The First Major City to Truly Accomplish the No-Kill Policy
According to the LA Times, Ed Boks, the new head of the Animal Services Department, stated that he believes that Los Angeles can be "the first major city to truly accomplish the no-kill" policy in shelters and that it should strive to do that in five years. He considers San Francisco as the "national model" of a well-funded city animal agency with a no-kill policy. And he suggested Los Angeles challenge New York City — whose animal control department he headed until Friday with a mix of frustration and success — to see which city could achieve the goal first.The Daily Breeze follows up on Delgadillo's lawsuits against the ADL reporting that he filed 14 misdemeanor charges Friday against the Animal Defense League, saying the group violated state law by repeatedly harassing and intimidating a manager of the city's animal shelters. They also noted that none of the charges in Delgadillo's case focused on Stuckey.
I guess we'll just hold our breath and wait this out...
Posted by Anonymous @ 12/19/2005 08:00:00 AM
38 Comments:
I have to tell that with all the issues facing people in this City, I can't believe this issue even ranks in the lowest 100.
I saw kill the animals and hire some cops.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss: Hahn promised to make the city no-kill in five years, and now Villlaraigosa promises to make the city no-kill in five years.
Villaraigosa could and should stop the killing with a single phone call today. He could then follow up with local legislation to promote spaying and neutering, to provide incentives to landlords to accept pets, and to promote adoption. Instead, he will gratefully promote the misconception that the way to solve the problem is to appoint a new head of animal services. That way, the director, rather than the mayor, serves as the lightning rod / scape goat.
And, by the way, there's plenty of money in the city's $6 billion budget to hire enough police to stop the killing of humans, while also stopping the killing of innocent dogs and cats.
Ok budget master, how do we hire 1,000 police and stop the killing of animals?
And, who really cares about the killing of animals when we have human beings living on the streets?
As a result of rising property values, the city's tax revenues have grown from about $5.4 billion in 2003-2004 to about $5.9 billion today. That means we have $500 million more per year now than we did then. If you hire 1000 police at, say, $100,000 per year, that would cost "only" $100 million per year -- still leaving an excess of $400 million per year. The only reason the streets of South Central are unsafe is that dead children don't make campaign contributions.
Your math stinks and your comment about why kids in South LA are dying is insulting. Kids are dying in south LA, east LA, west la, the valley and elsewhere for a host of reasons the most important of which has nothing to do with contributions.
You think it only cost $100,000 pe officer? There are training costs, health benefits, equipment costs....and so on.
Try living on earth.
Hey previous poster: Think about who Walter Moore is....he's the crackpot who ran for mayor.....
People in LA are passionate about animals. I commend the Mayor for giving us Ed Boks. He can make the City no-kill. He has 22 years of experience. He's been successful with other similar large cities.
No kill policy in Los Angeles? Great goal but impossible to achieve unless some real changes are made. We have a neutering and spaying ordinance but no enforcement. Because of the high crime rate many people have dogs for a cheap security system and when the dogs get older they are abandoned rather that the owner pay for vet bills. And it shouldn't be legal for young kids to get pets, they have no idea of the responsibilities involved. The parents reluctantly take care of the dogs for a few weeks and then, presto, the pet is abandoned. What 40,000 stray dogs roaming the streets of LA now? In five years we will have a population of dogs to equal the number of people in Bombay. Get real. Ed Boks will just be another in a line of failures.
Hey, 9:28
Think about who Antonio Villaraigosa is. He's the habitual liar AND crackpot that ran for mayor (and won).
He won by lying and promising things this city can't afford to pay for, on all fronts.
We ought to be putting the whole city "to sleep." It would be kinder than a slow painful death under the AV "pay off all campaign supporters with public money and positions" policies.
Signed,
NOT Walter Moore
Can't AV and his paid liars be honest about anything?
Saying that canning Stuckey had nothing to do wtih protests, "violent" or otherwise, would be like George Bush suddenly pulling all troops out of Iraq, after saying he wouldn't, and then claiming it had NOTHING todo with the public outcry.
