LA Animal Watch

2011-12-16T16:21:00.001-08:00

WOW!!!

2011-12-15T21:52:00.001-08:00

L.A. fires animal shelter worker over his euthanasia practices

Civil Service Commission says the technician failed to sedate the dogs he was trying to euthanize, brought dogs into a room with other dead animals and inserted euthanizing needles into jugular veins.

Volunteers exercise two shelter dogs Tuesday at the West Valley Animal Shelter. (Lawrence K. Ho / Los Angeles Times / December 13, 2011)

Ads by Google

Home Pet Euthanasia in LACaring Painless Transition 24hrs Free Euthanasia Consult Top Vets911vets.com

By David Zahniser, Los Angeles Times

December 14, 2011

A veterinary technician at a Los Angeles city animal shelter was fired last week after officials found that he had subjecteddogs to inhumane treatment while euthanizing them.

Manuel Boado, 64, was discharged by the city's Civil Service Commission, which concluded that he failed to sedate the dogs he was trying to euthanize, brought dogs into a room with other dead animals and inserted euthanizing needles into jugular veins — a practice officials say was not permitted.

With allegations reminiscent of a Stephen King novel, case records open a rare window into the most unpleasant task carried out by the Animal Services Department — killing animals that have no owner when its shelters run out of room.

One shelter worker testified during the termination proceedings that she heard Boado tell a dog to "just die already," according to a report submitted to the commission. A second worker said he walked into Boado's work area and found two dead dogs on the floor and a third half-covered in blood.

A third employee, animal care technician Carolina Martinez, said she became sick to her stomach working alongside Boado, where animals were "struggling, shaking and urinating." She said she had to temporarily leave the room at the West Valley shelter in Chatsworth.

"By trying to jab them with the needle, he was causing them to bleed a lot," said the report prepared for the commission. "Martinez said she had never seen so much blood before or witnessed anyone do what [Boado] did to the animals."

By failing to provide sedation, putting live animals next to dead ones and yelling, Boado needlessly created a "fear factor" among animals being euthanized, said Brenda Barnette, the department's general manager who recommended his firing.

"It is totally unconscionable to add an element of fear if you're about to take an animal's life away," she said.

Terry Porvin, Boado's lawyer, denied that his client treated animals cruelly and said he had, in fact, taken several ailing dogs from hospitals into his home. Porvin also contended that his client, who earned about $58,000 annually, never received proper training from the department in how to euthanize the animals.

Boado, who was hired in 2007, brought dogs into a room with other dead animals because the refrigerator used to store animal carcasses had been broken "for some time," Porvin said. Had Boado opened it, it would have emitted a foul stench — a situation that would have made his work more difficult, the lawyer said.

"Out of sheer frustration from the totality of the circumstances, he probably blurted out something he shouldn't have," Porvin said.

The firing comes at a time of turmoil for the department. Barnette's agency is investigating whether employees stole dogs at a Lincoln Heights animal shelter and sold them for a profit. In recent months, the department also placed five employees on leave during a probe into allegations of time card fraud.

Barnette said she did not consider referring Boado's case to the district attorney's office for prosecution, focusing exclusively on removing him from her department. Nevertheless, the department added a line in its protocol manual barring veterinarians from inserting needles with sodium pentobarbital, the chemical used for euthanasia, in the jugular vein of dogs and cats. Barnette said that she believed the manual already made the prohibition clear but that the new language makes the ban explicit.

Officials with the Pasadena Humane Society said needles they use during euthanasia are injected into a dog or cat's front leg — a practice they described as more humane than jugular injections. Shelters run by Los Angeles County rarely use the jugular, officials said.

To euthanize animals in an L.A. facility, Boado had to show he had a certification from the state of California showing he is a registered veterinary technician, personnel officials said Tuesday. Boado told a hearing officer that he had used the jugular vein as much as half the time and had learned the practice during a non-city training session.

But Doug Fakkema, the veterinarian Boado said provided the training, told city officials he never would have advised Boado or anyone else to use the jugular vein on healthy dogs and cats. Such a procedure should be used only in "extreme circumstances," he said. In an email to The Times, Fakkema said an injection into the jugular vein can be used for livestock but is "more likely to cause pain" for a dog or cat than injection into a vein in the leg.

Barnette sought Boado's termination, but last month a city hearing officer found that penalty to be "too extreme."

Hearing officer Stephen Biersmith recommended that Boado be reinstated and only have his pay docked, saying the department had not consistently enforced policies for its employees. He also argued that Boado had not intentionally violated the rules.

The Civil Service Commission reviewed the case and voted unanimously for termination.

david.zahniser@latimes.com

HELP NEEDED, EL MONTE AREA

2011-10-19T13:49:00.000-07:00

Please can-will somebody help me?

I was forced to move, I stayed in a garage for two nights with my cats two cats got out of the garage early tues morning my nuetered male he is domestic.

My ferel female won't come to me or anybody she was just beginning to sleep on my legs at night after having her 1 year I am now staying in El Monte. She, the ferel kitty is not spayed I know shame on me..no transportation she the ferel kitty is in Alhambra I go every night from 4:00pm to midnight with a carrier on the bus to look for her I take food I have seen 3 cats that might be her though its so dark and she is black I am unable to see good enough. I need to get a flashlight, I need to trap her at where I stayed before I had to move, she wont come to me, the people where I lived before tell me I cant go on the property? no idea why I told them once I get my cat I wont be back!

Please can a volunteer help me? I need somebody with a trap that has transportation and is willing to help me get my baby female ferel home, I have difficulty sleeping knowing she is out there after she has been an indoor cat for 1 year now, I rescued her as a kitten she had ear mites, fleas and a touch of mange and was starving we took care of all that and I did handle her alot and well my other cats miss her too! Please help!!!

Thank you so much
Jewelee
walknhim@hotmailcom

An incomplete story

2011-09-29T08:10:00.000-07:00

LikeComment

Advocate for Saving Dogs

A Letter from a Shelter Manager - anonymous in North Carolina

I think our society needs a huge "Wake-up" call. As a shelter manager, I am going to share a little insight with you all...a view from the inside if you will.

First off, all of you breeders/sellers should be made to work in the "back" of an animal shelter for just one day. Maybe if you saw the life drain from a few sad, lost, confused eyes, you would change your mind about breeding and selling to people you don't even know.

That puppy you just sold will most likely end up in my shelter when it's not a cute little puppy anymore. So how would you feel if you knew that there's about a 90% chance that dog will never walk out of the shelter it is going to be dumped at? Purebred or not! About 50% of all of the dogs that are "owner surrenders" or "strays", that come into my shelter are purebred dogs.

The most common excuses I hear are; "We are moving and we can't take our dog (or cat)." Really? Where are you moving too that doesn't allow pets? Or they say "The dog got bigger than we thought it would". How big did you think a German Shepherd would get? "We don't have time for her". Really? I work a 10-12 hour day and still have time for my 6 dogs! "She's tearing up our yard". How about making her a part of your family? They always tell me "We just don't want to have to stress about finding a place for her we know she'll get adopted, she's a good dog".

Odds are your pet won't get adopted & how stressful do you think being in a shelter is? Well, let me tell you, your pet has 72 hours to find a new family from the moment you drop it off. Sometimes a little longer if the shelter isn't full and your dog manages to stay completely healthy. If it sniffles, it dies. Your pet will be confined to a small run/kennel in a room with about 25 other barking or crying animals. It will have to relieve itself where it eats and sleeps. It will be depressed and it will cry constantly for the family that abandoned it. If your pet is lucky, I will have enough volunteers in that day to take him/her for a walk. If I don't, your pet won't get any attention besides having a bowl of food slid under the kennel door and the waste sprayed out of its pen with a high-powered hose. If your dog is big, black or any of the "Bully" breeds (pit bull, rottie, mastiff, etc) it was pretty much dead when you walked it through the front door.

Those dogs just don't get adopted. It doesn't matter how 'sweet' or 'well behaved' they are.

If your dog doesn't get adopted within its 72 hours and the shelter is full, it will be destroyed. If the shelter isn't full and your dog is good enough, and of a desirable enough breed it may get a stay of execution, but not for long . Most dogs get very kennel protective after about a week and are destroyed for showing aggression. Even the sweetest dogs will turn in this environment. If your pet makes it over all of those hurdles chances are it will get kennel cough or an upper respiratory infection and will be destroyed because shelters just don't have the funds to pay for even a $100 treatment.

Here's a little euthanasia 101 for those of you that have never witnessed a perfectly healthy, scared animal being "put-down".

First, your pet will be taken from its kennel on a leash. They always look like they think they are going for a walk happy, wagging their tails. Until they get to "The Room", every one of them freaks out and puts on the brakes when we get to the door. It must smell like death or they can feel the sad souls that are left in there, it's strange, but it happens with every one of them. Your dog or cat will be restrained, held down by 1 or 2 vet techs depending on the size and how freaked out they are. Then a euthanasia tech or a vet will start the process. They will find a vein in the front leg and inject a lethal dose of the "pink stuff". Hopefully your pet doesn't panic from being restrained and jerk. I've seen the needles tear out of a leg and been covered with the resulting blood and been deafened by the yelps and screams. They all don't just "go to sleep", sometimes they spasm for a while, gasp for air and defecate on themselves.

When it all ends, your pets corpse will be stacked like firewood in a large freezer in the back with all of the other animals that were killed waiting to be picked up like garbage. What happens next? Cremated? Taken to the dump? Rendered into pet food? You'll never know and it probably won't even cross your mind. It was just an animal and you can always buy another one, right?

I hate my job, I hate that it exists & I hate that it will always be there unless you people make some changes and realize that the lives you are affecting go much farther than the pets you dump at a shelter.

Between 4 and 5 MILLION animals die every year in shelters and only you can stop it. I do my best to save every life I can but rescues are always full, and there are more animals coming in everyday than there are homes.

My point to all of this DON'T BREED OR BUY WHILE SHELTER PETS DIE!

Mary Cummins her lawsuit against Boks and the city on her blog

2011-08-17T21:32:00.000-07:00

This blog started a little after Mary started her two blogs. I kinow some of the things she says in her post below to be true, and some other things, I suspect are true. Then again, there is much that she says that I had no previous knowledge of.

Mary Cummins-Cobb vs City of LA, Ed Boks - Animal Advocates, Mary Cummins

This post is to clear up some misconceptions about my lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles and Ed Boks. Rick Orlov asked me for a comment for his article but my lawyer told me not to comment. I signed no confidentiality clause even though Ed Boks wanted me to sign one. I can share the settlement agreement. It is not confidential. l received 60% of $130,000 plus an award from the Department. I will reply to all of these allegations in this article. My reply will be in blue.

"$130,000 to settle sex harassment suit against outgoing Animal Services director

By Rick Orlov, Staff Writer
Posted: 05/01/2009 07:49:35 PM PDT

Animal Services Director Ed Boks, seen here in a March 27 file photo, is leaving the post amid controversy. (Tina Burch/Staff Photographer)
In one of the last official actions involving departing Animal Services Director Ed Boks, the City Council on Friday approved paying $130,000 to settle a sexual harassment suit filed by a former worker.
Mary Cumins-Cobb, who worked briefly as an Web master for the city agency, claimed that Boks subjected her to harassment that included lewd comments, inappropriate touching and showing up drunk on her doorstep to ask her for a date, according to court documents.

l offered the City a free website from 2001 to 2005. They never accepted my offer. January 2006 soon after Boks became the new GM the Mayor's office told me to meet with him. l had no idea why l was meeting with him. Boks told me that the Mayor's office said l offered a free new website. He told me to create a new website which l did as a volunteer.

Within five minutes of meeting him Boks was already talking about inappropriate things which l ignored. After only a week he asked me out to dinner even though he had a girlfriend. I ignored his offer hoping he'd get the hint. l was living with my boyfriend which I made sure to mention frequently.

