Mayor Sam's Hotsheet for Thursday
On Warren Olney's "Which Way LA" program, our own Walter Moore went head to head with an exec of a development firm that probably stands to benefit if Prop H - the billon dollar housing boondoggle - passes. Martini Republic gives a good rundown of the segment.Ed Boks of LA Animal Services gives an interview to an animal publication about the new animal shelters the city is building. You can read about it at Boks' own blog.
If you're interested, Democratic Gubenatorial Candidate Phil Angelides hosts a town hall with Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack (a potential candidate for President in 08). LA Valley College in Van Nuys, 10:45 p.m.
Mayor Villaraigosa has removed Building and Safety Commission President Javier Nuqez. Read and comment about it at We Clean Your Toilets.
Posted by Mayor Sam @ 10/19/2006 12:00:00 AM
28 Comments:
I think it's wonderful that the Department of Animal Services is doing so well. Adoptions are up, euthanasia is down and they're opening all those new shelters. Ed Boks the new General Manager has really turned things around in Los Angeles. We are lucky to have him.
To 10:19:
Would you please cite some website or other source we can read to see the statistics on adoptions and killings?
Also, FYI, a standard defintion of "euthanasia" is "the merciful act of helping a person or animal end their life in a painless way due to a terminal and/or very painful health condition." Our so-called "shelters" kill animals for convenience, not just when the animals suffer from a terminal or painful condition. That's not euthanasia, it's just plain old killing.
Walter, here are the statistics. Check out the graphical representations. They clearly show a reduction in the "killing" and an increase in adoptions.
http://www.laanimalservices.com/Statistics.htm
These are the General Manager reports for the Department of Animal Services. You can see all the new programs the Department has implemented since January.
http://www.laanimalservices.com/GMReports.htm
The Department isn't perfect and they are still killing animals but things are getting better.
FYI, Valley College is in Valley Glen not Van Nuys.
Kill the unwanted animals and shelter the homeless.
It's a matter of priorities.
To me, its Van Nuys, 91401.
Walter, I remember when you ran for Mayor on the animal platform. You got all the animal people to campaign for you and against Mayor Hahn. You promised to make one of them the General Manager of Animal Services if you were elected. When you lost the primary you then supported the enemy of animals Mayor Hahn. I was so incredibly shocked that I swore it must have been some other "Walter Moore" but it was you. I'm still dumbfounded by your action. Is it just because Antonio is a Mexican?
Valley Glen as opposed to Balboa Lake or even Mission Hills. Ha, ha,ha - a rose by any other name will still be a rose.
To 8:59:
Thank you, I'll check it out. I do recall hearing from one reporter that the numbers did not add up, i.e., that the number of animals taken in did not equal the number of animals shown as having been adopted or killed. I hope the City is making progress, but, personally, I find the mass killing absolutely unacceptable -- especially insofar as the City's tax revenues rose $717 million this year over last.
To 11:27:
First of all, I did NOT get all of the animal people to campaign for me. On the contrary, despite my having received the official endorsement, most of the participants simply supported whoever they supported beforehand, thereby splitting the votes that could otherwise have made a difference. They kept pushing Villaraigosa and Hertzberg. Lesson learned: they are not serious enough or well-organized enough to be an effective force. They're so busy fighting each other that they accomplish nothing -- politically speaking -- on behalf of the animals.
Second, as I said at the time, and as subsequent events have shown, there is no significant difference between Hahn and Villaraigosa when it comes to protecting animals. Both men had been in office for years; neither had lifted a finger to stop the inhumane and unnecessary slaughter. Hence, it was a "tie" on that issue.
That made me evaluate the two candidates on other issues, including Villaraigosa's having failed the bar four times, having failed ever to pass it, and his support for illegal immigration. Also, I had seen Villaraigosa in action at various untelevised debates, and he absolutely gave me the creeps.
He promised everything to everyone, no matter how unrealistic. In one debate at USC, he actually said he would appoint a homeless person to the board of the MTA. Can you imagine?! I just could not in a million years endorse that man for anything.