Damn, AV-lovers will believe everything. Do you people also put your kids' baby teeth under the pillow at night and tell them that the "Tony Fairy" is going to exchange them for cash?
10:32
Good point, Norman.
Can we have some of that surplus money that Walter is talking about to get rid of the dump here? It's going to take money, but it can be done.
"Your math stinks." That's your rebuttal? That's your explanation for why we don't have enough police? Very persuasive. You must have studied law with Villaraigosa at the People's College. The rest of us are fact-based life-forms. Go look at the actual city budgets for the last few years, and you'll see that my math is exactly right.
You think it cost more than $100,000 per year to add an officer. Fine. Use your number, multiply it by 1000 and see if it's less than $500 million. Or, alternatively, take the extra $500 million, divide it by however much you think each new officer would cost, and that's the number we could add.
As for children dying in South Central, if you're seriously claiming that it's no more dangerous than Bel Air, or Hancock Park, you are -- I think I'm using this technical term correctly -- "on crack."
I have to say that while I tend to disagree with Walter Moore's politics, I really have to side with him in this "debate" - mainly because, as he points out, he is the only one who is actually using meaningful arguments with specifics and proposals rather than just name calling and posts that are bolded for no reason.
And, however much you want to call him a crackpot, at least he actually went out, got himself on the ballot and ran, rather than calling people names on a blog comment page.
More black on black murders in South LA than anywhere else. Yes, there is plenty money to hire cops but why do you think Antonio isn't giving it to them? Cause Bratton is doing such a great job with the little resources he has unless crime goes up Antonio is too stupid to realize we need those cops now.
Sadly, again Antonio has set another dumb precedent. If Boks doesn't do what the animal activists want don't you think they will be protesting at his house next? Hell yes. When Antonio didn't say a word about the DWP pay hike now there's the EAA protesting and wanting the same. Next will be the police union, SEIU and the other unions around the city. Bad politics because we have a weak Mayor.
11:19
Here's a meaningful proposal for the mayor, that will affect all issues in play.
Stop lying.
Until he does, no proposals, promises, pledges, of "visions" mean shit!
That cuts right to the heart of the matter, and trumps everything else.
(P.S. The "bolded for no reason" is to get people's attention. It obviously worked on you, or else you wou;dn't have mentioned it!)
Now don't you feel stupid for mentioning it?
12:36 p.m.,
"Stop lying" ... to yourself. If everyone wrote with their comments in bold fonts, no one would notice it. It's a bulls**t strategy.
walter moore,
What is the big deal with the no-kill policy? Why do my tax dollars have to pay to keep these animals alive? Aren't there non-proft trusts that could be set up to do this? The only time I hear about animal rights in L.A. is when someone wants a handout to keep stray cats and dogs alive.
All the whiny rhetoric, and bombastic moral outrage, of the animal rights movement is annoying! What sort of honest solutions do they suggest other than having the government pay for everything they want?
Ubray...
Take class in communications or some similar discipline, before you sound off...
If everyone posted in bold then a smart communicator would find another way to get their message noticed above the din.
It's Comm 101. And you noticed it too - ergo your response.
If I'm lying, then so is every mass communications or marketing textbook in the history of modern civilization.
Why do you think the Yellow Pages charges MORE for stuff like that? Are they lying, or stupid? Nope... because it works.
4:02
Bad guess, asswipe.
Adopting policies to stop the slaughter of dogs and cats would actually SAVE tax dollars in the long run. Having a massive bureaucracy to kill tens of thousands of pets each year is no bargain. The key is massive spaying and neutering to prevent unwanted births in the first place.
As for the motives of people who want to save animals, I challenge you to find any who are asking for tax handouts. On the contrary, these are people who spend their own time and money to save animals; they're not in it for the money.
For specific policy recommendations to stop the killing, visit this page on my website: http://mooreisbetter.com/petdetails.htm
Does anyone now see why Walter Moore will NEVER win office in L.A.