She claimed she was fired for rejecting his advances and that she also lost her job with a private animal foundation because of Boks.
The settlement of the Los Angeles Superior Court suit, filed in 2007, now goes to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa for approval

l was fired because l rejected his advances. I was also fired because Boks blamed me for the blogs. l set up his blog and another blog for him. l did not post on his blog. l in fact told him many times not to post what he emailed me yet he did. l did not make all the posts on the other blog. l still have a copy of that blog with the identities of everyone who posted on it. Boks wrote some of the posts, so did people who worked in the Department besides others. When the blogs became a heated issue, Jimmy Blackman from the Mayor's office told Boks to shut it down. Boks never told me that. He continued to write the blogs and encourage people to post on it. l was fired because of the scandal the blogs caused. l was the scapegoat. In fact after I was fired Boks then blamed me for all the mistakes he made, even mistakes he made after l was fired.

PDF: Complaint filed against Los Angeles Animal Services General Manager Ed Boks by Mary K. Cummins-Cobb
Aides said he would have no comment.
Councilman Tony Cardenas, who has criticized Boks for his handling of the department, said he hoped the general manager's recent resignation and the settlement of the suit will enable the city to move forward.
"These issues have become a distraction within Animal Services," Cardenas said. "I hope this will allow the department to refocus its goals and reinvest in its commitment toward becoming a no-kill city," Cardenas said.
Boks said he was advised by the City Attorney's Office to not comment on the case.
Cummins-Cobb said she was prohibited from discussing the suit or the settlement.

My lawyer told me not to comment for this article. l regret not commenting because there are so many errors. Rick Orlov is not to blame for the errors. Rick is a very nice guy and a good writer even though he misspelled my name in the first paragraph.

In court documents, Cummins-Cobb said she began volunteering with the Animal Services Department in 2001 and was hired in March 2006 to help with the department's Web site.

l built the new website for free from January to March. Boks was having me spend many hours a day adding pages, making edits. l finally told him l have to work so l can pay my bills. He then said he would ask the Foundation to pay me. The Department at that time had no webmaster. She went on maternity leave then she quit because she hated the Department and job. She then went to work for Chameleon/Pet Harbor. l think l started getting paid around March 2006.

She said the hourly position was funded through a grant from the Found Animal Foundation, which had employed her in February 2006.

l was hired as an independent contractor for the Found Animals Foundation. Dr. Gary Michelson offered me the job after he saw my presentation at the Ed Boks "Meet and Greet" when l unveiled the new website. Everyone loved the new website.

Soon after being hired by the city, she said in her complaint, Boks began to engage in "inappropriate and unprofessional conduct" with her, including touching, hugging and trying to kiss her.
Although she rebuffed his advances, Cummins-Cobb said she was assured she would not be fired.
But she said the inappropriate behavior continued. Court documents said Boks used vulgar and sexual language, emailed or phoned her up to 20 times a day, frequently asked her out and also showed at her house, uninvited and apparently under the influence of alcohol.

Boks engaged in inappropriate behavior with many, many female rescuers, not just me. l would tell him repeatedly, don't go out with local animal people. He said they were the only women he was meeting even though he had a page on Match.com and a girlfriend in New York. l also told him to stop putting these inappropriate things in writing. Someone could do an info act request and get a copy then he'd be fired. l told him if he was going to write something he didn't want the world to see that he should use the phone instead. He could not stop drunk emailing. l thought he would never fire me because he put the most inappropriate things in writing. lf he were to fire me, of course l'd turn over all the emails, which l ultimately did. Boks admitted to all of his inappropriate acts in email and even apologized, again, in email. He also shared emails from the Mayor's office, City attorney, Bob Ferber, Commissioners, employees, rescuers....

The documents also claim Boks asked Cummins-Cobb to post anonymous blog comments defending him from Internet attacks written by critics. She said her identity was quickly revealed, and that animal activists subsequently spread false rumors about her to city officials.
Among the lies told about her by activists, she said in documents, was "that she was a `911 terrorist,' `a prostitute,' and `a practitioner of squirrel pornography."'

Boks wrote some of the posts, so did others with the Department including Commissioners. The rest is true.

Cummins-Cobb said she was forced to remain inside her house because of the activists and lost her job with the Found Animal Foundation because of Boks. In July 2006, she said she was fired by the city.
Boks continued to harass her, the documents said, calling her up to 10 times a day and asking her for sex, documents said. When she refused, she said, her permit to work as a wildlife rescuer was not renewed.

l did lose my job at the Foundation because of Boks. The blog and Boks became a scandal. The head of the Foundation, Dave didn't like Ed Boks. He knew all about his tricks with the numbers. l didn't yet realize that Boks was failing and euthanasia had increased. Boks had us all fooled into thinking euthanasia was down. l supported him because l thought he was saving animals' lives. l could not have been more wrong. l stopped supporting Boks when l saw the annual numbers. Things had not improved. l shut down the other blog at that time.

Boks did call me repeatedly. He'd call, l wouldn't pick up because l saw it was him and l knew he was drunk, he'd leave a message, instantly call again and again and again. He lived close to me and would just drive over drunk out of his mind in a City vehicle.

My wildlife permit was renewed. The problem was the permit officers insisted on inspecting my house again. They only inspected me the first year. There was no such thing as an annual inspection. The permit officers did not like me because Ed Boks embarrassed them at the Banksy art show. In front of people he called them on not looking at the paint or checking the temperature in the trailer as l had. Boks has very poor people skills. l complained about this new "annual" inspection. Boks did not stop them from inspecting my house. They came to my house and looked at everything except my caging. The caging is the only thing they are supposed to inspect. No one else was inspected annually.

In their written response to her complaint, city officials said Cummins-Cobb was a volunteer and was never paid by the city as an employee. Boks said in his written declaration that the city never submitted invoices to the foundation for her work.

I was never a City employee. Boks sent a request to the Foundation to hire me to work for him. l was told by Dave to do whatever Boks needed. l was also still legally a volunteer for the Department at the same time but that involved work in the shelters.

In his statement he also implied it was not his own decision to let Cummins-Cobb go.
"I was advised in mid-2006 to release Ms. Cummins as a volunteer," he said, without specifying who advised him.

Jimmy Blackman from the Mayor's office told him to fire me. So did the City Attorney. They told him to fire me because of the flak they were getting because of the blogs. lt was basically ADL and three or four mentally ill people who complained about the blogs. The letter the City sent to me said "thanks for all your wonderful help but we no longer need it." Boks didn't even warn me that l was going to get a letter or get fired. He felt bad so he wrote me a letter of recommendation which l will dig up and post. He predated the letter of recommendation. You can tell because the commissioners are different.

Here is the kicker. After l was fired from the Foundation, lost my grant and was fired as a volunteer for the City, Boks accepted all responsibility for my firing in writing and apologized. He told me he would make it up to me. He promised me he would find me a new job with Best Friends. l would be making the same amount of money. He said l would do their website and work for them. He kept saying he just had to get together with me for dinner to go over the details. By then l'd wised up a little so l told him just to hook me up with the job over the phone, no need for dinner. After a month of him begging l agreed to meet for drinks in a very public place. l wore a suit. He showed up tipsy then drank four more drinks. He asked to come over to my place and l said no. He showed up later with a bottle of booze at my door acting totally drunk. My boyfriend was in San Francisco for the weekend. l knew Boks couldn't drive any farther without getting in a major accident so l let him come in and crash on the sofa. l had a fear if he got a DUI, he'd be fired. After he did some crying about how kittens were ruining his numbers he passed out. He woke up late the next morning missing his first few appointments. He later emailed me that he had a great time. He obviously blacked out and remembered nothing but wanted to cover his bases just in case.

Gary Michelson, CEO of the Found Animal Foundation, said in a written court declaration that Cummins-Cobb was fired from the foundation because of the quality of her work and not because of pressure from the city.
"When I saw her work, I was also dissatisfied with the quality of her work," Michelson said in the declaration. "Because of her poor performance, we terminated our relationship with Cummins. No one at the City of Los Angeles influenced or attempted to influence my decision."

Dr. Gary Michelson is a liar. Michelson did not fire me. The head of his Foundation Dave fired me. Dave said he wanted to "take the Foundation in a different direction" which just meant l was fired. He mentioned the blogs and Boks while he fired me. Michelson wasn't even in town when l was fired. Michelson always told me he loved my work. We corresponded back and forth. He told me he didn't even know that l was fired. Then Michelson yelled at Dave for not paying me. He told Dave that he liked my work. He asked Dave why he fired me. Dave told me all of this.

Keep in mind my lawyer Solomon Gresen did a horrible job with my case. He did such a horrible job that l reported him to the bar. Besides many other violations Solomon Gresen never gave me a copy of any document he sent or received. lt turns out he also never read the City's reply to the complaint. He's the type of lawyer who files many lawsuits to try to get a settlement or two. He never read Michelson's statement. lt came up in mediation six months later. The mediator said my boss said he fired me. l called up Dave who was my boss and he said he made no such statement. l thought it was another bluff from the City. First time l saw Michelson's statement was when l asked Rick Orlov for it. BTW the mediator stated that she felt my lawyer committed malpractice.

l was totally shocked when l saw the statement. All the time l was working with the City l was supporting, protecting, defending Michelson and his strange behavior when no one else was. Michelson did indeed promise the Mayor money if he hired Ed Boks. The Mayor's office kept asking me "where's the money?" They said "Michelson is a flake, he promised money, where is it, he's crazy." Boks was saying the same things. Boks even said that he was "strange looking" and "gay." l still defended Michelson because l thought he was saving animals' lives with his Foundation. l thought he truly would make LA "nokill" as he promised. l was again wrong.

After Gary Michelson fired his Foundation Director Dave, Michelson started spreading false rumors about Dave saying he embezzled money from his Foundation. Dave did not embezzle money. Michelson just got buyer's remorse after giving money to Dave for his pet kiosks and microchips. Michelson tried to file a police report with LAPD but they refused to take the report because no crime had been committed. Michelson asked the Mayor's office and Ed Boks to tell LAPD to arrest Dave. They called LAPD who told them there was no crime and Michelson is crazy and a liar. Michelson gave the money to Dave. ln the meantime Gary is telling everyone that Dave will be arrested. l would even tell Michelson where Dave was. Gary asked me to write a statement about Dave and l said yes. l never did write a statement. Also FTR l never signed a confidentiality agreement with Michelson. l was asked but they never gave me one to sign.

Michelson kept libeling, slandering, defaming Dave. Dave finally sued him. Michelson quickly settled. After l saw Michelson's libelous statement about me l contacted the same lawyer so he could sue Michelson. He said Michelson is very mean and nasty. He doesn't want to have to go up against him again. l couldn't find anyone that was willing to go up against Michelson because of his reputation of being very nasty in legal battles.

Boks resigned in April after a turbulent few months in which he faced harsh criticism for his decision to abruptly end a voucher program offering coupons to reduce the cost of spay and neutering pets.
The City Council had authorized the vouchers to help residents comply with a law requiring the sterilizatoin of all pets six months or older - a program advocated by Boks.

Boks was fired. He did not resign. He threatened to sue the City. They decided to make it look like he resigned so he could try to find work somewhere else. His golden handshake was two months worth of salary. He did the same when he was fired/left New York and Arizona. He was basically fired from NY and AZ because of audits which showed poor performance. He was also sued for racial discrimination in NY and lost. Boks even got the Mayor of LA to write a letter saying "thanks for your service" kind of like the one the City wrote to me. FTR Boks wrote and signed my termination letter.

Under pressure from council members and saying he was suffering some health problems, Boks resigned effective June 30.
He is using vacation and medical leave this month and plans to work during June to help in transistion.
Neither Villaraigosa or the Animal Services Commission have released any guidelines on their plan to hire a successor. It has been a difficult post to keep filled. The city has had five directors in the past 10 years.

lt's a very difficult position. l wouldn't wish the GM position on my worst enemy. Dealing with the Union, City red tape, employees, rescuers, volunteers is a very tough job.

Best Friends to Run Valley Shelter---Yeah!

2011-08-17T17:50:00.000-07:00

This is the best thing to happen to LAAS since Barnette was hired. She started her job August 15, 2010. I know friends of mine plan on doing a one year review of the shelters' progress statistically soon. But this act and disarming the animal police bodes well for the future. Winograd was on the mind that real change can only happen in LA if the shelters go private.

Nonprofit to run city shelter

CONTRACT: Alarcón opposes deal, saying other operators should have been considered.

