaroo Facts:
Kangaroos are not farmed. They are taken from the wild in Australia, and exist only in Australia.

Kangaroos are shot at night by hunters. Hunters are not always able to distinguish between kangaroos who are “approved” to be killed and others who are endangered. In Queensland, Australia, the Western Grey Kangaroo is not allowed to be killed, but it can be mistaken for the Eastern Grey that is allowed to be hunted.

The existing law that would be changed by this bill was made to protect certain “look-alike” species, so that Californians do not unwittingly contribute to the extinction of a species.

If a kangaroo that is killed is a mother with a baby in her pouch, the baby is taken out and killed by a heavy blow to the head (according to the Australian Code of Practice). Similar methods are used in Canada’s seal hunt; both California and Federal laws prohibit the sale of seal products from Canada because of the cruel killing methods used.

According to official Australian government statistics, kangaroo populations continue to decline and are now the lowest they have been in over a decade. Current populations are well below half of what they were in 2001. (Source: Sustainable Wildlife Industries, Dept of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra, 2006). Reintroduction of the trade in kangaroo skins into California would be disastrous, as there are already too few kangaroos to meet the industry’s demands.

SB 880 recently was modified (amended) in a way that appears at first glance to place a maximum limit on the number of kangaroos that could be killed in a given year. However, the new wording does not provide any real protection and, in reality, could allow kangaroos to be killed in even greater numbers to supply soccer cleats to Californians.

For more information on SB 880 visit:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0851-0900/sb_880_bill_20070710_amended_asm_v96.html

Posted on

June 07 and Fiscal Year 07 Record Breaking Recap by Ed Boks

When talking about “no-kill”, it is important to understand how this term is defined. At LA Animal Services “no-kill” means using the same criteria a compassionate veterinarian or loving guardian would use when deciding if euthanasia is appropriate. That is, euthanasia is only appropriate when an animal is terminally ill, terminally injured, or dangerously aggressive. When euthanasia is compassionately available for these animals alone we will have achieved “no-kill”.

LA Animal Services contends there is a loving home somewhere for all other categories of animals (the healthy, the treatable, and animals with behavioral issues that do not put people or other animals at serious risk of injury). Until all these animals are safely placed in loving homes Los Angeles has not achieved No-Kill. Until LA is not killing animals for reasons of space or limited medical resources we have not achieved No-Kill.

June 07 Statistics
Let’s look at the June 07 numbers. They reveal a timely snapshot of where we are now, but the real story is the consistent life saving trend we can document over the past five years.

June 07 dog and cat adoptions are up 26% compared to June 06 (1,552 from 1,233).

Dog adoptions are up 14% (839 from 733) and cat adoptions are up 43% (713 from 500).

The increase in cat adoptions appears to be the result of the community rallying to our calls for help with this year’s influx of cats.

New Hope Placements for dogs and cats is down slightly, 5.5% (344 from 376). Our New Hope program is a partnership with over 150 rescue organizations in California who help us place healthy and treatable animals at risk of euthanasia. New Hope placements for dogs is down 14% (291 from 340) but up 8% (235 from 217) for cats.

Where Animal Services Adoption and New Hope program’s synergistic efficiency truly reveals itself is in the euthanasia numbers. Dog and cat euthanasia in June 07 is down 30% (1,847) compared to June 06 (2,647). Dog euthanasia is down 30% (523 from 752) and cat euthanasia is also down 30% (1,323 from 1,895).

LA Animal Services implemented an aggressive orphan neonate kitten foster program this year. Neonates are kittens too young to survive on their own and in need of intensive foster care in order to survive. Neonates are animals state law defines as “unadoptable”, but LA Animal Services’ reverence for life No-Kill philosophy requires us to do everything we can to save these, the most helpless of all creatures.

In June 07 neonate kitten euthanasia decreased 59% (328 from 804). May 07 saw a 40% decrease in neonate mortality (192 from 319). These remarkable life saving results are being achieved by LA Animal Services employees and nearly 100 volunteer foster care givers who refused to let these animals die! I want to thank each and every one of you for your compassion and commitment to life!

In addition to the extraordinary efforts of our foster care givers, I want to thank our wonderful employees and volunteers for taking the time to help the public understand that by keeping these animals at home with momma until they are weaned they can greatly improve these babies’ chances of survival and, of course, for distributing Spay/Neuter Vouchers to get momma spayed after she weans this last batch of babies. These efforts resulted in a 21% decrease in the number of neonates coming into our Centers in June 07 compared to June 06 (862 from 1,095).