Pendejo!
anon, we don't have a spay/neuter ordinance in LA. If we did, we don't have the manpower to enforce it.
Does everyone know what "no-kill" means? It doesn't mean you never kill an animal. It means you only kill dying or truly dangerous animals. No-kill Nathan Winograd said that no-kill really means lo-kill. He said "what if they named the child welfare program 'only a few kids left behind' instead of 'no child left behind?' Would that inspire anyone? No. That's why we say no-kill instead of lo-kill. It's lo-kill. It is possible in LA. It'll just take time, money and a lot of work.
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
--Ghandi
Nuff said ...
Amen.
walter moore,
Does it really save the taxpayers money to spay and neuter pets? Why do I have to subsidize someone else's poor decisions with respect to pet ownership? If this is such a burden, why not push for a "Pet Tax" for pet owners, to de-externalize the costs we all pay to prop up the animal-life-based economy that provided them with their pet?
A "Pet Tax", like that for cigarettes, would help to prohibit pet ownership while also providing a revenue stream for spay/nueter programs and public education. The people who have pets would pay for the problems they create - instead of dumping those costs onto the rest of us.
Whaddya think about that?
4:05 p.m.,
One great thing about mayorsam is that there is a vocal group of the people on this site that learned about the internet through a 60-minutes special a year ago, readers digest, or their grandchild showed it to them.
This is not a Yellow Pages.
You must have had too much Communications kool-aid at the fraternity mixer.
There are a limited number of options you have to gain attention solely through manipulation of ASCII text here at blogspot.com forums. Ergo, we are all limited to that same set of options. If there is an option that gains everyone's attention best, and no one is prohibited from using it, then if WE ALL DID IT WE"D BE PISSING IN THE WELL WE DRINK FROM, WOULDN"T WE??.
This is a highly limited environment for text-based communication. Within this environment a winning strategy for "getting your message across" (if you're a total a**hole) is to use fake links and bold text. If we all did that, then no post would be more attention grabbing than anyone elses'.
BUT THEY WOULD ALL BE ANNOYING. JUST LIKE YOUR POSTS ARE
Your suggestion that we should impose a pet tax to address the externality of unwanted pets explains why you didn't get that A+ in Econ 101. Taxing an activity tends to produce less of that activity, not more of it. Applying your logic, we should fight pollution by imposing extra taxes on companies that do not pollute.
If you really think you can influence pet ownership by a system of taxes and subsidies, you would tax people who do NOT own pets, and provide deductions for people who do. I, for one, think the tax laws are complicated enough. Let's just require people to get their dogs and cats "fixed," and make landlords accept pets, subject to various safeguards (e.g., no landlord liability for dog bites, plus landlords can still evict people for creating a nuisance).
This isn't rocket science or even upper-level econ.
P.S. The reason to stop the slaughter of dogs and cats isn't to benefit their former owners; it's to treat the animals themselve humanely.
I will just state this, to see how you will take it: pet owners prop up an entire industry that thrives off of animal suffering.
We, the taxpayers, have to pay for the natural outcome of people holding animals captive: animals making babies, animals being forced to fight each other, animals being abused, animals that are running around on the streets pooping on peoples' lawns.
Is this not analgous to the smoker, quietly spoiling the air we breath in a restaurant?
Smokers are paying a more rational price (thanks to government regulation) for the products they consume that create adverse costs for everyone around them. A tax on pet owners, to pay for the programs you are so fond of, seems like the most logical thing to do. Pet owners foist the industry and the cultural practice of keeping non-working domestic animals onto the society they live in - yet we are all to blame for the natural outcomes of the practice of their hobby?
I think you've got a few things backwards.
But I will offer an alternative to the "Pet Tax". How about a "Pet License"? No, not for Rover, for Rover's owner. In order to own a pet, you have to obtain a license, and accept responsobilities for owning pets.
In Japan, when you buy a car, you must be licensed, have insurance, and must provide proof that you have a place to park the car you are purchasing. Imagine a similar set of standards for pet ownership.