By Rick Orlov Staff Writer

Overriding complaints about the bidding process, the City Council on Tuesday approved a three-year contract with a nonprofit group to operate the vacant Northeast Animal Shelter in Mission Hills.
Best Friends Animal Society will have a three-year contract with options for two additional years to operate the $19.5 million shelter at 15321 S. Brand Blvd.

Councilman Richard Alarcón, whose district includes the shelter, opposed the action, saying the city had failed to consider other potential operators.

“We don’t know what we could have got because we didn’t talk to anyone else,” Alarcón said.

But officials said they had reached out to potential bidders in letters and on the city website and Best Friends was the only group to respond.
The mission-style shelter was built in 2008 with revenue from a voter-approved bond issue, but never operated at full capacity because of city funding shortfalls.

Before it was closed this summer, it housed problem animals or those whose owners were in jail or involved in a criminal cases.

“The voters of the northeast San Fernando Valley came out in high numbers and they were promised a full service shelter. And they aren’t getting it.”

— RICHARD ALARCÓN, city councilman

Under the terms of the contract, Best Friends will be able to stage adoption events, provide spay-and-neuter services and issue dog licenses. However, animal control actions will remain under the jurisdiction of the Department of Animal Services.

The plan is one of several ideas the city is looking at to increase the involvement of private groups in government programs. The city is also looking at a public-private partnership involving management of the Los Angeles Zoo, and earlier this year examined, but then dropped, a plan to lease out city parking garages. It may also consider private involvement in managing the Convention Center.

City officials say such efforts are the best way to keep offering services at a time of severe budget crunches, but some critics question whether the city is giving up too much control of its operations to the private sector. Some unions also worry that increased privatization will lead to cuts in city jobs or salary decreases.

Animal Services Director Brenda Barnette said she would be unable to open the Mission Hills facility with the budget she has now.

She added that the city also plans to reach out to other nonprofits to operate the new South Los Angeles shelter opening in several months. Because of the controversy over the Northeast Shelter, she said the city will issue a formal request for proposals before contracting with an operator.

Barnette has said the deal with Best Friends will help the city avoid having to euthanize 250 to 400 animals per month. To keep it open under city management would have required diverting city workers from other shelters, reducing their hours and increasing euthanasia rates.

Best Friends has promised to invest more than $1 million in the Northeast Shelter and believes it will be able to provide 3,000 adoptions in its first year. It also predicts it will spay or neuter 6,000 animals.

City officials have estimated they could save up to $3.3 million a year by having Best Friends run the shelter.

Francis Battista, founder of the organization, said his sole goal is saving animals’ lives.

“Our model has the demonstrated ability,” Battista said. “The best way is a partnership with a strong nonprofit to reduce shelter killings.”

Best Friends is headquartered in Utah, but has operated in Los Angeles since 1991. Alarcón said he was concerned about the city negotiating only with Best Friends when several other organizations — including the Amanda Foundation and the SPCA — said they would have bid for the operation if they were aware of it.

“Something is wrong here,” Alarcón said. “It looks bad to only talk to one organization and we aren’t getting the full service from this shelter. It was built for 350 animals and they are only taking 50 or 100. That leaves 250 other animals out there.

“I would have hoped the city could have done more with this shelter that we promised the voters. The voters of the northeast San Fernando Valley came out in high numbers and they were promised a full service shelter. And they aren’t getting it.”

rick.orlov@dailynews.com 213-978-0390

Hans Gutknecht Staff Photographer

The Northeast Animal Shelter in Mission Hills was built in 2008 with revenue from a voter-approved bond issue, but it never operated at full capacity because of funding woes.

2011-08-09T21:25:00.001-07:00

Horror stories about VPI pet Insurance. These guys are even more of a rip off than VCA West LA.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/pets/vpi.html

http://www.ripoffreport.com/directory/VPI-Pet-Insurance.aspx

http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/veterinary-pet-insurance-vpi-c19894.html

http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/vpi-pet-insurance-c93438.html

http://vpi-pet-insurance.pissedconsumer.com/

Brenda Disarms Department

2011-08-06T15:15:00.000-07:00

LAPD, city seize guns at 6 L.A. animal shelters

About 120 weapons, including shotguns, rifles and .38-caliber handguns, are confiscated as part of an expanding internal investigation into the city's animal services agency. Officials suspect some guns are missing.

Abandoned chihuahuas play in their pen at the East Valley Animal Center in 2009. (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

By David Zahniser, Los Angeles Times

August 5, 2011

Police officers and city officials swept into six Los Angeles animal shelters Thursday, confiscating guns and ammunition from employees as part of an expanding internal investigation into the animal services agency.

Plainclothes officers from the Los Angeles Police Departmentand managers with the animal services agency took about 120 weapons, including shotguns, rifles and .38-caliber handguns. The city's 75 animal control officers are issued firearms to kill wild animals that are too injured to transport to shelters.

Brenda Barnette, general manager of the animal services department, said investigators were trying to determine what guns the agency has and how they are being used.

"We suspect there are some missing guns," said Barnette, adding that she does not necessarily suspect that the weapons were stolen.

Maggie Whelan, general manager of the city's Personnel Department, which is assisting in the probe, said she believed that no more than three guns are actually missing.

"I can't say for sure because we're not certain," she said.

The sweep came two months after Barnette revealed that the department was looking into allegations that shelter workers stole animals and sold them for a profit. And it occurred less than a month after city officials confirmed that there is an investigation into time card fraud involving department employees. Five employees are on paid administrative leave pending the internal investigation's outcome.

At least eight personnel investigators are looking at the shelter agency. Meanwhile, City Controller Wendy Greuel is working on a wide-ranging audit, saying that the department is "out of control at a number of levels, from time card issues to having a handle on resources they have — including how many guns they have and how they're being used."

Animal services officials "did not have an appropriate inventory of all the guns that they had in their possession," Greuel said. "They felt it was such an urgent issue that they called the LAPD."

Lt. Troy Boswell, who works in the city's East Valley shelter, said police handed shelter workers a note from Barnette and then took .38-caliber handguns from the premises.

"We were given no explanation," he said.

Barnette said she was also looking into reports from her shelter managers that department employees used guns to euthanize critically injured or terminally ill small animals, including turtles, squirrels and birds. She said such a practice was dangerous because bullets could ricochet off pavement or another surface.

She said weapons should be used only to euthanize large animals that cannot be treated medically, such as a deer caught in a fence.

"If you've got something as small as a turtle or a squirrel or something like that, it just seems to us that the correct procedure would be bring it back to the shelter, so it can be taken to a wildlife rehabilitation center or it can be euthanized," she said.

LAPD officers have been providing expertise and assistance to animal services personnel during their audit. The department will safeguard the weapons that were seized, LAPD Cmdr. Andy Smith said.

"We are going to hold on to them until the audit is done and they want them back," Smith said.

He noted that no warrants were executed during the operation.

david.zahniser@latimes.com

Times staff writer Andrew Blankstein contributed to this report.

600 cats rescued from the fur and food market in China

2011-08-06T15:09:00.000-07:00

Breaking news-600 caged cats rescued from 2 trucks in Wuxi near Shanghai

15 Votes

More details for cats rescued on Aug the 3rd-4th:

At 10pm on Aug 3rd, the Wuxi Animal Protection Association was told that a truck loaded with many cages of cats was preparing to head south to Guangzhou, the capital city of Guangdong province. In an effort to stop this departure many volunteers went to the gate of the storage place at midnight to wait for the truck to leave, planning to stop them at the toll fee station on the nearest highway. They waited until 5am in the morning when finally the truck filled with so much life started to leave. The truck also carried furniture on the bottom, and thirteen cages filled with cats were placed on top. Should the volunteers have not stopped the truck, these cats would have had to travel for 30 hours in the blazing heat with no food or water, only to arrive to a cruel death when they arrive in Guangzhou, the supposed most sophisticated city in China. It is absurd that such a large city with such a developed economy should have a ruined reputation because of a few select criminals who violently kill these poor cats for food every day.

At the toll station, the truck was stopped successfully by volunteers. Since this truck contained other illegal possessions on board as well as the cats that were against the on the regulations for transportation shipping rules, many people were angrily trying to stop the truck drivers.
While waiting for the police to arrive on the scene the truck drivers told many lies to them, including that their truck “contained no animals whatsoever,” and that their “truck has nothing to do with any animals.” They said that their truck was only used for shipping furniture. Conveniently, right at that very moment, one little cat stuck her small head out of one of the cages at the top of the truck, looking around curiously. This little cat completely broke his lie right away, embarrassing the lying truck driver in front of crowd!

After hours of the waiting and negotiation with police officers, finally at 7am more than 200 cats were released to the WAPA and taken back to their shelter. Their little paws were sticking out of the cages, looking helpless and defenseless. It is ridiculous that such cruelty was subjected to these poor beautiful creatures. It is absolutely necessary that an animal protection law is made as soon as possible so that these animals can be saved from the evil clutches of these disgusting individuals. Please help us make this possible by sending letters to your local Embassy of China in your country, urging them to call for an animal protection law to be passed.

We thank you all for your great support, and we all have much thanks and appreciation for the loving volunteers who saved many lives today.

We cannot give up on love and hope.

Regards
Wuxi Animal Protection Association

Aug 5th 2011

Briefly translated by Joy Gao

On Aug the 3rd and July the 24th, the WAPA (Wuxi Animal Protection Assn) near Shanghai had nearly 600 caged cats rescued. Shown below are photos of the cats during and after the rescue on July 24th. Brave volunteers worked throughout the night to move the captured cats into the WAPA’s cat base, saving them from the cat-nappers who were planning to ship the cats out to various restaurants. The rescuers successfully stopped them on the way Guangdong after hours of negotiation with police officers in the heat with no water. Many of the cats were starved and injured, hiding in the corners in fear. Since the cat base at the WAPA was still under construction, the rescuers fixed up the location over night and worked tirelessly to have the place in best condition for the cats.
————————-
At the moment, if anyone wishes to make the contributions towards those rescued cats, the easiest way might be to have the donations made to Rosa’s antifur society’s Paypal account, and then she would have the lump sum being sent to WAPA via West Union as she always does over the years for helping the animals in China. http://www.people4chineseanimals.org/Donations-at-work.html

________________________________________________________________________________________

Urge China to introduce an Animal Protection Law

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/Urge-China-to-introduce-an-Animal-Protection-Law/

25 Comments

Filed under China

One blogger likes this post.

25 Responses to Breaking news-600 caged cats rescued from 2 trucks in Wuxi near Shanghai

Actie tegen Dierenleed
August 5, 2011 at 2:28 pm
This news makes my day! Just been busy to stop fur coming into Europe and America to make people aware of the horrific animal abuse there is behind this fur.
For EU report about enforcement on cat and dog fur ban in The Netherlands, please download from http://english.actietegendierenleed.nl

2011-05-23T11:01:00.003-07:00

"To one whose mind is free, there is something even more intolerable in the suffering of animals than in the sufferings of humans. For with the latter, it is at least admitted that suffering is evil and that the person who causes it is a criminal. But thousands of animals are uselessly butchered every day without a shadow of remorse. If any person were to refer to it, they would be thought ridiculous. And that is the unpardonable crime. That alone is the justification of all that humans may suffer. It cries vengeance upon all the human race. If God exists and tolerates it, it cries vengeance upon God." Jean Christophe.

2011-05-23T11:01:00.001-07:00

Amanda Lollar Responds

2011-05-14T14:45:00.000-07:00

I should point out that the below again are just allegations. Lollar chose to sue and get an injunction against Mary for posting what Mary regarded as proof of Lollar breaking the law. Now Lollar is equally guilty of posting what I regard as libelous stuff against Mary. --Ed

UPDATE - The truth about the episiotomy:

Amanda Lollar has worked and trained under the direction of a veterinarian for over 20 years. She has developed many life-saving procedures for insectivorous bats over the past two decades.

Mary Cummins filmed the episiotomy while attending her internship at Bat World sanctuary, and even helped during the procedure. Her voice can be heard offering to assist with the lighting, as well as my voice addressing her. She also took photos after the procedure. What Ms. Cummins failed to explain is that the bat had a pup stuck in her birth canal, likely for several hours. Waiting would have caused the death of the mother, an agonizing death at that. There was no vet available, and most veterinarians don’t do procedures on bats at 11pm anyway. I have preformed this procedure numerous time to save the life of the mother, as we have a wild sanctuary which is home to 30,000 bats as well as a nursery colony. I rescue mothers in trouble every summer.