How do you chose between Lyle and Eric Menendez? How do you chose between Idi Amin and Pol Pot?
How do you chose between Lyle and Eric Menendez?
Depends on who's wearing which sweater that day.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I've looked at the numbers on dogs. I'm not terribly impressed.
The number of dogs the city killed from Oct 2005 to September 2006 was 7282, which was down 15% from the 8604 killed in during the same months in 2004/05. Got that? Villaraigosa: 15% reduction.
How does that compare to Hahn? The same statistics for the prior year show that Hahn had reduced the killing 18% (i.e., from 10525 to 8604).
So let's recap: Hahn, 18% reduction; Villaraigosa, 15% reduction.
And both administrations are routinely killing thousands of loveable, adoptable incarnations of man's best friend.
You see why I'm not all warm and cozy about Villaraigosa? "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." They're all the same guy; they're all career politicians. They don't give a damn about animals.
Walter,
When Villaraigosa was a councilmember he introduced many animal friendly motions. The animal cruelty task force was his idea. He did all the research. Cardenas just made the official motion.
You cannot expect the same percentage reduction in euthanasia every year. The numbers don't work that way. You need to look at the trend. Keep in mind that Hahn did his numbers differently. There were many more animals that just went missing.
If Villaraigosa agreed to appoint a homeless person to the MTA commission that's just plain crazy. He does have a tendency to say yes to every person and group. I will say that you were the best speaker at the CHULA convention. Villaraigosa made some big bloopers, got peoples names wrong and he didn't know the issues. In fact, I hate to admit this, but you were the best speaker of all of them in all the debates. I watched a few.
I voted for Villaraigosa because he had a better chance of winning. No hard feelings.
Your vote proves my point. Rather than voting for someone who would stop the killing, which would have sent a strong message regardless of whether I won, and rather than voting for the candidate you felt won the debates, you voted for the same old career politicians.
Result? Thousands more dead dogs who could have been in homes, and a clear message to anyone else out there who might consider running: don't bother, because the people who claim to care will vote for career politicians anyway.
Walter,
If you had become the Mayor you were going to appoint a certain someone to be the GM of Animal Services. You cannot just stop the killing and let the shelters and streets fill up with animals. More animals would end up dead. The current GM of Animal Services Ed Boks is far better than your choice. He's making a difference. Lives are being saved.
I voted for the animals by voting for Antonio. He is pro-animal, pro-environment. He had a chance at being elected. You didn't. You did a remarkable job campaigning considering you've never been in politics before. You did better than quite a few of the other candidates which is a huge feat. How about running for City Council.
Walter,
I loved your reponse to 11:27. I assumed you agreed with the animal rights activists who are not organized and not a force to be reckoned with in any way.
I think your claim in the response to the poster who wouldn't vote for you, is off base and political BS if you truly believe you could keep less animals from being killed than the last two administrations.
Animal Services can barely get any work done because they have to non stop battle and defend themselves from the "animal loving" animal rights activists.
Who, I might add couldn't possibly care about animals or they wouldn't launch such ludicrous and personal attacks against everyone who doesn't pay attention to them.
They attack everyone from the volunteers at animal shelters to the employees of Animal Services to the GM and the mayor's office.
I don't believe you could achieve a lower rate of euthanizing dogs.
Why were several posts removed? How does that happen to a moderated response?
To 12:50:
The Mayor could and should stop the mass killing immediately. It's not rocket science; it's a matter of will. The City owns vast tracks of land (e.g. Owns Valley); chain-link fence and kibble are relatively cheap; and volunteers abound. We give hundreds of millions of dollars each year to millionaire developers, and the City took in $717 million more this year than last. So don't you believe for a minute the BS that "we're doing all we can do."
As for posts being deleted by the author, the missing posts were mine. They had typos in them, so they had to be put down.
P.S. You forgot the other parts of my platform plank on animals, designed to stop the overpopulation and maximize the number of pets adopted:
i) mandatory and "free" spaying;
ii) using retail methods to market the pets;
iii) making the shelters the sole legal supply of animals for sale as pets unless and until the shelters are virtually empty; and
iv) requiring landlords to accept pets, subject to noise and nuisance restrictions, while allowing landlords to charge up to 10% more rent for pets, and insulating the landlords from liability arising from the pets.
