Pages

.

My Letter to the Mayor/Council Requesting Revocation of Beverly Hills Animal Services Contract If They Ban Feral Cat Tending

The March 31, 2008 Memorandum of Understanding between Los Angeles and Beverly Hills regarding the provision of animal care services is attached.

A requirement of this contract was that Beverly Hills was to adopt Los Angeles' animal codes.

Beverly Hills is considering adding an ordinance banning the feeding of feral cats. Such an ordinance would create a health hazard of starving and sick cats which could spill over into Los Angeles.

It is also antithetical to the pursuit of establishing a TNR policy for the City of Los Angles, who currently is conducting a CEQA study regarding the environmental effects of TNR.

For this reason, I urge the Mayor, Council, the City Attorney and LAAS to revoke this animal services contract with Beverly Hills should they pass the ordinance banning feeding feral cats as per the agreement, within 90 days of the ordinance's passge.

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

So Far, the City Has Not Answered About Beverly Hills

My second letter to LAAS and City Council:

Last Tuesday I asked you whether Los Angeles will continue to provide animal control services for Beverly Hills if they pass an ordinance criminalizing feeding feral cats. You did not respond.

This situation has not been resolved. The issue has been postponed until August 4, when BH Council will again meet to vote on this measure.

Therefore I ask again, "If Beverly Hills passes this ordinance banning feeding feral cats, their laws regarding animals will no longer be the same as those of Los Angeles, which was a precondition for LAAS and Los Angeles to provide animal control services to Beverly Hills. Therefore, since there is no longer compliance, will you continue to provide animal control services for Beverly Hills? Have they not broken a contractual condition, and if they have, will you abide by their decision to go their own way regarding animal-related laws?"

Ed Muzika

This is from the Beverly Hills Courier:

Beverly Hills: Kill Nation Or Fix Nation For Cats?

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

City Council averted a potentially fatal issuance of an urgency ordinance in a meeting Tuesday. The City has moved to continue allowing feral cats, or animals that do not belong to a guardian, to be fed and maintained.

Over 100 speakers attended the meeting to address the Council.

The City will stay the issue until August 4. In the interim, a committee of residents including The Courier’s Marcia Hobbs, will work with City officials to devise a workable plan. If a suitable plan is not met, the Council will adopt an ordinance that bans the feeding of feral animals on all public property.

“Prohibiting the feeding of cats on public property would be their death sentence,” said Christienne Metropole, executive director for Stray Cat Alliance and appointed committee liaison.

The committee is charged with forming a program that focuses not only on the feeding and maintaining of feral cats, but also controlling the population.

“It is clear we can not criminalize feeding,” said Councilmember John Mirisch. “I think we need to establish a program that is controlled. I don’t think the urgency ordinance addressed that.” Mirisch has called for the mandatory spaying and neutering (or altering) of these cats as part of a broader trap-neuter-release program.

The urgency ordinance the council denied Tuesday was intended to address a deleted code (5-2-10, subdivision B and C) that was removed after the City adopted Los Angeles’ ordinance.

The code explicitly prohibits the feeding of feral cats and dogs on any public property, any property that is open to the pubic or any private property is not completely enclosed by a secured wall.

“Adoption of L.A. code required deletion of duplicate language and inadvertently deleted the code,” said George Chavez, assisting director of community development for the City.

“I respect both sides and I am intrigued by the TNR process, but keep in mind the ordinance that is in front of us is about feeding feral cats in front of resident’s yards who don’t want that,” said Councilmember Dr. Willie Brien. “We also have to be kind to our residents who want a clean neighborhood. I think this is a public safety issue. It may also be a health issue.”

The movement stems from a court case involving former Beverly Hills resident, Katherine Varjian. Varjian has been cited for feeding feral cats under the deleted code. She is due back in Beverly Hills Municipal Court August 7 at 1:30 p.m. Varjian can face up to six months of jail time and/or a $1,000 fine.

Although City Council is not able to require Varjian refrain from feeding the feral cats while the issue is in committee, Mayor Nancy Krasne publically noted it would “behoove her to do so.”

Varjian has fed between 20 and 30 cats daily in the alley behind the 100-200 blocks of Palm, Maple and Oakhurst Drives. Local residents claim Varjian’s feeding of the cats attracts rodents, cockroaches and coyotes, endangering their own pets and creating a nuisance in the neighborhood. A petition protesting this behavior and signed by 68 residents was presented to City Council.