Cetacaine is used to anesthetize the vaginal area before an incision is made – that is what is being applied with the cotton swab. As with humans, general anesthesia is not used for an episiotomy (which is not considered actually surgery). The pup was stillborn, likely from being stuck in the birth canal for so long. After the pup was discovered dead, the mother was placed under general anesthesia so she could be cleaned up and the incisions closed with surgical glue. The mother fully recovered and was later released.

Mary Cummins has made false complaints about us to Texas Parks and Wildlife, the USDA, the Texas Veterinary Medical Board, the Texas Department of Health, USFWS, the Mineral Wells Department of Health, the City Manager, the Fire Marshal, Code Enforcement, the Chief of Police and we suspect the IRS. Each and every one of the officials who investigated her complaints found them to be without merit, some even called and offered their help in fighting Ms. Cummins. Mary Cummins has also sent numerous false and damaging emails to the large majority of our supporters, who in turn forwarded her emails back to us in support.

An injunction was scheduled on May 4th, 2011, to force Mary Cummins to remove the defamatory statements she has made about Bat World Sanctuary and Amanda Lollar from the internet. Approximately three days before the injunction, numerous new pages containing false and damaging statements appeared on dozens of internet sites, including facebook, indybay, twitter, myspace, care2 and more. Copyrighted videos from Amanda Lollar’s most recent book were illegally downloaded and altered in an attempt to display cruelty, then uploaded to youtube. Other recent defamatory items include photos Mary Cummins took without permission while interning at Bat World Sanctuary.

Mary Responds to Lollar

2011-05-13T20:54:00.000-07:00

I did not help with the episiotomy. I only turned the light on and off as instructed by Lollar. She was mainly interested in getting nice photos for her book. In fact she used photos from this episiotomy in her book to show "proper episiotomy." She doesn't bother to tell people that she botched the job, the bat prolapsed, mom and baby died.

There is a time/date stamp on the videos and photos. This happened at 9:38 a.m. mid-week PDT. In court the other day she said her vet was Tad Jarrett who is located very close. She could have taken the bat to him but did not.

I picked up the bat from her cage to feed her. I noticed she was crowning then put her back and told Lollar. Lollar had just come back from the vacant building where the wild bats live. Lollar them grabbed her while telling Jannette to get her camera to take photos.

Lollar did not apply anything except lube on the bat. Even if she applied Cetacaine that is just a topical numbing solution for the skin only. It will not help with the pain associated with having your vagina and uterus pulled out. Lollar did not just do an episiotomy. She accidentally pulled the umbilicus instead of cutting it. You can even hear her say she cut too much and the bat is prolapsing. She admits all her mistakes in the video.

The bat convulsed then passed out when her vagina and uterus was ripped out. Lollar did not give her general anesthesia. If she had, that would have been yet another violation. She cannot have or use controlled substances. She doesn't even administer it properly. She needs a gas machine to safely, properly combine the liquid with oxygen in proper amounts. Lollar just soaks a cotton ball with the liquid, puts that in a cup and puts it over the bat's head. In another surgery Lollar gave too much and the bat stopped breathing. Then she gave her too little and the bat woke up in the middle of surgery. Lollar told me she accidentally OD's quite a few bats with Isoflurane. The others she intentionally OD's. That's how she euthanizes them.

Lollar didn't clean up the bat. She just glued her vagina shut by accident. Look at the multiple pairs of glasses she wears. She can't see up close anymore. When she sutured another bat she lost the needle in the bat after ripping the stitches out. Her employee Jannette had to find the needle with her ungloved hands.

The mom bat lived about an hour. I picked her up and she had a totally blank look on her face. I went to check on her again and she was gone. A mark was taken off the wall. The baby was born dead but very pink. That means he'd just died.

I have not made any false statements to authorities. The authorities did not say my complaints were "without merit." They are still investigating. They told me she broke the law and committed animal cruelty. They told me to file a police report which I did. I never emailed her supporters. I emailed the authorities.

There is a video in Lollar's current book which shows her yanking molars out of a bat with no pain relief. In her book she claims it had cetacaine. Again, that won't help you when someone is ripping your molars out. Plus, I doubt she gave him any. And, cetacaine is a controlled substance.

I had full permission to take photos and video at Bat World. Proof is in my website. http://www.animaladvocates.us/

BatWorldLawsuit All the interns took photos and videos. Their photos and videos are on the internet. Their photos and videos show a lot more than mine do. Lollar even asked me to take photos and videos. She loved seeing them in my Facebook and YouTube pages.

The Poppy Foundation

2011-05-10T11:44:00.000-07:00

THE WORDS WE USE

AND WHY THEY MATTER

Tina Clark

Studies have indicated that surveys show completely different outcomes depending on the way the questions in the survey are worded. One person will answer the very same question in two completely different ways depending on the wording of the question. Therefore, one survey could have two or more completely contradictory outcomes based simply on the way the questions were worded.

Choosing one word over another, even if those words ostensibly mean the same thing, can make a huge difference in the way we look at things, and can even completely change one’s world view. In our relationship with non-human animals, the words we use can have a major impact on the way we view animals and therefore on the animals themselves. Words we use without even thinking about them can color the way we perceive non-humans.

An example is the word "owner" versus the word "guardian." We must stop thinking of ourselves as owners of our animals, and begin thinking of ourselves as their guardians. We must start thinking of them as companions, not as property. A study done by FIREPAW shows that people who refer to themselves as their animals’ guardians rather than as their owners were more likely to treat their animals well. In Defense of Animals has a program called the Guardian Campaign, the goal of which is to have the word "owner" replaced with "guardian" in official language, and it has succeeded in doing so in areas ranging from law codes to shelter and vet forms to signs in public areas–even the entire State of Rhode Island now uses the word "guardian" officially.

Of course, it wasn't too long ago that humans "owned" other humans. We have done away with that, and I eagerly await the day we will regard the owning of any creature as abhorrent. We can start by choosing to use the term "guardian."

Something I hear quite often, even among many animal advocates–people one would think would know better–is the habit of referring to non-human animals as "it," with its concomitant "that" or "which" instead of "who" or "whom." This seems to come so naturally to some people, but whenever I hear it, it is so obviously discordant, it affects me the same way as hearing someone use terribly bad grammar. Many people give the excuse that they don't know the gender of the animal, and therefore can't say "he" or "she." But it is better to be wrong about an animal's gender than it is to treat that animals like an inanimate object. If you didn’t know the gender of a human, would you call that human it? I doubt it. Referring to non-human animals as "it" helps people to think of them as objects, not the living beings they are, and therefore gives permission to exploit them, to treat them any way we please without regard for their feelings.

There is another type of word usage, or mis-usage that has a slightly different background. The use of the word "shelter" to denote a place where animals are taken in and killed, and the use of the word "euthanasia" to describe that killing must also be done away with, but the impulse here is slightly different. These words have come about as euphemisms, a way to make the pounds seem like places that are protecting animals, and the killing that occurs in them seem like a favor to the animals. The use of such words intentionally hides what these places actually are and what actually happens in them. And this, too, has a disastrous effect on the animals. When the public thinks of pounds as "shelters," they are lulled into thinking that animals are cared for and protected there.

They are more likely to abandon their animals at these places, and are more likely to buy puppies or kittens from breeders or pet shops rather than adopt to save a life. They are also less likely to be outraged at the killing that goes on and to want to do what it takes to stop it. Often those who are working to help animals will continue to use these terms, especially when dealing with members of the pound system, even though they know how inaccurate and misleading the words are, simply because they don’t want to be seen as too radical, or to alienate the people affiliated with the system. I admit I have on occasion fallen into this trap in the past. But I will no longer do so. Therefore, I hereby vow I will no longer use inaccurate terms when talking about animals. I will no longer use the word "shelter" when talking about a place that executes animals, and I will no longer refer to that execution as "euthanasia," even when talking to "animal services" people. I will call a pound a pound, and I will call killing killing. I encourage others to do the same. This is important. We must stop using euphemisms that hide the truth and begin using accurate words for things, so that the truth will be brought to light, and the killing stopped.

A word that is perhaps even worse than euthanasia is destroy, as in "the animal was destroyed." No. The animal was killed. You kill living beings. You destroy inanimate objects. While "euthanasia" simply gives the impression that the killer is performing an act of mercy, saying that one "destroys" an animal actually makes the animal sound as if he were some inanimate object.

The way we talk about animals in the wild also affects the way we think of them and consequently the way we treat them. When they are no longer seen as feeling individuals, but rather "natural resources," well, aren't resources just things we use for our own benefit? When we kill them and refer to it as "harvesting," we turn them into something like wheat or oranges. Then, when some animals who haven’t been targeted for killing are accidentally killed in the massacre, they become "trash animals" (the non-human equivalent of "collateral damage").

Then there's meat--oh, the euphemisms we use to distance ourselves from the fact we are eating someone's dead body. It has been sanitized so entirely that we don't have to think about it–to even connect the meal with the individual we are consuming. We don't eat pigs and cows and calves; we eat pork and beef and veal. If you eat pork, well, pork is not an animal, it’s food, and you don't have to even think about a pig. If we called it what it really was, I think more people would hesitate before they dug into that piece of meat, and many would finally make the connection and perhaps give up meat altogether. This is why those of us who are advocates for animals must start calling dead flesh what it is. And it's funny, but when you call meat what it is in front of someone who's about to eat it, they can become quite irate. Believe me, I know from whence I speak.

Unfortunately, our everyday language is filled not only with thoughtless references to non-human animals, but also with downright derogatory ones. To merely call someone an animal is considered an insult, as are, more specifically, the terms "pig," "rat," and so many others. We talk about "killing two birds with one stone" as if that were a good thing to do. These references are deeply ingrained in our culture, and we who care about animals must be vigilant, not only removing them from our own language, but also bringing it politely to the attention of others who use these terms and phrases.

The words we choose to talk about anything or anyone color the way we view that thing or being. In the case of non-human animals, this can give us an unspoken permission to treat them in harmful ways. After all, wouldn't it be easier for you to "harvest" a "resource" than to murder a fellow being? And doesn’t it seem perfectly permissible–even the right thing to do–to "euthanize" someone rather than kill him?

We must not merely make the change in our language, we must make the change in our hearts as well. Until it becomes second nature for us to say he or she rather than it, who or whom rather than that or which, etc., we are not truly respecting animals. As long as we have to catch ourselves, we are not there yet. Our old outmoded, speciesist view of animals dictates the words we have long used with regard to them, and these words perpetuate that mindset. But it also works in reverse: we begin realizing that animals deserve our respect and real protection, and we begin using words that reflect that, and those words help change the way all of us view non-human animals.

Further Allegations of Animal Cruelty With Video

2011-05-08T21:07:00.000-07:00

Ady Gil put it up in his site. He posted this on his wall.

Amanda Lollar of Bat World Sanctuary performed surgery on this bat. The bat had no pain relief. Lollar is not a veterinarian. She accidentally cut the bat's vagina too deeply. Then she yanked the baby out. She accidentally yanked the umbilicus out. Then the bat's vagina and uterus prolapsed. The bat later died. Baby was born dead but was pink which means he'd just died

The Video, "AmandaLollarBatWorldSanctuary.mp4"

can be downloaded from:

https://public.me.com/adygil

Please, politely email the regulatory agencies who are investigating this animal cruelty. Tell them you want her prosecuted to the full extent of the law. There is another video of her yanking the molars out of a bat with no pain relief. The bat is seen kicking and fighting her then bleeding. This woman should not be operating on bats. Thanks.

wpoffice@tpwd.state.tx.us, robert.m.gibbens@usda.gov, policechief@mineralwellstx.gov

Allegations of Animal Abuse

2011-05-06T09:16:00.000-07:00

Amanda Lollar commits animal cruelty at Bat World Sanctuary

by Say NO to animal cruelty
Sunday May 1st, 2011 9:47 AM

Videos and photos (see links below) have surfaced of Amanda Lollar performing illegal surgery on conscious bats. The bats can be seen kicking and trying to bite her. In one video she performs an episiotomy on a bat. Lollar accidentally pulls out the bat's vagina and uterus because she cut too much. The bat passes out in shock. She later dies along with her baby. Let authorities know you want Lollar prosecuted for animal cruelty and abuse.

amandalollarkilledthisbat...

