"No-Kill" does not mean no death - It's often worse

A puppy is born with a swollen head and no chance of survival as so decreed by a veterinarian. Because the shelter alleges that it is "no-kill", a shelter employee, a "no-kill" ideologue, insists on fostering the puppy with hopes that he will be all right. This employee has no medical knowledge or ability to soothe this baby as there is no treatment for the condition and his system is too frail to survive pain killers. The puppy, however, is suffering horribly. He screams when touched and his breathing is labored. The zealot, bathed in self-righteous glory, watches the puppy die slowly, unable to touch him, for 15 tortuous hours, proud to worship at the "no-kill" ideology altar. The employee returns the little body to the shelter, where his death is classified as "died in care", or lack thereof, rather than "humanely euthanized".

"Died in care" has become the new statistical catch-all for permitting animals to suffer in agony and die while perpetuating the lie that the euthanasia rate is low or non-existent. In other words, if cages are overloaded and animals kill each other, if animals are allowed to die like this puppy, if animals are given to hoarders or incompetent/fake rescues in an endless game of three card monte where they live for years cramped into feces filled airline crates, the shelter administration can statistically present the shelter to the public as "no-kill", thus turning their back on the suffering thereby condemning these pets to a fate worse than death. It is shameful, cruel and conscience shocking.

Of course, the politicians want the lie and demand to be lied to, psychopathic fanatics monetize their no kill behavior to fund themselves and shame others, and the public begins to believe that all is well with the world while also withdrawing support from shelters who won't play this game, classifying them as pro-kill. Shelters themselves have become the hoarders and as such can neither prosecute a hoarder who they continue to supply with animals nor rescue animals from harm because of lack of space.

It is quite clear what the result of this diplo-feculence means. Our pets our being victimized both by animal abusers and those charged with protecting them. How would you feel if your pet ended up grieving and pain ridden in an environment like this? How can the same person claim to be an advocate for life while compliant in such misery and anguish?

I, for one, am sick of this. We need to expose this for what it is and stop the enabling.

The Animal Three Card Monte Game Continues With "Pet Shops"

Once again the Los Angeles City Council Personnel and Animal Welfare committee, chaired by Paul Koretz is doing something that will ultimately be detrimental to Los Angeles pets. 

Now, they want to change the definition of "kennel" in the zoning code to exclude pet shops thereby obviating the need for a kennel permit and allowing these "pet shops" to be in commercial zones. 

Though seemingly innocuous on its face, it is not, and here's why. A pet shop is subject to the California Health and Safety Code pet shop provisions among other things, even if they sell shelter pets. That would also be true of an animal rescue group that is not a 501(c)(3).  An animal rescue group that is a 501(c)(3) and operates a pet shop would be exempt from that statute, but typically, would have enough animals in said space to qualify as a kennel - thereby requiring a permit and be subject to inspection. The scary part under the proposed change, is that rescues can call their kennels "pet shops", warehouse animals all over town, and voila- no Health and Safety, no kennel permit required, and no inspections mandated! No scrutiny at all. There are already existing permitted places where you only need to walk nearby to smell the unsanitary conditions to then see depressed pets sitting in their own filth. Imagine no oversite.

Said another way, under this proposed change (to be heard in committee February 16th) those presenting the most danger to the health and welfare of our pets will lose the most routine oversight. I reiterate that I am not talking about the legitimate and wonderful rescue groups that we deal with routinely, and, of course, criminal charges will lie if applicable, but Councilman Koretz and his committee are offering a free pass to abuse and neglect animals on a large scale.

I can only theorize why he is selling this to us. In conjunction with Mayor Eric Garcetti and the commission that oversees the city's animal services department, they have figured out another way to move animals out of the shelters, off their books, and into the shadows to create an impression that they have a successful live release rate. Again, they are moving the queen around in their endless game of Three Card Monte. If they would only use their skills to figure out how to honestly place pets into loving homes instead of creating the illusion of placement, there would be far less suffering for our pets.

It is again the case where the emperor has no clothes, but this time, they are trying to sell us the clothes they don't have.

Let's say no to this.


The Committee:

Paul Koretz -- paul.koretz@lacity.org

David E. Ryu -- david.ryu@lacity.org

Marqueece Harris-Dawson -- councilmember.harris-dawson@lacity.org