“I know we have a problem but I sure know we don’t have a solution tonight,” said Vice Mayor Jimmy Delshad.


reade more... Résuméabuiyad

Winograd on LA's Five Year Strategic Plan

The Good, Bad, & Ugly Side of Leadership
July 6, 2009 by Nathan J. Winograd

Leadership. A passion for saving lives. And a commitment that what must be done, will be done. It is the single most important element of the No Kill Equation. It is what causes communities to achieve No Kill. Lack of leadership is why communities fail.

As a recentNo Kill Advocacy Center study showed, there are communities spending $1.50 per capita on animal control with 90 percent save rates. And there are communities, like Collier County (FL) below, spending $8.50 and failing miserably. The difference is leadership.

As we shall also see below, shelters will threaten to kill animals claiming they can’t afford food because of “the economy,” while other shelters—like those in Nevada and Minnesota—will push fundraising and/or lifesaving rates to all-time highs in the same economic climate. One community will celebrate its first No Kill year. Another, like the City of Los Angeles, will abandon any pretensions to it at all. And it all comes down to leadership.

The ASPCA will give you ten reasons why they aren’t capable of leadership. And Indianapolis will give you 153 reasons why they may yet prove to be.

But here’s the rub: There are over 100 million of us animal lovers, and only a few thousand of them (regressive, kill-oriented shelter directors and their equally regressive, kill-oriented national animal welfare apologists like those at HSUS.) They will have to change; or they will be swept aside. It’s a numbers game. And the numbers are clearly on our side. As they are in terms of how many animals are entering shelters; and how many people are looking to adopt. And to capitalize on those numbers, all it takes is leadership.

L.A.’s Latest Act of Desperation

Despite a promise by the Mayor of Los Angeles that the City of Los Angeles would become the “most humane city in America,” his administration has done very little beyond empty rhetoric and photo ops to make it a reality. Indeed, the agency has been rocked by controversy during his administration involving mismanagement, poor care and unnecessary killing. And last year, it passed a punitive law that gave officers the power to impound and kill animals who are not sterilized, while his General Manager turned around and cancelled the low-cost spay/neuter voucher program (since reinstated).

While other communities are seeing death rates plummet and lifesaving at all-time highs, 3,029 more cats were intentionally killed in Los Angeles city shelters compared to the year before, an increase of almost 33%. Dog killing has also increased significantly. And more animals are dying in their kennels than ever before.

All of this occurred under the tenure of General Manager Ed Boks who resigned following a vote of No Confidence by the City Council. Not only did he fail to achieve No Kill as promised, death rates skyrocketed, disease rates skyrocketed, and cronyism remained rampant. While the departure of Boks offered the Mayor a chance to make good on his promise, he appears intent not to.

Boks’ last act in office, with the apparent blessing of the Mayor, was to sign off on a five-year strategic plan for the future of the agency that sacrifices the animals to bureaucratic indifference. According to L.A. Animal Watch, there is,
not the slightest mention of radically reducing the number of animals killed or [increasing the] animals adopted. It does not even mention no kill. Doing a search on the five year plan, I could not find, “no-kill,” “save rate,” “euthanasia,” “kill rate,” or even “adoption rate.” I see two goals in my brief reading which have any real numbers: a goal to have New Hope partners adopt an additional 264 animals in 2009 vs. 2008, and a goal to reduce returns by 10%. That’s it. All the rest is about award dinners, New Hope Partner awards, building outreach programs, giving employees input on the department website, etc. This plan is filled with empty words, meaningless program outlines that have no attached real goals in terms of anticipated increases in save rates or reduction of killing.

In fact, rescue groups and No Kill advocates did not participate in the drafting of the plan. Instead, the plan was concocted by those running the agency, most resistant to progressive change, and who have overseen the systematic killing of the animals. Outside input was received by the Bureau of Sanitation, which might explain why Los Angeles Animal Services continues to treat animals like nothing more than yesterday’s trash: kill them and throw their bodies away.