Video of Lollar performing illegal episiotomy surgery on a bat. GRAPHIC!!! Mom and baby die.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEXPuBKgkac

Amanda Lollar is a "wildlife rehabilitator" who treats bats in Mineral Wells, Texas. She is not a veterinarian yet she illegally performs surgery. She illegally possesses and uses controlled substances such as Isoflurane. Her illegal acts were reported to the Texas Veterinary Board. They stated, "she committed animal cruelty and should be reported to the police."

Amanda Lollar purchases, possesses, and administers rabies vaccinations to bats. Only veterinarians may possess and administer rabies vaccinations to animals because they can cause an animal to die if not administered properly. Lollar does not report rabid bats to the Texas Health Department. Instead, she euthanizes them illegally with controlled substances, then dumps their bodies into the regular trash. Her illegal acts were reported to the Texas Health Department. They stated that "her acts are criminal and should be reported to the police."

Texas Parks & Recreation was contacted about Amanda Lollar's illegal activity as they control her wildlife rehabilitation permit. They stated, "wildlife rehabilitators cannot perform surgery, and they cannot have controlled substances." The USDA was also contacted because Lollar has a USDA exhibitor permit to exhibit her bats. Lollar violated the Animal Welfare Act by "not providing proper veterinary care." Texas Parks & Recreation and the USDA are currently investigating Amanda Lollar and Bat World Sanctuary.

In another video, Amanda Lollar can be seen using forceps to pull out the teeth of a conscious bat. The bat is clearly kicking and trying to bite Lollar. After Lollar yanks two of his teeth out the bat can be seen bleeding. Lollar uses this video as an example of "proper" dental surgery in her website http://www.batworld.org .

Video of Amanda Lollar pulling out the teeth of a conscious bat. GRAPHIC!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_GN16jtbiU

A visitor to the sanctuary last year found a one-winged dead bat under Amanda Lollar's desk. It had been dead for at least two days as insects were eating it. It appeared to have died from lack of food and water. When Lollar was shown the dead bat she said the bat "was one of my favorite bats." She obviously cannot care for the bats she has if her favorite bat could go missing for days and not be noticed.

The visitor also noted that Lollar has seven dogs even though she has no kennel permit. They are all debarked. Some of the dogs have medical and dental issues, as well as very long nails. They are never walked. One of the dogs cannot use its rear legs, so she's forced to drag herself around. Lollar's outdoor cats also need veterinary care as they appear to have fleas, worms, and dental issues.

A licensed veterinarian saw the videos and stated, "This is a nightmare! No one but a veterinarian should perform surgery. Report her to the state veterinary board. She should go to jail." A viewer of the episiotomy video stated, "That is horrific! They should arrest her immediately. She pulled out her vagina! She should never be allowed around animals ever again because she has a complete disregard for their feelings of pain."

It should be noted that Lollar used photos from this bat's botched episiotomy in her website and book to show "proper episiotomy procedures." What she claims happened in her book is not what happened in real life as evidenced by the video.

These violations were reported to the police as instructed by the Texas Health Department and Texas Veterinary Board. Make sure the Mineral Wells Police Department thoroughly investigates these acts of animal cruelty and abuse. Please, politely ask the Chief of Police Mike McAllester to take necessary action, policechief [at] mineralwellstx.gov. Also ask the USDA Robert.M.Gibbens [at] usda.gov and Texas Parks & Wildlife wpoffice [at] tpwd.state.tx.us to revoke Lollar's USDA and wildlife rehabilitation permits.

Photos of abuse, illegal surgery and controlled substances are here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/62357242@N04

Video of Amanda Lollar giving illegal rabies vaccination to a baby bat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g_tSgx7yeE

Video of a skinny, shaking, dying pallid bat at Bat World Sanctuary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx21JohdwQE

Video of Amanda Lollar holding a rabid bat in her hand without gloves. Afterwards she illegally euthanized it with Isoflurane pictured in the background then she dumped it in the regular trash
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zagiiJwFPaQ

180 Days for operating a shelter without a permit?

2011-04-16T22:24:00.000-07:00

What has happened here? Who changed the law? Times article says man faces 189 days in jail for operating a shelter without a permit.

More than 100 cats found at North Hills man's home, 7 dead ones in freezer
Comments (10)
(92)
(95)
April 15, 2011 | 12:04 pm
Los Angeles city prosecutors charged a North Hills man Friday with multiple counts of animal neglect for allegedly hoarding more than 100 cats and keeping seven dead ones in his freezer.
James Howard, 58, also was charged with operating a shelter without a permit.111
His alleged cat hoarding was discovered by the Los Angeles Animal Control Task Force, working on a tip.
Once at Howard’s residence, investigators counted 103 cats on the property and more than 80 living in a motor home. They found seven dead cats inside a freezer.
Howard could face up to one year in jail for each count of animal neglect and 180 days for operating a shelter without a permit, city prosecutors said. He is scheduled to be arraigned May 6.11

Alleged PETA Investigation of IAMs

2011-04-12T00:02:00.000-07:00

For nearly 10 months in 2002 and early 2003, a PETA investigator went undercover at an Iams contract testing laboratory and discovered a dark and sordid secret beneath the wholesome image of the dog- and cat-food manufacturer: dogs gone crazy from intense confinement to barren steel cages and cement

Peter Wolf Continues to Bring Reason to the Anti-Feral Cat Rhetoric

2011-04-08T13:12:00.000-07:00

The Feral Feeding Movement

Posted: 08 Apr 2011 02:16 AM PDT

“SF Weekly is San Francisco’s smartest publication. That’s because we take journalism seriously, but not so seriously that we let ourselves be guided by an agenda.”
At least that’s what the paper’s Website

says.
Now, as somebody who reads SF Weekly only rarely, I want to be careful not to generalize. But if last week’s feature story is typical, then it’s time for the paper to update either its About page or its editorial standards.
“Live and Let Kill”

isn’t particularly smart. And, as journalism, it falls well short of the “serious” category.
Reporter Matt Smith argues that “greater scrutiny may be just what the feral feeding movement needs,” while he swallows in one gulp the numerous unsubstantiated claims made by TNR opponents.
Indeed, Smith pays more attention to colony caretaker Paula Kotakis’ “cat-hunting outfit” (“green nylon jacket, slacks, and muddied black athletic shoes”) and her mental health (“For Kotakis, strong emotions and felines go together like a cat and a lap.”) than he does the scientific papers he references (never mind those he overlooks).
His reference to “the feral feeding movement” reflects Smith’s fundamental misunderstanding of TNR, and his dogged efforts to steer the conversation away from sterilization, population control, reduced shelter killing, and the like—to focus on the alleged environmental consequences of subsidizing these “efficient bird killers and disease spreaders.”
Here, too, Smith’s misses the mark—failing to dig into the topic deeply enough to get beyond press releases, superficial observations, rhetorical questions, and his own bias.
Make no mistake: there’s an agenda here.
Science: The Usual Suspects
“Environmentalists,” writes Smith, “point out that outdoor cats are a greater problem to the natural ecological balance than most people realize.” Actually, what most people (including Smith, perhaps) don’t realize is that Smith’s sources can only rarely defend their dramatic claims with solid science.
Populations and Predation
Smith’s reference to the American Bird Conservancy, which, we’re told, “estimates that America’s 150 million outdoor cats kill 500 million birds a year,” brings to mind the 2010 L.A. Times story in which Steve Holmer, ABC’s Senior Policy Advisor, told the paper there were 160 million feral cats in the country.

Smith got a better answer out of ABC—but ABC’s better answers are only slightly closer to the truth.
Surveys indicate that about two-thirds of pet cats are kept indoors

, which means about 31 million are allowed outside (though about half of those are outdoors for less than two or three hours a day). [1–3]. So where do the other 120 million “outdoor cats” come from? And if there are really 150 million of them in the U.S.—roughly one outdoor cat for every two humans—why don’t we see more of them?
Reasonable questions, but Smith is no more interested in asking than ABC is in answering.
The closest Smith comes to supporting ABC’s predation numbers is a reference to Jonathan Franzen’s latest novel, Freedom, a book “about a birder who declares war on ‘feline death squads’ and calls cats the ‘sociopaths of the pet world,’ responsible for killing millions of American songbirds.” (The fact that Franzen sits on ABC’s board of directors

seems to have escaped Smith’s notice.)
In Smith’s defense, chasing down ABC’s predation numbers is a fool’s errand. Such figures—like the rest of ABC’s message regarding free-roaming cats—have more to do with marketing and politics than with science

.
No 1. Killer?
For additional evidence, Smith turns to Pete Marra’s study of gray catbirds in and around Bethesda, MD.
“In urban and suburban areas, outdoor cats are the No. 1 killer of birds, by a long shot, according to a new study in the Journal of Ornithology. Researchers from the Smithsonian Institution put radio transmitters on young catbirds and found that 79 percent of deaths were caused by predators, nearly half of which were cats.”
Let’s see now… half of 79 percent… That’s nearly 40 percent of bird deaths caused by cats, right? Well, no.
Although SF Weekly included a link to the Ornithology article on its Website, it seems Smith never read the paper. Like so many others (e.g., The Washington Post

, The New York Times

, TheChristian Science Monitor

, etc.), he went with the story being served up by Pete Marra and the Smithsonian

.
The real story, it turns out

, is far less dramatic than headlines would suggest. In fact, neighborhood cats were observed killing just six birds.
What’s more, even if Marra and his colleagues are correct about the three additional kills they attribute to cats, the title of “No. 1 killer of birds” goes not to the cats, but to unidentified predators, as detailed in the Ornithology paper:

“During our study of post-fledging survival, 61% (42/69) of individuals died before reaching independence. Predation on juveniles accounted for 79% (33/42) of all mortalities (Bethesda 75% (6/8), Spring Park 75% (12/16), and Opal Daniels 83% (15/18) with the vast majority (70%) occurring in the first week post-fledging. Directly observed predation events involved domestic cats (n = 6; 18%), a black rat snake (n = 1; 3%), and a red-shouldered hawk (n = 1; 3%). Although not all mortalities could be clearly assigned, fledglings found with body damage or missing heads were considered symptomatic of cat kills (n = 3; 9%), those found cached underground of rat or chipmunk predation (n = 7; 21%) and those found in trees of avian predation (n = 1; 3%). The remaining mortalities (n = 14; 43%) could not be assigned to a specific predator. Mortality due to reasons other than predation (21%) included unknown cause (n = 2; 22%), weather related (n = 2; 22%), window strikes (n = 2; 22%) and individuals found close to the potential nest with no body damage (n = 3; 34%), suggesting premature fledging, disease or starvation.” [4]

Taken together, the detailed mortality figures and the study’s small sample size make a mockery of Smith’s claim, and—more important—its implications for feral cat management. Which might explain why he didn’t bother to share this information with readers.
The Power of One
“If trappers miss a single cat,” warns Smith, “populations can rebound if they’re continuously fed, because a fertile female can produce 100 kittens in her lifetime. Miss too many, and the practice of leaving cat food in wild areas will actually increase their numbers by helping them to survive in the wild.”
As Michael Hutchins

, Travis Longcore

, and others have pointed out, I don’t have a degree in biology. Still, I don’t think I’m going out on a limb when I say that “a single cat” isn’t likely to reproduce on its own.
Nor is a female cat—even with help—going to produce 100 kittens over the course of her lifetime. A study of “71 sexually intact female cats in nine managed feral cat colonies” found that:

“Cats produced a mean of 1.4 litters/y, with a median of 3 kittens/litter (range, 1 to 6). Overall, 127 of 169 (75%) kittens died or disappeared before 6 months of age. Trauma was the most common cause of death.” [5]

To produce 100 kittens, then, an unsterilized female would have to live at least 25 years. Smith fails to reconcile—or even acknowledge—the obvious discrepancy between claims of of-the-charts fecundity and—to use David Jessup’s phrase—the “short, brutal lives” [6] of feral cats.
Do these cats breed well into their golden years, or, are they “sickened by bad weather, run over by cars, killed by coyotes, or simply starved because feeders weren’t able to attend to a cat colony for the several years or more that are called for,” as Smith suggests?
Clearly, the two scenarios are mutually exclusive.