Fiscal Year 06/07 Statistics
In Fiscal Year (FY) 06/07, LA Animal Services took in 25,419 (55%) dogs and 20,898 (45%) cats.

34% (15,808) of all dogs and cats were owner relinquished, unwanted. 66% (30,686) were rescued by LA Animal Care Officers who found them as lost, roaming the streets, uncared for and perhaps just as unwanted.

LA Animal Services returned nearly 16% (4,037) of all incoming animals to their very grateful guardians. LA Animal Services consistently maintains the highest “return to guardian” rate in the country.

32% (6,634) of all cats taken (20,898) in were orphaned neonates.

Pit bull and pit bull mixes represent 25% (5,408) of all dogs taken in (25,493), 15% (1,463) of all dogs adopted, 4% (408) of all dogs placed through New Hope, and 41% (2,574) of all dogs euthanized.

In FY 06/07, LA Animal Services dog and cat adoptions are up 6.8% (15,098 from 14,125). Dog adoptions are up nearly 12% (from 8,772 to 9,813) and cat adoptions are down about 1% (5,285 from 5,353).

New Hope placements are down 1.7% (5,918 from 6,023). However, the combination of adoptions and New Hope placements is 21,016 – making LA Animal Services the highest volume pet adoption agency in the world.

In FY 06/07, Los Angeles euthanized (or killed) 17,314 dogs and cats. This represents the fewest number of dogs and cats euthanized in LA ever in a one year period. This is an 11.25% decrease from the previous Fiscal Year in which 19,508 dogs and cats were euthanized. LA Animal Services has consistently reduced euthanasia over the past five years in the double digits. 15% in 02/03. 12% in 03/04. 16% in 04/05. 10% in 05/06. 11.25% in 06/07. This represents a 50% decrease over the past five years from 34,329 to 17,314.

A sincere thank you to all of you who are helping to make No-Kill an achievable goal in LA!

Posted on

Importance of Legislation to Achieving No-Kill by Ed Boks

Some opponents of the bill attempt to use LA Animal Services’ progress as a reason to not support AB 1634, The California Healthy Pets Act. They assert that if LA is able to reduce pet euthanasia without mandatory spay/neuter then any community could do the same if they were so inclined. Don’t be fooled by these misleading arguments. LA is not typical of most California communities, and despite our best spay/neuter efforts when it comes to the number of unwanted pets coming into our Animal Care Centers, it’s almost as if we are standing still.

Unlike any other community in California (or the United States for that matter) Los Angeles provides between 40,000 and 45,000 spay/neuter surgeries to LA pets annually. Despite our $1.2 million commitment to spay/neuter every year, we still saw a one percent increase in the number of dogs and cats we took in during Fiscal Year 06/07. While opponents of AB 1634 claim all the unwanted animals dying in shelters are feral cats, the actual number of cats, feral and otherwise, coming into our Care Centers actually decreased nearly 1% (20,898 from 21,067) while dog impounds increased nearly 2% (25,419 from 24,748).

While LA can boast one of the most impressive track records towards achieving No-Kill in the United States, we are not there yet, not as long as we consistently take in 46,000 lost and homeless dogs and cats every year. It is time we turn off the faucet that is flooding our state with so many unwanted animals.

LA Animal Services initiated AB 1634 in recognition of the fact that unless we work together as a state to stop the proliferation of unwanted dogs and cats in California then every community, including Los Angeles, will ultimately fail in its quest to achieve No-Kill. If we refuse to fix this broken pipe we will continue to find ourselves mopping up the results of irresponsible pet guardianship at a tremendous cost to taxpayers.

More than any other city in the state, LA has too much invested to fail now. $1.2 million a year for spay/neuter surgeries, $160 million in new shelters and clinics to handle the crushing numbers of unwanted dogs and cats, and $21 million a year in animal control costs associated with unwanted dogs and cats, up 36% over the past six years.

No other city has more aggressively fulfilled the mandates of the 1997 Hayden Bill to hold animals longer and provide better medical care. But the unintended consequences of the Hayden Bill has been over crowded shelters all across California and the state’s third largest reimbursable mandate, hovering at around $150 million and growing at about $30 million a year. AB 1634 will help stop the insanity of escalating budgets and escalating body counts across the state (visit http://www.cahealthypets.com/ for more information).