The department claims it wants to “End Pet Overpopulation” as one of its core goals, but there is only one problem with this goal: There is no pet overpopulation. The City of Los Angeles has a per capita intake rate of 16 dogs and cats per 1,000 people. That is almost three times less than Washoe County, NV at 39 dogs and cats per 1,000 people which is saving nine out of ten dogs and cats and pushing toward its No Kill goal. The City has 1/3rd the problem but killing is going up precisely because of its antiquated policies and underperforming staff, which the plan does not address.

In fact, even if there was pet overpopulation, the plan does not talk about implementing or expanding any of the programs of the only model which has created No Kill communities in the U.S.: comprehensive implementation of the No Kill Equation, including expanding affordable and free spay/neuter to reduce the numbers of animals being impounded. The only exception is a call for a paltry increase of 5% in placing animals through rescue groups. Since it uses Boks’ disastrous 2008 year as a benchmark, however, the new future goal is still less than the 2007 level. It also talks about creating “Compassionate, skilled, hard-working employees” but none of the action plans call for an increase in accountability or lead to the termination of those like the supervisor below, captured using profanity against animal lovers while L.A.’s finest look on:

Instead of goals like: eliminate the deaths of neonatal kittens by expanding the foster care program so that it replaces killing entirely, increase the number of lost animals reclaimed by establishing a proactive Missing Animal Response plan, and double adoptions through a volunteer-led daily offsite adoption program—none of which are in the plan—the five year plan has “Develop and implement an Employee Recognition Program,” and “Develop reliable and uniform procedures for handling and keeping track of building repairs.”

Instead of expanding lifesaving opportunities, LAAS is considering suggestions such as the creation of “a ‘booster’ committee to schedule activities such as Birthday Club, holiday parties, sports leagues, and field trips” for employees. So while kittens are being killed and dogs are wallowing in their own filth because of underperforming employees, the department is going to celebrate a staff member’s birthday with a field trip at taxpayer expense!


Boks left Maricopa County and was fired in New York City after failing there as well. Each time, he promised he’d create a No Kill community in five years, and each time he left an agency in disarray despite public claims to the contrary. His legacy to Los Angeles is not only increased killing, but it is the end of hope for No Kill in the near future.

As the strategic plan makes clear, it is no longer on the agenda, even though it has not even been attempted with integrity. By hijacking the language of No Kill and then allowing things to descend into chaos, he has single-handedly falsely convinced people who were interested that No Kill really does mean rampant disease and increased deaths in kennels and that it really is impossible. His tenure has been marked by a campaign of distortion that gave the public the illusion of progress and a commitment to No Kill but in reality did little to foster its actual implementation. And when the “effort” fails, as it did in Los Angeles, the public grows weary of unmet promised goals and erroneously concludes that No Kill is simply not achievable. That is what is happening in Los Angeles. The irony here is that if Boks spent as much time implementing the needed programs and holding his staff accountable as he did pretending to in his blogs, he would have succeeded.

Indianapolis Goes a Different Route

While Los Angeles City shelters were closed, Indianapolis Animal Care & Control (IACC) remained open on the 4th of July and did a big holiday promotion. Since holidays are a time when families are together and able to visit the shelter, IACC stayed open and adopted out 150 dogs and cats (and an additional three guppies) in a single day—153 animals in all—an all-time record.

Move to Act, a long-time critic of regressive shelter policies and a champion for No Kill policies in that community, wrote that,

There was not only a sense of excitement with the IACC staff today, but also a sense of hope… that the agency is beginning to turn the corner for better helping the animals get out alive. The long, winding drive from Harding St to the IACC parking lot was cars parked bumper-to-bumper on both sides of the drive. People were at the facility who had never been there before, and if they didn’t find who they were looking for, they were planning on returning in the future. There were more people than animals available.

How many animals did LAAS needlessly kill by being closed? It is not a rhetorical question. Given population comparisons per capita, LAAS could have potentially adopted 645 dogs and cats. Doing that once a year for five years would mean additional adoption of 3,225 animals, saving more lives than all items in the strategic plan combined.


Add the other holidays to the mix, add adoption marketing and promotion, and the number of lives saved would be in the tens of thousands. But that is not going to happen under this Mayor and with this staff. So they’ll get their birthday parties for employees, and they’ll have their employee recognition award banquets, and they’ll hire the “Facilities Czar” to oversee building repairs, they’ll continue to consult with the trash department for policies affecting live animals, and animals will continue to die.