California Quail
The closest we get to the “demise of native birds” promised on the cover is Smith’s observation that “wildlife advocates blame the city’s forgiving attitude toward feral cats for helping to almost wipe out native quail, which used to be commonplace.”
This is not a new complaint, as a 1992 story in the San Francisco Chronicle illustrates:

“A decade ago, the hedges and thickets of Golden Gate Park teemed with native songbirds and California Valley quail. Now the park is generally empty of avian life, save for naturalized species such as pigeons, English sparrows and starlings.” [7]

But the Chronicle, despite its dire proclamation (“One thing seems certain: San Francisco can have a healthy songbird population or lots of feral cats, but not both.” [7]), did no better than SF Weeklyat demonstrating anything more than correlation. This, despite interviews with scientists from the California Academy of Sciences, Point Reyes Bird Observatory, and Golden Gate Chapter of the Audubon Society.
A few years later, Cole Hawkins that he found the answer. Conducting his PhD work at Lake Chabot Regional Park

, Hawkins reported that where there were cats, there were no California Quail—the result, he argued, “of the cat’s predatory behavior.” [8] In fact, Hawkins found very little evidence of predation, and failed to explain why the majority of ground-nesting birds in his study were indifferent to the presence of cats—thus undermining his own dramatic conclusions.

A quick look at A. Starker Leopold’s 1977 book The California Quail (a classic, it would seem, given how often it’s cited) offers some interesting insights on the subject. (Full disclosure: this was a quicklook—I turned immediately to the glossary, and then to the two sections corresponding to “Predators, cats and dogs.”)
In the “Quail Mortality” chapter, Leopold describes Cooper’s Hawk

as “the most efficient and persistent predator of California Quail,” [9] in stark contrast to cats.

“The house cat harasses quail and may drive them from the vicinity of a yard or a feeding station (Sangler, 1931), but there is little evidence that they catch many quail in wild situations. Hubbs (1951) analyzed the stomach contents of 219 feral cats taken in the Sacramento Valley and recorded one California Quail. Feral cats, like bobcats, prey mostly on rodents.” [9, emphasis mine]

The picture changes somewhat, though, when we get to Leopold’s chapter on “Backyard Quail”:

“Cats… not only molest quail, but skillful individuals capture them frequently… Feline pets that are fed regularly are not dependent on catching birds for a living, but rather they hunt for pleasure and avocation. They can afford to spend many happy hours stalking quail and other birds around the yard, and hence they are much more dangerous predators than truly feral cats that must hunt for a living and therefore seek small mammals almost exclusively (wild-living cats rarely catch birds).” [9]

As to how many “skillful individuals” reside in Golden Gate Park, it’s anybody’s guess. (The idea that few cats catch many birds while many cats catch few if any, however, is well supported in the literature.

) And, while they may be well fed, it’s not clear that their very public “yard” and skittish nature afford the park’s cats “many happy hours stalking.”
(A more recent source, The Birds of North America, provides an extensive list of California Quail predators—including several raptor species, coyotes, ground squirrels, and rattlesnakes. Cats are mentioned only as minor players. [10])
Toxoplasmosis
Another complaint from the area’s wildlife advocates, writes Smith, is “Toxoplasma gondii, “shed in cat feces, that threatens endangered sea otters and other marine mammals.” But not all T. gondii is the same. In fact, nearly three-quarters of the sea otters examined as part of one well-known study [11] were infected with a strain of T. gondii that hasn’t been traced to domestic cats. [12]

Once again, domestic cats have become an easy target—but, as with their alleged impact on California Quail, there’s plenty we simply don’t know.
Feral Feeding
For Smith, the trouble with TNR is its long-term maintenance of outdoor cat populations. “Its years of regular feeding,” he argues, citing Travis Longcore’s selective review of the TNR literature, [13] (which Smith mischaracterizes as “a study”), “causes ‘hyperpredation,’ in which well-fed cats continue to prey on bird, mammal, reptile, and amphibian populations, even after these animals become so scarce they can no longer sustain natural predators.”
But that’s not what happened in Hawkins’ study (though he did his best to suggest as much). And it’s not what happened in the two Florida parks Castillo and Clarke used to study the impact of TNR.
Over the course of approximately 300 hours of observation (this, in addition to “several months identifying, describing, and photographing each of the cats living in the colonies” [14] prior to beginning their research), the researchers “saw cats kill a juvenile common yellowthroat and a blue jay. Cats also caught and ate green anoles

, bark anoles, and brown anoles. In addition, we found the carcasses of a gray catbird and a juvenile opossum in the feeding area.” [14]
That’s it—from nearly 100 cats (about 26 at one site, and 65 at another).
Calhoon and Haspel, too, found little predation among the free-roaming cats they studied in Brooklyn: “Although birds and small rodents are plentiful in the study area, only once in more than 180 [hours] of observations did we observe predation.” [15]
Feeding and Population Control
Smith’s description of the vacuum effect reflects his misunderstanding of the phenomenon and the role feeding play in TNR more broadly:

“Feral cat advocates believe removing cats from the wild creates a natural phenomenon known as the ‘vacuum effect,’ in which new cats will replace absent ones. (Key to the ‘vacuum’ are the tons of cat food TNR supporters place twice a day, every day, at secret feeding stations nationwide.)”

Smith would have readers believe that TNR practitioners bait cats the way hunters bait deer. In fact, the food comes after the cat(s), not the other way around.
Cats are remarkably resourceful; where there are humans, there is generally food and shelter to be found. Indeed, even where no such support is provided, cats persist. On Marion Island

—barren, uninhabited, and only 115 square miles in total area—it took 19 years to eradicate about 2,200 cats, using disease (feline distemper), poisoning, intensive hunting and trapping, and dogs. [16, 17]
As Bester et al. observe, the island’s cats didn’t require “tons of cat food” as an incentive to move into “vacuums”:

“The recolonization of preferred habitats, cleared of cats, from neighbouring suboptimal areas served to continually concentrate surviving cats in smaller areas.” [16]

Still, those “tons of cat food TNR supporters place twice a day, every day, at secret feeding stations nationwide” are key to the success of TNR—just not in the way Smith suggested. Feeding allows caretakers to monitor the cats in their care, “enrolling” new arrivals as soon as possible.
By bringing these cats out into the open—via managed colonies—they’re much more likely to be sterilized and, in some cases, vaccinated. Many will also find their way into permanent homes. Take away the food, and these cats will merely slip back into the surroundings, go “underground.”
And in no time at all, the ones that weren’t sterilized will be breeding.

• • •

By framing TNR (the “feral feeding movement,” as he insists on calling it) as “animal welfare ethics on one side, and classic environmental ethics on the other,” Smith overlooks some critical common ground: all parties are interested in reducing the population of feral cats. He also allows himself to give in to an easy—and rather tired—narrative: the crazy cat ladies v. the respected scientists.
At the same time Smith recognizes Kotakis’ dedication and accomplishment (“In her tiny bit of territory in the eastern parts of the park, her method and dedication might just have created a tipping point that has produced a humane ideal of fewer feral cats.”), he can’t resist commenting on her OCD (including a quote from a clinical psychologist who, we can safely assume, has never even met Kotakis).
Meanwhile, Smith couldn’t care less about looking into the science.
I suppose “Live and Let Kill” is balanced in the sense that Smith gives “equal time” to both sides of the issue, but that’s not good enough. Serious journalism demands that readers are provided the truest account possible.
Literature Cited
1. APPA, 2009–2010 APPA National Pet Owners Survey. 2009, American Pet Products Association: Greenwich, CT. http://www.americanpetproducts.org/pubs_survey.asp

2. Clancy, E.A., Moore, A.S., and Bertone, E.R., “Evaluation of cat and owner characteristics and their relationships to outdoor access of owned cats.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2003. 222(11): p. 1541-1545. http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.2003.222.1541

3. Lord, L.K., “Attitudes toward and perceptions of free-roaming cats among individuals living in Ohio.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2008. 232(8): p. 1159-1167.http://www.avma.org/avmacollections/feral_cats/javma_232_8_1159.pdf
4. Balogh, A., Ryder, T., and Marra, P., “Population demography of Gray Catbirds in the suburban matrix: sources, sinks and domestic cats.” Journal of Ornithology. 2011: p. 1-10.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10336-011-0648-7

http://nationalzoo.si.edu/scbi/migratorybirds/science_article/pdfs/55.pdf
5. Nutter, F.B., Levine, J.F., and Stoskopf, M.K., “Reproductive capacity of free-roaming domestic cats and kitten survival rate.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2004. 225(9): p. 1399–1402. http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.2004.225.1399

6. Jessup, D.A., “The welfare of feral cats and wildlife.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2004. 225(9): p. 1377-1383. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15552312

http://www.avma.org/avmacollections/feral_cats/javma_225_9_1377.pdf
7. Martin, G. (1992, January 13). Feral Cats Blamed for Decline In Golden Gate Park Songbirds. The San Francisco Chronicle, p. A1,
8. Hawkins, C.C., Impact of a subsidized exotic predator on native biota: Effect of house cats (Felis catus) on California birds and rodents. 1998, Texas A&M University
9. Leopold, A.S., The California Quail. 1977, Berkeley: University of California Press.
10. Calkins, J.D., Hagelin, J.C., and Lott, D.F., California quail. The Birds of North America: Life Histories for the 21st Century. 1999, Philadelphia, PA: Birds of North America, Inc. 1–32.
11. Conrad, P.A., et al., “Transmission of Toxoplasma: Clues from the study of sea otters as sentinels of Toxoplasma gondii flow into the marine environment.” International Journal for Parasitology. 2005. 35(11-12): p. 1155-1168. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T7F-4GWC8KV-2/2/2845abdbb0fd82c37b952f18ce9d0a5f

12. Miller, M.A., et al., “Type X Toxoplasma gondii in a wild mussel and terrestrial carnivores from coastal California: New linkages between terrestrial mammals, runoff and toxoplasmosis of sea otters.” International Journal for Parasitology. 2008. 38(11): p. 1319-1328.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T7F-4RXJYTT-2/2/32d387fa3048882d7bd91083e7566117

13. Longcore, T., Rich, C., and Sullivan, L.M., “Critical Assessment of Claims Regarding Management of Feral Cats by Trap-Neuter-Return.” Conservation Biology. 2009. 23(4): p. 887–894.http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/cats/pdf/Management_claims_feral_cats.pdf
14. Castillo, D. and Clarke, A.L., “Trap/Neuter/Release Methods Ineffective in Controlling Domestic Cat “Colonies” on Public Lands.” Natural Areas Journal. 2003. 23: p. 247–253.
15. Calhoon, R.E. and Haspel, C., “Urban Cat Populations Compared by Season, Subhabitat and Supplemental Feeding.” Journal of Animal Ecology. 1989. 58(1): p. 321–328.http://www.jstor.org/pss/5003

16. Bester, M.N., et al., “A review of the successful eradication of feral cats from sub-Antarctic Marion Island, Southern Indian Ocean.” South African Journal of Wildlife Research. 2002. 32(1): p. 65–73.
http://www.ceru.up.ac.za/downloads/A_review_successful_eradication_feralcats.pdf
17. Bloomer, J.P. and Bester, M.N., “Control of feral cats on sub-Antarctic Marion Island, Indian Ocean.” Biological Conservation. 1992. 60(3): p. 211-219. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V5X-48XKBM6-T0/2/06492dd3a022e4a4f9e437a943dd1d8b

Tsunami Destroyed Japanese Whaling Industry!!!!!!!

2011-03-26T12:48:00.000-07:00

Tsunami destroyed Japan's whaling industry.

An end to whaling!!!

y MARTIN FACKLER

Published: March 24, 2011

REPRINTS

AYUKAWAHAMA, Japan — At first glance, it seemed like just one more flattened building in a seaside town where a tsunami had leveled hundreds of homes. But survivors gathered at this one to stand and brood.

Enlarge This Image

Ko Sasaki for The New York Times

Seiko Taira admired a can of whale meat that her daughter found in the wreckage. Whaling remains popular in Ayukawahama.

Multimedia

1 of 7

Status of the Nuclear Reactors

A daily tracker of the damage at the two imperiled nuclear plants.