Please contact your Senator today and ask him/her to support AB 1634.

Defining No-Kill
When talking about “no-kill”, it is important to understand how this term is defined. At LA Animal Services “no-kill” means using the same criteria a compassionate veterinarian or loving guardian would use when deciding if euthanasia is appropriate. That is, euthanasia is only appropriate when an animal is terminally ill, terminally injured, or dangerously aggressive. When euthanasia is compassionately available for these animals alone we will have achieved “no-kill”.

LA Animal Services contends there is a loving home somewhere for all other categories of animals (the healthy, the treatable, and animals with behavioral issues that do not put people or other animals at serious risk of injury). Until all these animals are safely placed in loving homes Los Angeles has not achieved No-Kill. Until LA is not killing animals for reasons of space or limited medical resources we have not achieved No-Kill.

June 07 Statistics
Let’s look at the June 07 numbers first. They reveal a timely snapshot of where we are now, but the real story is the consistent life saving trend we can document over the past five years.

June 07 dog and cat adoptions are up 26% compared to June 06 (1,552 from 1,233). Dog adoptions are up 14% (839 from 733) and cat adoptions are up 43% (713 from 500). The increase in cat adoptions appears to be the result of the community rallying to our calls for help with this year’s influx of cats.

New Hope Placements for dogs and cats is down slightly, 5.5% (344 from 376). Our New Hope program is a partnership with over 150 rescue organizations in California who help us place healthy and treatable animals at risk of euthanasia. New Hope placements for dogs is down 14% (291 from 340) but up 8% (235 from 217) for cats.

Where Animal Services Adoption and New Hope program’s synergistic efficiency truly reveals itself is in the euthanasia numbers. Dog and cat euthanasia in June 07 is down 30% (1,847) compared to June 06 (2,647). Dog euthanasia is down 30% (523 from 752) and cat euthanasia is also down 30% (1,323 from 1,895).

LA Animal Services implemented an aggressive orphan neonate kitten foster program this year. Neonates are kittens too young to survive on their own and in need of intensive foster care in order to survive. Neonates are animals state law defines as “unadoptable”, but LA Animal Services’ reverence for life No-Kill philosophy requires us to do everything we can to save these, the most helpless of all creatures. In June 07 neonate kitten euthanasia decreased 59% (328 from 804). May 07 saw a 40% decrease in neonate mortality (192 from 319).

These remarkable life saving results were achieved by LA Animal Services employees and nearly 100 volunteer foster care givers who refused to let these animals die! I want to thank each and every one of you for your compassion and commitment to life! In addition to the extraordinary efforts of our foster care givers, I want to thank our wonderful employees and volunteers for taking the time to help the public understand that by keeping these animals at home with momma until they are weaned they can greatly improve these babies’ chances of survival and, of course, for distributing Spay/Neuter Vouchers to get momma spayed after she weans this last batch of babies. These efforts resulted in a 21% decrease in the number of neonates coming into our Centers in June 07 compared to June 06 (862 from 1,095).

Fiscal Year 06/07 Statistics
In Fiscal Year (FY) 06/07, LA Animal Services took in 25,419 (55%) dogs and 20,898 (45%) cats. 34% (15,808) of all dogs and cats were owner relinquished, unwanted. 66% (30,686) were rescued by LA Animal Care Officers who found them as lost, roaming the streets, uncared for and perhaps just as unwanted.

LA Animal Services returned nearly 16% (4,037) of all incoming animals to their very grateful guardians. LA Animal Services consistently maintains one of the highest “return to guardian” rates in the country.

32% (6,634) of all cats taken (20,898) in were orphaned neonates. Pit bull and pit bull mixes represent 25% (5,408) of all dogs taken in (25,493), 15% (1,463) of all dogs adopted, 4% (408) of all dogs placed through New Hope, and 41% (2,574) of all dogs euthanized. Pit bull and pit bull mixes represent the most popular dogs sought out for adoption. They also outnumber all other dog breeds euthanized.

In FY 06/07, LA Animal Services dog and cat adoptions are up 6.8% (15,098 from 14,125). Dog adoptions are up nearly 12% (from 8,772 to 9,813) and cat adoptions are down about 1% (5,285 from 5,353). New Hope placements are down 1.7% (5,918 from 6,023). However, the combination of adoptions and New Hope placements is 21,016 – making LA Animal Services the largest pet adoption agency in the nation again this year.