Meanwhile, shelters in economically hard hit areas run by progressive directors are finding ways to either run more efficiently while increasing lifesaving (such as Reno, NV which increased lifesaving again this year despite 11% unemployment and a foreclosure crisis in the county) or are finding ways to make up the shortfall in donations through creative fundraising and marketing (such as Animal Ark in Minneapolis, MN).

This confirms a new study by the No Kill Advocacy Center which proves that saving lives has less to do with funding rates and more to do with compassionate, committed, and effective leadership—which Henderson County clearly does not have.

But there is good news. Washoe County, NV’s save rate climbed again and is pushing 90 percent for both dogs and cats. On a per capita comparative basis, it puts Washoe County death rates at 1.8 dogs and cats per 1,000 human residents, very near if not the lowest in the nation. Shelby County, KY just celebrated its first year with 90 percent-level save rates. And communities across the country are joining the No Kill club: in California, Kansas, Colorado, and elsewhere. In fact, we are closer than ever.


Nathan's Blog: http://www.nathanwinograd.com
reade more... Résuméabuiyad

Beverly Hills Council--what Happened According to Ben Lehrer

The meeting kicked off late, at around 7:30, and there were several items on the agenda before the urgency ordinance came up for discussion. The Council chamber was packed, mostly with people there to speak out against the ordinance. As at the court hearing last week, the Stray Cat Alliance passed out red ribbons which opponents of the ordinance fastened to various body parts one way or another.
The discussion of the urgency ordinance was kicked off by a report from George Chavez, the Assistant Director of Community Development for the City of Beverly Hills. George's report was given as support for the ordinance and focused on two primary issues: first, that an anti-feeding ordinance had been in place in Beverly Hills for years until very recently when it was supposedly accidentally deleted from the municipal code after Beverly Hills contracted with the City of Los Angeles to handle animal control in the city; and second, that there has been an increase in coyote sightings all over the City, with the suggestion that feeding ferals attracts these coyotes.

The report also stated that feral feeding attracted other unwanted critters (roaches, rats, raccoons and crows), and that it generated complaints from local residents.
Then came the public comment period. All told, 105 people spoke. Of these, three spoke in favor of the ordinance and 102 were against it. This took over three hours. A fair number of people slipped out during this time but a good many of us stayed on well into the morning.
The three proponents of the ordinance were all residents who lived in a small area where Katherine Varjian has been TNRing and feeding feral catsfor years. Their claims were that the feeding was an attractive nuisance and causally linked to an increase in coyote sightings, fleas, cockroaches and the like. They all claimed to have nothing against the animals, but just didn't want them fed where they live.
The 102 people who were against the ordinance were pretty much all over the board, but the main themes were that (a) prohibiting feeding would not result in the disappearance of rats, cockroaches, fleas, coyotes etc., (b) there is no causal link to feral feeding and coyote appearance, as suggested in Mr. Chavez's report, (c) feral cats are a part of the urban landscape, even in Beverly Hills, and the only way to contain and manage a feral population is through TNR + maintenance, including feeding, and (d) to prohibit the feeding of cats would be unnecessarily cruel. Public comment went for nearly four hours and I know I'm really cutting things down in summary. You should be thankful.
Then the Mayor and each Councilmember gave their opinion. The one thing that everyone agreed upon is that the feral cat issue goes beyond the problem (or perceived problem) of food being left in public alleyways, and they welcomed having the rescue community help craft a comprehensive program to address the issue in a progressive and humane fashion. But aside from that, the council was split on what to do about the ordinance and how to address the complaints of the people upset at Katherine for feeding ferals in the alleyways behind their homes.
The most outspoken opponent of the ordinance was Vice Mayor Jimmy Delshad, who did not support the urgency ordinance and wanted to give the rescue community a few months (he suggested 90 or 180 days) to help design a comprehensive feral cat maintenance program. Leaning in this direction was Councilmember John Mirisch, who also wanted to include an adoption component in the program for adoptable cats, as well as mandatory microchipping in the City, presumably for feral and non-feral cats alike. On the other side, Councilmember William W. Brien spoke out strongly in favor of the ordinance, saying he believed that the feeding of ferals does represent a public health risk and that the interests of the residents are more paramount and their wishes should be heeded. Farther towards the center was Councilmember Barry Brucker, who seemed to lean slightly in favor of the ordinance as a temporary measure while a bigger-picture cooperative solution could be crafted.
Mayor Krasne had the unenviable job of trying to manage the proceedings, which at this point - after 1 am - were getting a little unruly. It certainly did not help that any statement that echoed any of the positions taken by the pro-ordinance people was met with loud jeers by the anti-ordinance people in the crowd, leading her at one point to threaten to support the ordinance if they didn't keep quiet. When it came time for her to state her position, she seemed to split down the middle. On the one hand, she was very affected by photos provided by the pro-ordinance people showing food dumped on the ground in the alleyway, saying that this was an unacceptable mess. (Several people tried to point out that Katherine used to put dishes down but the residents kept throwing them away, but that didn't seem to really register.) On the other hand, she expressed sympathy for the cats and ultimately decided that she was not ready to support the ordinance without giving the people on all sides - the residents, the rescue community and the City Commissioner - an opportunity to come up with a compromise solution.
The Council ultimately decided, after much back-and-forth, to table the vote on the ordinance for now. Over the course of the next couple of weeks, Mr. Chavez will meet with resident cat advocates and the heads of a couple of rescue groups that focus on feral cat caretaking in order to construct a proposed feral cat management plan that the City Council would discuss, and, if approved, turn into an ordinance.
This portion of the meeting ended just shy of 2 am. The poor Council still had several items on the agenda ahead of them as all of the cat peoplefiltered out and left them to their business.
This is not a bad result, but it is too early to declare victory on behalf of feral cat caretakers in Beverly Hills. I think it is fair to expect the people who were in favor of the ordinance to continue to put pressure on the Council to ban feeding. Even if they are unsuccessful, it doesn't seem likely that the pendulum will swing the other way so that feeders would be protected, and without this protection, local residents could and likely will still sabotage feeding & caretaking efforts on the ground.
Nonetheless, we'll proceed optimistically, and right now, the goal is to come up with a plan where if everyone is able and willing to cooperate, there will be peaceful coexistence between local residents and feral cats and their caretakers. And our work may even lead to a progressive ordinance that puts Beverly Hills at the forefront of the movement to institutionalize TNR as the most humane and effective manner of dealing with feral cat populations.