Interactive Feature

Video Coverage of Japan’s Earthquake and Nuclear Crisis

The New York Times

Ayukawahama was close to the epicenter of Japan’s quake.

They came to what had been the headquarters of Ayukawa Whaling, one of only a handful of companies left in Japan that still hunted large whales. Those who gathered on a chilly recent Thursday spoke as if the company’s destruction two weeks ago had robbed the town of its soul.

“There is no Ayukawa without whaling,” said Hiroyuki Akimoto, 27, a fisherman and an occasional crewman on the whaling boats, referring to the town by its popular shorthand.

Japan’s tsunami seems to have succeeded — where years of boycotts, protests and high-seas chases by Western environmentalists had failed — in knocking out a pillar of the nation’s whaling industry. Ayukawahama was one of only four communities in Japan that defiantly carried on whaling and eating whales as a part of the local culture, even as the rest of the nation lost interest in whale meat.

So central is whaling to the local identity that many here see the fate of the town and the industry as inextricably linked.

“This could be the final blow to whaling here,” said Makoto Takeda, a 70-year-old retired whaler. “So goes whaling, so goes the town.”

The damage was particularly heavy here because Ayukawahama sits on the tip of a peninsula that was the closest land to the huge undersea earthquake 13 days ago. The resulting tsunami tore through the tiny fishing towns on the mountainous coastline, reducing Ayukawahama to an expanse of splintered wood and twisted cars. Three out of four homes were destroyed, forcing half of the town’s 1,400 residents into makeshift shelters.

At the offices of Ayukawa Whaling, only a light green harpoon gun — which once proudly decorated the entrance — and an uprooted pine tree were left standing. Across a parking lot stood the skeletal frame of the factory where whale meat was processed. A beached fishing boat and crumpled fire truck lay on the raised platform where the whales were hoisted ashore to be butchered.

The company’s three boats, which had been sucked out to sea, washed up miles down the coast with remarkably little damage. But they remain grounded there.

Ayukawa Whaling’s chairman, Minoru Ito, said he was in the office when the earthquake struck, shattering windows and toppling furniture. He led the employees to higher ground.

All 28 of them survived, he said, though he later had to lay them off. He said he fully intended to rebuild, hopefully in time for an autumn hunt off the northern island of Hokkaido, though he acknowledged the recovery might take more time. He said the most costly part would be getting the whaling ships back in the water, an undertaking that the company cannot afford without government help.

Once the ships are ready, he wants to hire back the employees. However, he admitted that the waves might have scared some employees away, from both whaling and Ayukawahama.

“If we can fix the ships, then we’re back in business,” said Mr. Ito, 74, whose father was also a whaler. “They should not be afraid, because another tsunami like that won’t come for another 100 years.”

Other residents were similarly undaunted. Mr. Akimoto, the occasional whaler, who came with a friend to see the ruined company, said the town needed to resume whaling as soon as possible to lift its spirits.

He said the year would be a sad one because the town would miss the April hunting season, during which coastal whalers like Ayukawa Whaling are allowed to take 50 minke whales under Japan’s controversial whaling program, which is ostensibly for research.

Ayukawahama and the other three whaling communities — among them Taiji, made infamous by the movie “The Cove” — hunt only in coastal waters. Japan’s better-known whaling in the Antarctic is conducted by the government.

Mr. Akimoto said April was usually the town’s most festive month, especially when large whales were brought ashore. He said he would miss that feeling this year.

Added his friend, Tatsuya Sato, 20, “We are so hungry that if they brought a whale ashore now, the whole town would rush down to eat it.”

Winograd's New Book

2011-03-23T10:25:00.000-07:00

All American Vegan

March 23, 2011 by Nathan J. Winograd

I am pleased to announce that the distributor just gave my wife and I the official release date for our forthcoming book, All American Vegan. The news couldn’t have come at a better time. With the recent release of PETA’s annual killing statistics, we have once again watched the fear-mongering that follows regarding what some menacingly refer to as the “vegan” agenda. Were one to associate this “agenda” with the vision laid out by PETA, there would, indeed, be much to fear. For those who think, as PETA proclaims, that the goal is to end our relationship with companion animals and that killing animals is consistent with veganism, we share your concern. But, thankfully, that is not what it means to be vegan.

For a moment, forget the labels. Forget the groups. And imagine a world where you continue to eat pizza and hamburgers, cakes and pies, milkshakes and ice creams. These foods look the same as what you eat now. They taste the same. They give you the nutrition you need. And you do not need to forsake the ease and convenience by which you get them. The only difference is that the ingredients that make up these foods are from plants, not animals, and no one is killed. Nothing changes, except no one dies. The slaughterhouses are closed. The factory farms are all closed. But there is an abundance of delicious things to eat. Is that really such a disturbing vision?

Given the same taste, texture, look, and availability, given that the way you eat then will be indistinguishable from what you eat now, you would not miss the “old days” because you’ll have a readily available alternative. In fact, the means to achieve these foods is technologically possible today. Yet in many cases and for a variety of reasons, these foods are not being produced, nor are they widely available. All American Vegan uncovers why, as well as how we can overcome the obstacles that stand in the way of the production and widespread distribution of them.

With over 90 delicious recipes, nearly 200 illustrations, lots of jokes, and no vegetables,All American Vegan is veganism for the rest of us. Available December 1, wherever books are sold.

Learn more by clicking here.

The County Butcher is Back

2011-03-21T16:28:00.000-07:00

Plague-carrying ground squirrels pose little risk of death to humans

Dr. Claire Panosian Dunavan is an infectious disease specialist and a professor of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine. This op-ed ran originally on August 11 in the Los Angeles Daily News.

You've got to admit: they're cute. Minutes ago, this thought hit me anew as another one shot past my window.

California ground squirrels — whether hauling acorns, dancing across lawns, or simply racing down the street — are a goofy, high-octane species that normally make me smile.

Except in 2010, that is. Last month — true to expert forecast (more about that later) — a ground squirrel in the Angeles National Forest tested positive for plague, one of mankind's deadliest blights.

How plague entered SoCal squirrels is a story for another day. For now, suffice it to say, plague routinely simmers in the tribe. Once surveillance unearths a positive, however, things happen. Case in point: one day after the recent find, public health and U.S. Forestry officials promptly closed the Los Alamos campground.

As I write this column, the park north of Pyramid Lake remains shuttered while public health staff continue testing, treating burrows with insecticide, and luring squirrels (with tortilla chips!) into dusting stations.

The logic behind the last practice is simple. After coating themselves with chemicals, the Frito banditos go home and spread more pesticide among their friends and relations. This, in turn, kills fleas which might otherwise transfer Yersinia pestis — the deadly plague bacterium - into new hosts.

Beginning to worry about that bite you picked up on your last hike? Feeling feverish? Have aches?

OK, now for the good news. Despite periodic bursts of plague in Los Angeles County among squirrels and other rodents, since 1979, only four human cases have been diagnosed — none fatal. Plus, as a general rule, foothill fleas prefer animals over people. Our last sufferer never got bitten at all. Back in 2006, she fell ill after handling the carcass of a tainted rabbit from Kern County.

(Fortunately, although plenty sick at the outset, the previously healthy woman recovered quickly thanks to aggressive antibiotics and hospital care.)

But just because Los Angeles County hasn't had recent deaths doesn't mean modern plague can't kill. For proof, I called my ultimate source. Dr. Royce Johnson is a longtime infectious diseases specialist at Kern County Medical Center in Bakersfield. He's seen more human cases than anyone currently practicing in California.

"I still remember four patients vividly," Johnson said when I asked about his earliest encounters. "The first was a Tehachapi resident who fell on hard times and spent a lot of time outdoors. When he finally reached us, he was covered with purple blotches and had florid pneumonia. Within eight hours, he was dead.

"In fact, he was dead when I first saw him," my colleague added. "I just didn't know it yet."

Johnson's next patient, who survived, displayed plague's classic hallmark: a grossly swollen, infected lymph node called a "bubo." She picked up her infection while trailer-camping.

A third man who died of plague pneumonia had worked at a garbage sorting and recycling site. He probably inhaled the virulent germs while handling dead animals.

A final casualty fell ill after his cat suffered a massive abscess; Johnson assumed the owner's infection started with a flea bite. (The cat, on the other hand, could have been bitten by an infected flea or eaten an infected rodent.)

Johnson's last vignette launched me on a new train of thought.

In this year of heightened hazard, could local cats and dogs contract plague, I wondered? To answer this question, I called Dr. Emily Beeler, one of L.A. County's public health veterinarians.

"Sure," she replied. "But cats are classically at greater risk because of their predatory behavior."

To put things in perspective: feline plague is rare around here, but, at the same time, according to Beeler, it can be missed. That's because fevers and abscesses (usually due to fights, not plague) are so common in cats. As a result, it takes a pretty dramatic illness for most vets to order special tests for plague.

The silver lining?

"Routine antibiotics may cure more cats than we know," Beeler said.

The logical next step — if you don't already follow this time-honored advice — is to: 1) faithfully apply anti-flea treatments to pets; 2) leave pets behind when going on rustic picnics and vacations; 3) steer clear of burrows; and 4) never handle sick or dead rodents.

Long pants and insect repellent are also recommended for humans in the wild. Feeding cute little beggars from your knapsack? Don't even think about it.

Back to Otospermophilus beecheyi (OK, I admit I just looked that up — that's California ground squirrels to nonbiologists like you and me). The last word on them goes to Gail Van Gordon, Los Angeles County's chief of vector management. But first I'd like to thank her and her crew. They're the ones (appropriately gloved, garbed and sprayed, of course) on the front lines with the squirrels. And not just at Los Alamos campground, but high-risk spots throughout the County.

Van Gordon wasn't surprised, as it turns out, by 2010's index animal. After this year's heavy rain and prolonged spring, she told me, she and her staff saw "way too many burrows." It's a simple equation we should all remember. More rain equals more food equals more squirrels (possibly) carrying plague

From ADL on Barnette and our shelters

2011-03-21T13:51:00.001-07:00

show details 1:02 PM (47 minutes ago)

PLEASE POST AND CROSS POST

AND PUT ON YOUR FACE BOOK WALLS!

We know the below is a long Action Alert, but it's more than worth the read! It's one of the most informative and educational postings we've put together directly from our inside sources.

FINALLY, after a seven year campaign to STOP THE KILLING in our six city shelters, for the first time, sources are telling ADL-LA that Brenda Barnette (who is the city's top leader in the protection and welfare of ALL the animals in our city) is not only leading the shelters in a new and positive direction but . . . (and this is amazing to us here at ADL-LA,) the LAAS Commission is kicking ass for the animals! Apparently the commission is working as a team with Brenda Barnette and the DFO's to put words into ACTION for the animals. Creative ideas that use to sit around for months (even years) and end up never getting done because of the red tape of city beauracracy and a lazy LAAS commission and GM, are now moving forward to SAVE ANIMALS' LIVES!

So our HERO of the week is president of the LAAS Commission Melanie Ramsayer! We may not know you but from what we hear. . . . .YOU GO GIRL!

Several independent sources have told us, two in administration, one city employee who attends the commission meetings and another who listens to all the meetings recorded, that under the direction of LAAS commission president Melanie Ramsayer, the commissioners have transformed themselves into passionate and enthusiastic "doers" for the animals with great ideas, willing to establish creative ideas and create policy that SAVES ANIMALS' LIVES!

Remember the "bad ol' days" when ADL-LA, along with the entire humane community, knew that because of such a weak and lazy LAAS commission, that nothing positive was being done for the animals? The ONLY one who luckily has been sitting on the commission consistently

and who has a great deal of knowledge not only regarding animal behavior but on commission policy is Kathy Riordan. But most of her colleagues over the past seven years have been wimps resulting in the LAAS commission being completely IMPOTENT!

Now four out of the five LAAS commissioners are women who are seemingly spirited, spunky and determined to do valiant things to Stop The Killing!

The one male commissioner, Tariq Khero, STILL needs to put his "man pants on." Ever since he was appointed he has always been timid and uninterested in making positive and creative changes for the animals. He, along with the attorney for the LAAS Commission, Dov Lesel, are like two peas in a pod; appearing to be afraid of their own shadow when having to make tough decisions that would SAVE THE LIVES OF ANIMALS! But thanks to president Ramsayer, who along with the three other female commissioners is courageously stepping up to the plate like never before!