In FY 06/07, Los Angeles euthanized (or killed) 17,314 dogs and cats. This represents the fewest number of dogs and cats euthanized in LA in a one year period. This is an 11.25% decrease from the previous Fiscal Year in which 19,508 dogs and cats were euthanized. LA Animal Services has consistently reduced euthanasia over the past five years in the double digits. 15% in 02/03. 12% in 03/04. 16% in 04/05. 10% in 05/06. 11.25% in 06/07. This represents a 50% decrease over the past five years from 34,329 to 17,314.

A sincere thank you to all of you who are helping to make No-Kill an achievable goal in LA!

And don’t forget to call or fax your Senator today to ask his/her support of AB 1634, beginning with the Senate Local Government Committee, which hears the bill on Wednesday, July 11th. The Committee’s members include:

Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod (Chair) 916-651-4032
Senator Dave Cox (Vice Chair) 916-651-4001
Senator Tom Harman 916-651-4035
Senator Christine Kehoe 916-651-4039
Senator Michael Machado 916-651-4005

Posted on

Top Ten Reasons Why Pets are Relinquished in Los Angeles by Ed Boks

In a recent LA Times article a local animal advocate was quoted as stating that the number one reason pets are relinquished to shelters is because the pets are too sick or too old.

While that may be true in other communities, that reason actually ranks number 8 for cats and number 7 for dogs in Los Angeles. The data below is being included in the development of a program called “Safety Net”. Safety Net is being designed with the help of several partner organizations to help keep pets and guardians together during difficult times negating the need for relinquishment.

So, just what are the Top Ten Reasons guardians give for relinquishing their pets in the City of Los Angeles? The rankings differ slightly for cats and dogs. It should also be mentioned that a percentage of pet relinquishers either refuse to give a reason or for some other reason this data was not obtained.

CAT GUARDIANS:

1. GUARDIAN HAS TOO MANY PETS (1,324) LA Animal Services does follow up on many of these relinquishments and many spay/neuter vouchers are distributed and as appropriate citations issued.

2. LANDLORD OR ZONING ISSUES (536)

3. GUARDIAN MOVING CANNOT TAKE CAT (465)

4. GUARDIAN HAS NO TIME FOR THE CAT (294)

5. HUMAN MEMBER OF GUARDIAN FAMILY ALLERGIC TO CAT (252)

6. GUARDIAN TOO ILL TO CARE FOR THE CAT (176)

7. CAT DOES NOT GET ALONG WITH OTHER PET (148)

8. GUARDIAN CANNOT AFFORD MEDICAL COSTS FOR SICK OR INJURED CAT (147)

9. GUARDIAN HOMELESS (138)

10. GUARDIAN DIED (89)

DOG GUARDIANS:

1. GUARDIAN MOVED COULD NOT TAKE DOG (1,021)

2. GUARDIAN HAD NO TIME FOR DOG (768)

3. LANDLORD/ZONING ISSUES (692)

4. GUARDIAN HAD TOO MANY PETS (600) LA Animal Services does follow up on many of these relinquishments and many spay/neuter vouchers are distributed and as appropriate citations issued.

5. GUARDIAN TOO ILL TO CARE FOR DOG (350)

6. GUARDIAN DIED (327)

7. GUARDIAN COULD NOT AFFORD THE MEDICAL COSTS FOR SICK OR INJURED DOG (323)

8. DOG TOO AGGRESSIVE WITH OTHER ANIMALS (304)

9. DOG TOO AGGRESSIVE WITH PEOPLE (290)

10. GUARDIAN HOMELESS (256)

The June 07 and Fiscal Year 06/07 Statistics are posted on the website. I want to thank everyone who helped us achieve these remarkable numbers. An analysis will be posted later this week.

Please remember to contact your California Senator Monday and/or Tuesday to ask him or her to support AB 1634, The California Healthy Pets Act. They need to hear from you now! It’s crunch time! The California Healthy Pets Act is to be heard in the Local Government Committee on July 11th at 8:00am. It must pass out of this Committee to get to the full Senate.