If you are worried about pets being mistreated, why not try and regulate the wide-open world of acquiring a pet? Pets not owned by a licensed pet owner will be captured, and murdered (as strays are now). Pets owned by a licensed pet owner, kept in a manner that is morally acceptable, will be left alone.
The fees accepted for licensing a pet owner will go towards all the goodie-two-shoes programs you are in favor of.
Ubray
If they ANNOY you. . . don't read them.
It's still a free country, until commies like you take over.
Until then, state your own case, and shut the fuck up about how other people present theirs. If someone else is "doing it wrong" then they do it at their own peril, and at the lack of effectiveness of their own message... their business NOT yours.
(Personally, I find your narcissistic snapshot ANNOYING... but it's really none of MY damn business if feel the need to stick your own face up here a dozen times a day -- if you catch the connection).
But that's doubtful, too.
6:30 a.m., here's a narcissistic picture for you: it's your dad showing you where you came from
Here's the thing about "licensing" people to own pets: the costs of establishing and maintaining a bureaucracy to administer it. I don't think it would be cost-efficient. For what it's worth, the shelters and most rescue organizations interrogate would-be adopters to to make sure: they live in a place that accepts pets; they understand the amount of time and money pets require; and they have enough of both.
As for smokers "ruining" restaurants for "the rest of us," I believe that restaurant owners should have the freedom to decide whether to cater to smokers or non-smokers. That you personally don't like to smoke doesn't mean the rest of the world should cater to you. And I see no relation between smoking and pets -- except for the smoking chimp in China or Japan or wherever he was.
P.S. "Goodie-two-shoes?" Avoiding the unnecessary slaughter of tens of thousands of dogs and cats is "goodie-two-shoes?" Man, you are SO getting a lump of coal for Christmas. And be sure to tell any woman you date your attitude about pets; I'm sure she'll be interested to know how big your heart is! Yikes.
Sorry about that "goodie-two-shoes" remark.
I think that licensing pet owners is a reasonable response to the costs (moral and material) that our local government is being asked to pay for.
The costs of administering a pet-owner licensing program are almost beside the point, as I see it. I'm trying to address the root cause that leads to stray cats and dogs that are picked up and killed by the government. Is it not reasonable to suggest that if people owned fewer pets, there would be fewer stray animals on the streets, less abuse of those animals that have homes, and fewer animal-related costs borne by our government?
Licensing pet owners will go a long way towards lowering the absolute number of casual or abusive pet owners - who acquire animals like commodities, or who have mental problems they take out on their pets. Unless one can provide a safe, and humane, home for a pet - one would be denied the right to own it.
Give this story to the largely white, upper-middle class, animals rights folks - and tell me why it wouldn't gain traction. Pet-owner licensing blends in prety well with everything pets rights people fight for.
People first. Animals somwhere thereafter.
To Ubray
In Mexico, no one treats animals humanely. They are exploited in the most heinous manner. I won't go into the gory details, but I'm sure you know what I am talking about. It's a well known fact and animal rights activists would string you up if they ever caught you doing what goes on in Mexico on our soil.
Your crude and inhumane comments only reflect your bestial nature. You are an animal yourself and you don't belong in this country. Go back to Mexico where you can abuse animals.
P. S. to UBRAY
I really would like to know your real identity. Heretofore, I never paid any attention to you...but this time...you have my attention.
If I ever find out who you are I will report you to the Animal Rights people. If you are a friend of AV, I will personally publicize your comments. There's an old expression, "lie down with dogs and you riseth with fleas".
UBRAY SAID
"What's the bid deal with the NO KILL POLICY?"
"Why do my tax dollars have to go to keep those anmals alive?"
let me ask you a question: What's the big deal with 11,000,000 criminal illegals living here?
Why do my tax dollars have to go to keeping them ?
Why doesn't someone start a spay-neuter for illegals so that we don't have all of their anchor babies here?
Why is is costing taxpayers 2 billion per year in California to support illegals?
We'll take care of our animals if you and your illegals will go back to Mexico.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home