Barnette and the LAAS Commission are also IMPOWERING the two newly appointed Department Field Officers (DFO's) who report directly to the General Manager. We are hearing that DFO Mark Salazar and Jan Selder are really trying to make major changes in the archaic ways the shelters have been run for so many years. It's extremely difficult, however, because some of the employees who have been around the longest are the worst!

These old timers have been promoted over the years by a 'good ol' boys network' inside the LAAS administration. This network apparently hides complaints about those they have been 'friends with for years' instead of promoting those who are creative, progressive and humane. That's why the poor animals' have ended with those like Lieutenant Troy Boswell, Captain Wendell Bowers and Captain Karen Knipscheer Cox (and many others) having been at LAAS for OVER twenty years and are some of the worst employees currently holding top positions like "ACT Supervisors, Captains and Lieutenants!"

Unfortunately, their obstructionism and obsession with wanting to hold on to their power (even though they are entrenched in a "Catch-and-Kill" mentality) makes it challenging, if not almost impossible to get rid of them! But that's where Brenda Barnette, DFO's Mark Salazar and Jan Selder and the LAAS Commission come in!

These high ranking LAAS shelter employees who refuse to embrace progressive No Kill sheltering policies, protocols and reforms have a new General Manager, newly appointed DFO's and a new LAAS commission to deal with; and they're going to have to learn to play nicely in the sand box or get out of the way!

For years, most of these obstructionist high ranking employees' very identity has been their "petty" power trips and they have gotten away with it for years, even though the animals are dying and thousands are dead because of it. But as we have previously quoted Bob Dylan prophetic words, "The Times They are A Changin' "

Some of these foot-draggers have terrible social skills with the public and this has filtered down to the ones who are behind the front desk. These employees have been, and many STILL ARE, unprofessional and even downright nasty to the public. Over the years, these employees have actually DRIVEN away potential adopters because they don't get off their butts to take the public around the shelter and encourage them to adopt a companion animal!

Some employees have been witnessed by the volunteers, other employees and the public for YEARS saying in a surly way, "Just go and look in the back" when a member of the public comes in enthusiastically wanting to adopt a dog or cat from the shelter. Many shelter employees try and CONVINCE the adopter that the dog/cat they want is "too old!" We have heard this complaint dozens of times throughout the years. THIS HAS GOT TO STOP. Adult dogs and cats are usually housetrained already and learn much faster then young ones, who not only need to be housetrained, but like to chew up furniture and are returned to the shelters in exasperation.

Exceptions exist- thank the lord for ACT Jake Miller at East Valley! But all the employees who deal with adopters should be like Miller and HELP the public adopt not only the dog/cat/bunny THEY want, but never discourage them from adopting older companion animals; this is a classic case of "ageism," and is just as bad as racism, homophobism, sexism and speciesism.

If our LAAS's "customer service" doesn't improve dramatically, to where LAAS is the "MACY'S department store of customer service, we'll NEVER get to No Kill. Because no matter how hard the volunteers/rescuers work to bail out some of the animals, who are then put up for adoption privately, if the LAAS employees are resistant to improving their customer service, then the public will continue to turn around and go someplace else to adopt or buy a pet.

We want to close by using a quote from Shakespeare who said "That he which hath no stomach for this fight, Let him depart." Positive changes are being made slowly but SURELY, but it takes the will and fighting spirit of our new GM, the newly appointed DFO's, the LA Commissioners and the humane community to make sure that the Department of LA Animal Services gets these resistant and lazy employees whose identities and "power trips" are threatened by positive changes (or ANY changes at all,) to either step up to the plate for our homeless animals or to simply DEPART!

Winograd on PETA and Newkirk

2011-03-16T23:38:00.000-07:00

The Butcher of Norfolk (5th Edition)

March 16, 2011 by Nathan J. Winograd

The numbers are finally in. In 2010, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) impounded 1,553 cats. They killed 1,507 and found homes for only 28. Another 9 were transferred to killing shelters and their fates are unknown. That’s a 97% rate of killing. In 2010, they took in 792 dogs and put 693 to death. They found homes for only 16, with 54 sent to killing shelters and their fates are unknown. That is, at best, an 88% rate of killing.

While the No Kill movement is having unparalleled success and with No Kill communities now dotting the American landscape—in California, Nevada, Michigan, Kentucky, New York, Texas, Virginia, and elsewhere—PETA continues to be little more than a slaughterhouse. This is the fifth time I have run this very blog in as many years. This is my fifth plea to stop the Butcher of Norfolk.

The blog I write is about reforming animal sheltering in the United States. It is about ending the systematic killing of animals in these pounds. But this particular blog isn’t about sheltering. This isn’t about the battle between the No Kill philosophy and its eventual conquest over regressive, kill-oriented approaches. This isn’t about a lazy, inept, or uncaring shelter director who fails to hold his or her staff accountable. It isn’t about shelters that kill animals because doing so is easier than putting in place the programs and services to stop it.

This is about something more nefarious. This is about something truly insidious. This is about a bully who seeks out animals to kill. This is about the creation of death squads that actively go into communities with the specific purpose of finding dogs and cats to kill. And this is about a movement that has utterly failed to defend the innocent animals being slaughtered. This blog is about Ingrid Newkirk, the President of PETA. This is about an animal killing, arrogant, disturbed person. And enough is enough.

Over four years ago, I wrote a blog opining that the reason PETA slaughters virtually every animal it seeks out and “impounds” has more to do with Ingrid Newkirk’s dark impulses than with any ideology, philosophy, or belief in overpopulation. This followed a staggering 97% kill rate for animals in 2006, despite millions of animal loving members, a world-wide reach, and a budget of tens of millions of dollars. It followed the killing of 1,942 out of 1,960 cats they impounded. It followed the deaths of 988 out of the 1,030 dogs they impounded. It followed the killing of 50 of the 52 rabbits, guinea pigs, and other animals they took in. It followed the killing of the one and only chicken they impounded. That blog earned me a letter from PETA’s attorney threatening litigation for defamation.

Then came the 2007 numbers showing a 91% rate of killing—the killing of 1,815 of the 1,997 animals they impounded. And so I reran the blog. In 2008, I ran the blog once again (it has now been up continuously for over three years) because the slaughter—the needless, senseless, evil slaughter—continued with an equally staggering 96% kill rate. A paltry seven dogs and cats were adopted. A paltry 34 were transferred to an SPCA whose fates are not known. And out of 2,216 dogs and cats impounded, the rest were systematically put to death by PETA.

Killed: 555 of the 584 dogs.

Killed: 1,569 of the 1,589 cats.

Then came 2009: only 8 adoptions, less than 1/2 of 1% of the animals they took in. Killed: 2,301 out of 2,366.

And now 2010. Killed: 1,507 of the 1,553 cats. Killed: 693 of the 792 dogs.

In the last ten years, they have killed over 25,000 animals: that’s roughly 2,500 animals a year every year for the last decade; or over five animals killed by PETA every single day.PETA has argued that all of the animals it kills are “unadoptable.” In fact, PETA’s attorney stated that in his letter threatening a defamation lawsuit if I did not back down. But this claim is a lie. It is a lie because the numbers historically come from the State of Virginia’s reporting form which only asks for data for animals taken into custody “for the purpose of adoption.” It is a lie because PETA refuses to provide its criteria for making that determination. It is a lie because rescue groups and individuals have come forward stating that the animals they gave PETA were healthy and adoptable. It is a lie because testimony under oath in court from a veterinarian showed that PETA was given healthy and adoptable animals who were later found dead by PETA’s hands, their bodies unceremoniously thrown away in a supermarket dumpster. And it is a lie because Newkirk herself admitted as much.

In a December 2, 2008 interview with George Stroumboulopoulos of the Canadian Broadcasting Company, Stroumboulopoulos asks Newkirk: “Do you euthanize those pets, the adoptable ones, if you get them?” To which Newkirk responds: “If we get them, if we cannot find a home, absolutely.” In short, Newkirk admits that PETA “absolutely” kills savable animals. Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely.

Why does the animal protection movement tolerate this woman?

No other movement would allow someone to remain in her position without a massive outcry and public condemnation when their actions are so counter, so anathema to their movement’s foremost principles. The child protection movement would not allow someone who kills children to run an organization dedicated to children’s rights. The human rights movement would not allow someone who kills people to run any of their organizations. But the animal rights movement—a movement founded on the principle that animals have a right to life—allows a very public, avowed, shameless animal killer to run an animal rights organization. And with the exception of Friends of Animals, the rest of the nation’s animal rights groups remain deafeningly silent about it.

As if that was not shameful enough, others go further and actually embrace her. The groups which organize the Animal Rights Conference inducted her into their Animal Rights Hall of Fame. Wayne Pacelle and HSUS have allowed her and her pro-killing apologists to give workshops at their national conference, HSUS Expo, to promote PETA’s ghastly vision of killing.

So a notice to all would be animal killers out there. One way to avoid the condemnation by the animal rights/welfare community for your vile actions is to start an animal rights group yourself and use that group as your cover for killing. Because they won’t stand up to you. There will be no campaign to bring you down. They will kowtow to your power and your position. You will become their colleague. Some will look the other way. But others will induct you into their hall of fame. Still others will ask you to present workshops at their national conference.

If history teaches us anything, however, it is that the only way to stop a bully is to stand up to one. The only thing that will stop Newkirk is challenging Newkirk and calling her killing for what it is: the nefarious acts of a disturbed person. Because that’s how history will remember and condemn her, despite the aura of legitimacy her untoward actions now receive from her Board of Directors, the Humane Society of the United States, the groups who promote the Animal Rights Conference, and the other groups which tolerate her leadership position through their silence.

While those who now dare to call Newkirk’s slaughter for what it is may be threatened with litigation, or be attacked in other ways, history will vindicate them, as it always does for those who—despite the personal costs—defend what is right by challenging tyrants. While those who remained silent in the face of these atrocities—the hypocritical leaders of other organizations who take her telephone calls, shake her hand, stand side-by-side with her, and take personal pride in their association with her—will someday have to answer for this complicity, and will face the shame that comes with answering “nothing” when asked what they did to stop Newkirk’s bloody reign at PETA.

Because engrave this in stone: As soon as Newkirk and her pro-killing cultish devotees are gone, PETA will immediately, completely, and without reservation embrace the No Kill philosophy and become one of its leading champions. When that happens; when her actions are thoroughly and completely seen by everyone for what they truly are; when she is condemned and finally, finally, thankfully, finally, we don’t have to hold our breath, clench our teeth, shake with rage, or cry at the thought of what PETA did to those poor animals, we will all be left wondering just what took us so damned long to rise up and stop this villain in our midst.

So here it is again: Round 5. Munchausen by PETA. My opinion.

An experiment in kindness

2011-03-14T23:30:00.000-07:00

An experiment in kindness

I wish we could try an experiment. Create a small country where people took care of each other instead of finding reasons not to pay for Medicare, education or the poor. A country where they did not eat meat and kill 10 billion farm animals a year for food, as in the United States, or kill hundreds of thousands of people in two wars based on presidential lies of weapons of mass destruction, or hunt whales nearly to extinction, kill dolphins for fun, harvest fish until the seas nearly become lifeless, like Japan, or eat cats and dogs and skin them alive for their pelts, as in China, or beat them to death as in Korea so they would be more "tasty."

Perhaps that country would have no earthquakes and tsunamis, tornadoes or hurricanes, or killer snow storms. Perhaps we wouldn't have mass murderers shooting 25 people attending a congressman's meeting. This would be an experiment testing the truth of karma and also of God's grace.

Where did Japan's latest disaster came from? The sea. In the second world war it came from the sky after Japanese soldiers killed 6 million Chinese, and hundreds of thousands of Filipinos, Americans, British and other nationals. China is always having natural disasters and man made disasters, including invasions by the Japanese. Now China represses and kills Tibetans. No learning there.

What would happen to a nation that did not kill any sentient being and where every citizen felt diminished when any living thing had to suffer and die, and the only wars fought would be in self defense?

I would say that even if God decided that that nation had to suffer disasters too, that its citizens would still be very, very happy.