If you live in the district for any of the five Local Government Committee Members, please act immediately, fax and call now:

Members:

Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod (Chair)
916-651-4032 Office, 916-445-0128 Fax
Chino Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Colton, Fontana, Montclair, Ontario, Pomona, Rialto, San Bernardino

Senator Dave Cox (Vice Chair)
916-651-4001 Office, 916-324-2680 Fax
Fair Oaks Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado, Lassen, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, Sierra Auburn, Elk Grove, Fair Oaks, Folsom, Galt, Mammoth Lakes, Orangevale, Placerville, Rancho Cordova, Roseville, Sacramento, Shingle Springs, South Lake Tahoe, Susanville, Truckee, Valley Springs

Senator Tom Harman
916-651-4035 Office, 916-445-9263 Fax
Orange Orange, Costa Mesa, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, Westminister

Senator Christine Kehoe
916-651-4039 Office, 916-327-2188 Fax
San Diego, Del Mar, Lemon Grove

Senator Michael Machado
916-651-4005 Office, 916-323-2304 Fax
Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, Yolo Davis, Fairfield, Manteca, Stockton, Tracy, Vacaville, West Sacramento

Posted on

Applying The No-Kill Ethic by Ed Boks

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

Killing animals for lack of space may be the quick, convenient and, at least from afar, the easy thing to do. But I have never, in over 25 years in this field, heard anyone argue that it is the right thing to do. After all, the creatures who fill our shelters can hardly be faulted for bringing trouble upon themselves. People who seek to excuse euthanasia in shelters often say we have to be “realistic.” But ultimately such realism would be better directed at the sources of the problem and, above all, at the element of human responsibility.

There are the heart-breaking cruelty cases that bring so many animals to our doors, and the added wrong of killing animals already victimized by callous or vicious behavior. On top of that, over 30 percent of the 46,000-plus dogs and cats the City takes in each year are actually relinquished – turned in – even after years living with a family, like old furniture donated to charity. And another third of the creatures Animal Services euthanizes each year are orphaned, neonate puppies and kittens. No one bothered to spay or neuter the parents, and so the offspring are born into the world homeless or unwanted. The general attitude is, “Let someone else deal with the problem,” and – thousands of times a year – someone else does with a lethal injection. (In California it’s more than four hundred thousand times a year.)

Along with such failures in personal responsibility is a breakdown in social responsibility in the care of animals. On the budget sheets of government, saving animals can seem to a certain mindset as being a lowly or trivial concern. That’s an easy position to take, just as long as you don’t have to be there when the problem gets “solved” by euthanasia. If the public officials in most locales who brush off animal-welfare as “trivial” had to see the product of their priorities carried out – to witness for themselves how trusting the dogs are even when being led to their death, or how as they drift away they lick the hand or face of the person with the needle – I suspect they would see matters in a very different light, and would enthusiastically vote to support AB 1634, the state mandatory spay/neuter bill currently being fought over in the State Senate.

Here in Los Angeles there are rays of light. Between now and the end of 2007, the City will open several more new animal care centers, a decisive step forward in our commitment to helping lost and homeless animals, and to swearing off euthanasia as a solution to pet overpopulation.

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

The “no-kill” ethic is a matter of taking responsibility, instead of excusing the problem or hiding its consequences. In LA we are moving steadily in this direction. Over the past six years, our lost and homeless dog euthanasia rate has decreased 67 percent and our cat euthanasia rate has decreased 24 percent. In just the first five months of 2007, we’ve seen another 22 percent decrease in dog and cat euthanasia compared to the same period in 2006. In the past 12 months, 18,108 dogs and cats were euthanized.

That’s the lowest number ever for a one-year period in LA since thorough record-keeping began – and fewer animals than met the same fate in the much smaller city of Bakersfield. But no matter how you do the math, it still comes to over 18,000 creatures who had love and devotion to offer, and never got their chance. And calling the practice euthanasia (as some prefer), instead of killing (as others prefer), doesn’t make it any kinder.

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

The practice of killing animals for lack of shelter space has never been anyone’s idea of an ideal solution – let alone anyone’s idea of giving “shelter” to creatures in need. And, up close, the willful elimination of healthy animals with good years left is a sight to move the hardest heart. But as LA’s new Animal Care Centers continue to open their doors, Animal Services offers this goal to go with them, and we ask everyone’s help in achieving it: No animal that comes through those doors will be killed out of convenience or a lack of space. For every one of them, there is somewhere a kind and loving person or family, and it is our mission to bring them together.