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

Jeff de la Rosa's Request

I have only followed this story from a distance because it appears complex legally, but also all so unfortunate. This letter from Jeff is heartbreaking. If one of my cats' had been in such a situtaion, I would not have been so laid back as Jeff has been.

I really have no idea why Stu has not been released long ago, but this story had a life even while I was engaged in campaigns with Ron Mason and others, and I think I underserved this story.

July 7, 2009

Linda Barth

Commissioner Tariq Khero, President

Commissioner Kathleen Riordan, Vice President CITY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPT. OF ANIMAL SERVICES

Re: Stu

Dear Commissioners and Ms. Barth :

Please recall that I made a request to have Stu killed by my personal veterinarian at your last Board meeting on June 22, 2009. I have received no response, nor have I received any communication which states that Stu will not be killed, or that the Board has resolved to make any recommendations regarding Stu to the City Council.

While this matter may be of no importance to you, it is very important to me and I would appreciate the courtesy of a response. I understand that it is the practice of your department to ignore requests and correspondence; and that no answer is most often the answer to requests made to your Board and Department. However, in this instance your IMMEDIATE response is requested. I have reserved time on Thursday, July 23 2009 for the vet to carry out this death sentence. I am not available on any other day.

To repeat, I am requesting that Stu be killed by my own vet and in my presence. Any officer may also be present. I choose Helen Brakemeir as she would certainly be the officer whom would be most satisfied by attending the death of Stu. I would also like to have Stu cremated and have made arrangements for this to be done immediately following the execution of Mr. Stuckey destruction order. Obviously, I understand that your department will want to transfer the remains. I am confident that you will deem this request as reasonable under the circumstances. Please be informed that you will have Stu’s body “rendered” over my dead body.

Regarding fees owed for Stu’s boarding and (lack of ) care for the period prior to his transfer to Bobby Dorafshar, please include with your response a statement of the charges due.


reade more... Résuméabuiyad

Will Beverly Hills Feral Ordinance Void Their Contractual Agreement With LAAS and the CITY?