It was never a matter of just "letting the shelters fill up." Rather, I had a specific and aggressive plan to stop the birth of unwanted pets in the first place, stop the back-yard breeders, find homes for all the unwanted pets, and increase the number of places where people can have pets.
To 3:23:
Villaraigosa is neither pro animal nor pro environment. He is pro-Villaraigosa. He promises everything to everyone, and gullible people believe him. Actions speak louder than words, and his actions on behalf of animals and the environment are inaudible.
That's all the posting I'm doing on this thread. I'm really done with hearing all the apologists making excuses for the ongoing and unnecessary slaughter.
Ed Boks is a joke. He has been involved in one fiasco after another. From a Civil Rights lawsuit in New York, the Hooter's flip-flop, the Satanic cult turned "Best Friends" audit, the dangerous Banksy painted elephant permit, to the recent Kapparot chicken picket endorsement on the LAAS web site. The person working so hard to defend him needs a reality check and so does the city of Los Angeles. The man is a walking disaster and people are laughing at his performance.
Walter, don't stop, your comments are well appreciated by those of us who understand what is really happening in the "no kill" community. And Los Angeles needs more Republicans to balance its liberal view point which is what allowed a former gangbanger to be elected to Mayor.
Okay, one more comment, but this is it: I am not a Republican.
Admittedly, I used to be, but I'm not now. I'm an independent, a "decline to state," because both parties are now nothing more than "fronts" for special interests.
Screw the politics! Save the animals!
Walter is right. His list is right on!
For those of you who love the homeless more than the animals, check it out, there are numerous places that need volunteers to help the homeless who for the most part don't want to be helped. Go volunteer!
Walter, thanks for your continued interest and support in eliminating the euthanasia of adoptable animals in our local shelters. New York Post staff writer Angela Montefinise explores the falsification of shelter statics that involves former New York Animal Care and Control General Manager/current Los Angeles Animal Services Department General Manager Ed Boks. Very interesting...we'll keep you posted.
Walter, I've just located the site of the Oct. 22, 2006 article about LAAS GM Boks' involvement with New York Animal Care and Control lawsuit. This certainly deserves follow-up:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10222006/news/regionalnews/shelter_slap_at_frieden_regionalnews_angela_montefinise.htm
Boks wins "Chicken of the Year Award":
M E D I A R E L E A S E
Immediate Release
INTERNATIONAL CHICKEN PROTECTION SOCIETY
“We don’t duck the issues….
S.ociety for H.umane
I.nternational
T.reatment
Ed Boks, General Manager of Los Angeles City Animal Services (California), has just been named winner of the 2006 “Chicken of the Year Award”, also known as CYA.
The foundation for this honor was laid during his courageous act of “blogging for chickens” in the midst of religious ceremonies for Jewish holidays and alleged complaints that our squawking was heard for several miles.
Since the traditional sacrifice of chickens at a synagogue nowhere rivals the daily slaughter of our members in commercial establishments, Chicken S.H.I.T. of Los Angeles encourages Boks to scratch deeper into this issue and blog his way to redemption of those whose squawks are not heard.
Chicken S.H.I.T. of Los Angeles stands a respectful distance behind Boks and thanks him in amazement that, while no one from his department responds to complaints of our entrapment and lack of attention in yards and cages all over Los Angeles City, our squawks from the temple were heard all the way to City Hall.
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is to be commended and acknowledged by Chicken S.H.I.T. for in appointing Boks, who has joined the Mayor to establish a new record for ignoring the bull and going straight to fowl, without ducking the issue.
Walter,
Thank you for proactively caring about the animals.
The statistics released by Los Angeles Animal Services concerning the death toll of innocent animals are far from accurate, as these figures do not include the multitude of animals that they kill immediately as they come in. Thus, violating the Hayden Act. These animals are unaccounted for.
Source of Information: Numerous LAAS Employees
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home