Posted on

Dog Days of Summer Warning… by Ed Boks

In June 2006, the LA City Council officially went on the record supporting California Senate bill 1806. The bill outlaws leaving an animal in any unattended motor vehicle under conditions that endanger the health or well-being of the animal due to heat, cold, lack of adequate ventilation, or lack of food or water. This important bill was approved overwhelmingly by the Legislature last summer and signed by the Governor in September.  I am proud to have helped co-author this groundbreaking legislation.

As the dog days of summer approach, the The Animal Protection Institute (API, a national nonprofit animal welfare group in Sacramento) has sent out the following information:

API has launched its summer initiative, “My Dog is Cool,” to save dogs and other animals from dying in hot cars during warm-weather months.

Every year, dogs die after being locked inside cars while their humans leave them, often for “just a few minutes.” These tragedies occur with alarming frequency, yet the animals’ deaths are completely preventable.

“As the summer heats up, it’s important that people be made aware of the dangers of leaving companion animals inside hot cars,” says API’s director of legal and government affairs, Nicole Paquette. “People mean well by taking their dog or other animal along with them while they work, visit, shop, or run errands, but warm weather can literally turn a car into a death trap.”

** NOTE: A Stanford University test found that even if it’s only 72 degrees outside, a car’s internal temperature can rocket to 116 degrees within an hour. Hundreds of dogs are unintentionally killed or injured each year by being left in hot cars, even with windows cracked and only for a short time.

The lifesaving Web site http://www.mydogiscool.com is a free, friendly resource to help spread the word about the dangers of hot cars. Resources include downloadable posters and “It’s hot!” flyers that can be used when a dog is left in a hot car, and an “Is it Too Hot?” weather forecasting tool that allows you to just enter your zip code and see if it’s too hot to take your pal along in the car.

The MyDogIsCool.com site provides everything you need to know to keep dogs safe and happy during hot weather.  The Animal Protection Institute is a national nonprofit animal advocacy organization working to end animal cruelty and exploitation through legislation, litigation and public education. 

Below are some additional tips to keep in mind on warm/hot days:

Indoor Animals — Make sure your house doesn’t turn into an oven during the day while you’re at work. If you don’t have an air conditioner, leave as many windows partially open as you can to keep the air circulating. Moving air is important. Your dog or cat will follow the air currents around to find the most comfortable spot.

You can help by filling several liter-size plastic Coke/Pepsi bottles with water and freezing them. (Don’t fill them too full because ice expands.) Leave them lying on the floor around the house in places where your pets like to hang out. They can snuggle up against the icy bottles and keep at least a little cooler.

If you have an aquarium or fish bowl full of fish, make sure the sun doesn’t shine on them as it moves past your windows. Warm water loses oxygen, and a fish in a sunny aquarium can have trouble breathing and actually “drown.”

Outdoor Animals — If your dog or cat spends the day in the back yard, it would be great if they had a dog/cat door that would let them come inside to cool off. If they don’t (how about a doggy door into the garage?), you need to make sure they have some shady spots to get out of the sun and plenty of water to drink so they can stay hydrated.

Give the ground under bushes or in shady areas a good watering before you go to work so your dog has a place to stay comfortable. You can always give your pal a bath later.

Drinking Water — Whether your pets stay inside or out, make sure they have plenty of cool, clean water to drink. Leave several large bowls in different parts of your house or yard where your pets like to go and make sure they stay out of the sun so the water doesn’t get too hot to drink.

Here are a couple of important points on hot weather:

1. Exercise your dog in the cool of the early morning or evening, never when it’s hot. Be careful not to let your dog stand on hot asphalt or cement, as its sensitive paw pads can easily burn.

2. Some animals need extra special care in hot weather, especially those who are elderly and overweight, or have heart or lung disease. Hopefully, you know who you are.

Posted on

Year to Date and April 2007 Numbers and Where We Go From Here by Ed Boks

Year To Date Numbers:
Despite a 3.45% increase in the number of dogs and cats rescued by LA Animal Services in the first four months of calendar year 2007 (from 11,532 to 11,930), the City’s euthanasia rate continues to decrease!

The euthanasia rate for Calendar Year to Date compared to the first four months of 2006 shows a 13.25% decrease (from 3198 to 2774)! Keep in mind that 2006 was a historic record year for euthanizing the fewest number of animals and now 2007 appears to be on track to be another record year!