LETTER TO LAAS STAFF AND CITY:

Dear Kathy Davis, Linda Barth, Mayor Villaraigosa, Jim Bickhart, Jim Blackman, Carmen Trutanich,

I understand that as a condition for Los Angeles Animal Services to take over the animal care and control function for the City of Beverly Hills, that the latter had to remove an ordinance prohibiting feral cats.

On Tuesday, July 7, Beverly Hills City Council is considering adding on a new ordinance prohibiting feeding feral cats because it is a claimed health problem. This would allow them to enact it immediately on an emergency basis.

They are doing this because a woman, Katherine Varjian, was cited for feeding feral cats in an alley off Palm Drive. At the time cited, apparently the ordinance was still on the books. She is going to court within two weeks and in order to stop her from feeding, Beverly Hills staff has decided to make this a public health issue.

But be advised, it is only because 30 residents want to stop one feral colony manager.

If Beverly Hills puts that ordinance back on their books, will Los Angeles continue to provide animal control services for Beverly Hills even though they would be in violation of preconditions for LA assuming that function?

I send this to you because they have notified you of this measure and you do provide animal control services for Beverly Hills.

This is from their "staff" report:

In January of 2009, the City of Beverly Hills established a contractual agreement with the City of Los Angeles for field services and animal sheltering in their West Los Angeles facility. A requirement of this agreement was to adopt the City of Los Angeles animal related codes by reference.During that process, the existing section of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code dealing with feeding of certain animals was inadvertently omitted; adoption of this ordinance will simply reinsert this omitted code section.

As mentioned, the adoption of the Los Angeles City Code relating to animals was required as part of the agreement with the City of Los Angeles Department Animal Services prior to their provision of field and sheltering services. During the adoption process, the Beverly Hills Municipal Code was reviewed, renumbered and reorganized with the intent of eliminating redundant or duplicate language. During this process, the section dealing with feeding of certain animals was inadvertently omitted.

Staff finds that this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety because the placement of food on public property and in publicly accessible areas attracts not only domesticated animals, but raccoons and coyotes, vermin such as rodents, and insects. This Ordinance prohibits the feeding of certain animals on public property, including but not limited to, stray dogs, and feral and stray cats. Staff finds that the Los Angeles Municipal Code does not adequately address the health and safety issues that arise from feeding of animals on public property.

Adoption of this Ordinance will prevent the proliferation of predatory mammal, rodent and insect populations, thereby reducing the spread of disease and prevent expansion of non- domesticated mammalian predator populations by limiting their access to food. The Ordinance will take effect immediately.

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

Why Does Boks Five Year Plan Accept Failure?

I have not calculated the City Shelter stats in well over a year. Sometimes it just hurts to see how much death there is. Also, I didn't know when to begin holding LAAS' new management accountable for the system's poor performance since Boks did not officially leave until June 30, 2009.

So this following brief, brief analysis is still totally on Boks', even though he probably did not have much to do with operations for the last two months.

For the past 12 months ending May 31, 2009, the live save rate for dogs and cats was 58.6%, but for cats alone it was only 39.9%

Over 60% of all cats that came in were killed. Last year the live save rate for cats was 43.7%.

Compare this with New York City. NYC impounded far more cats than LA Animal Services during the past 12 months (28,704 for NYC versus 23,709 for LA City), yet saved 59% compared to LA's 39.9%. New York City saved 16,587 cats, while LA saved 9,457. Why? NYC had less than half LA's budget when I last checked 18 months ago.

During the past 12 months, there were 3,059 more cats impounded in LA compared to the year before, but killing increased by 3,138, meaning that more than 100% of the new cats were killed. The system couldn't handle the increase and killed all of the new larger marginal total, and then some. Performance was FAR WORSE than last year.

Partly this is due to the economy and to foreclosures, but also it is due to the larger number of new facilities. More animals are being turned in because it is easier, and the increased staff has not been able to cope. I don't know if field intake numbers have expanded or not; these figures are not published.

But you can't just blame the economy. LAAS has failed catastrophically compared to the year before, and is a miserable failure compared to NYC. The expanded LAAS under Ed Boks has FAILED Los Angeles during the past year.

This is why Boks Five year plan accepts failure because Animal Services, under Boks, has gone backwards.

New York City has pulled well ahead of Los Angeles with less than half LA's budget.

New York statistics: http://www.nycacc.org/stats.htm


reade more... Résuméabuiyad