Adoptions Year to Date are up 2% (from 4349 to 4437) and New Hope placements are up 3.2% (from 1919 to 1982).

LA Animal Services continues to lead the nation in returning lost pets to their frantic and grateful owners with a 1.2% increase Year to Date over last year (from 1385 to 1402). This rate is four times higher than any other large municipal program.

April Numbers:
April 07 showed a 5.3% increase in the number of animals rescued by LA Animal Services (up from 3395 to 3577) compared to April 06. The continual increase in the number of animals coming into LA City Animal Care Centers demonstrates the need for widespread support of the California Healthy Pet Act (www.cahealthypets.com).

Despite this increase in numbers, LA’s April euthanasia rate is the lowest April ever recorded, down a whopping 22.7% (from 1099 to 849)! This follows March’s historic all time low euthanasia month!

Although Adoptions were down 5% (from 1102 to 1044) our New Hope partners picked up the slack and adopted 9.4% more animals this April than last April (from 622 to 681)!

Where We Go From Here:
While these numbers may appear to paint a rosey picture to some, I want to make sure we don’t fool ourselves with respect to the challenge before us.

LA Animal Services is criticized from both sides. When euthanasia is up we are criticized for being a “death camp”. When euthanasia is down we are criticized for being a “concentration camp”.

LA Animal Services walks a very difficult line – we must try to maintain a high quality of life for our sheltered animals while attempting to not unnecessarily sacrifice the life of any animals when we need more space for incoming animals.

To ensure LA Animal Services continues to trend towards No-Kill we have or are implementing the following strategies:

1. When an animal is healthy and has a good disposition, we hold that animal for at least 45 days to maximize our efforts to adopt it out. Most municipal shelters hold animals for a week or less. During those 45 days staff becomes well acquainted with each animal so as to better plead its case to both adopters and our New Hope partners. If after 45 days none of our 120 New Hope partners or anyone of our 4 million residents steps up to adopt an animal, we then stress the urgency for help with that animal by posting him/her on a seven day Red Alert on our website. This step provides anybody and everybody one last opportunity to save that animal.

Even then this is not an automatic death sentence. Staff can, and often do, take animals off the seven day Red Alert when they think that animal just needs a little more time. That is how and why we often have animals in our Centers for months at a time. I cannot find ANY municipal shelter in the world that DOES MORE to save lives than LA Animal Services!

2. LA Animal Services will continue to promote adoptions and will continue to find ways to maximize the resources of our New Hope Partners. Working with our New Hope Partners, LA Animal Services is placing nearly 21,000 dogs and cats every year. I cannot find ANY animal adoption program anywhere in the world placing more animals than LA Animal Services. And we are committed to doing better! In addition to that, we reunite over 4,000 lost pets with their owners each year!

Please help us promote our current Be Kind To Animals Week Adoptathon in which we offer half off adoption fees!

3. As many of you know, LA Animal Services is in the process of vacating our East Valley and West LA Animal Care Centers to move into our new facilities. Our new facilities will increase our holding capacity by over 400%!

So what to do with our old facilities? LA Animal Services is developing a Request for Qualifications to identify one or more animal welfare organizations willing and able to manage our old facilities in partnership with LA Animal Services and in support of our No-Kill goal.

4. LA Animal Services continues to provide more and more spay/neuter surgeries for the pets of our residents each year, nearly 40,000 pets in 2006 and we are on track to do 44,000 in 2007. I cannot find ANY municipal program ANYWHERE that is doing more to provide spay/neuter services to its residents.

Later this year we will be opening our Spay/Neuter Clinics in order to provide even more spay/neuter services to our residents. South LA’s Spay/Neuter Clinic is already operational and we hope to have North Central operational soon, with five additional clinics coming on line no later than next spring.

5. LA Animal Services is one of the original drafters and supporters of AB 1634. Now we have the support of the Mayor and the entire City Council! Our efforts on this state initiative laid the foundation for us implementing a City spay/neuter ordinance which is on a parallel track even now.

Never was more being done to end the senseless killing of lost and homeless animals in the City of LA! I want to thank every employee, volunteer, and partner in helping us achieve the remarkable numbers of the last five years. But we have a long way to go and we need your help. Please consider ways of helping support the above initiatives, and/or consider joining our Volunteer Program.

Its an old but true maxim, that if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.