My Letter to the Delavan Township

Dear Dorothy - Dear Herb,

I have been made aware of the decision your town has made to kill the geese dwelling near the Delavan lake.  I must say that I am shocked and saddened by such a heartless act and can find no excuse for such an inhumane decision.

The fact that millions of animals are dying needlessly a few thousand miles away because of human error makes this decision of yours even more preposterous.  I have read the letter presented to you by Kristen Perry offering a very valid solution to your "problem."  Why this plan was rejected confuses me.  Is the need to eradicate an animal from your city so necessary that it must be exterminated?  Isn't it worth it to try option A, before stepping through to option B.

This decision has been well publicized on facebook as well as other social networking sites, and I am hoping that many citizens will stand up and stand between your workers and the geese.  This event will get serious attention and very negative press for anyone involved in the decision.  I strongly urge you to reconsider your decision and opt for a humane solution to this problem.  This decision is not only inhumane, but will cost tax payers money when a volunteer driven program is available. 

I am making this letter to you public on my blog at www.boundangels.org and am encouraging others to speak up for the animals and against your decision.

I welcome a conversation with you at any time.

Giving a voice to animals,

Robert Cabral
______________________________
Robert Cabral
BOUND ANGELS
"giving a voice to animals"
www.boundangels.org
www.BoundAngels.tv
www.youtube.com/boundangels
join the revolution!
************************************

Please call or email to oppose this kill!
Town Chair- Dorothy Burwell 262- 728-6085 Cell:262-374-2560 townchair@townofdelavan.com

Park Committe/Supervisor-
Herb Sessner
262- 740-1195 Cell 262-374-9756
hjs754@charter.net

Delavan Township in Wisconsin to Murder Wild Geese

As if its not bad enough with all of the animals being killed in the Gulf Oil Crisis, Delavan Township is setting out to kill the Canada geese which they claim are a nuisance. The primary concern is the =droppings, that these "droppings" impose an inconvenience on the "humans" who which to enjoy the park.... OK, maybe a point to be taken - not a good one, but a point.

Well, a committee presented the council with a proposal of volunteers that would step up and clean the park and even developed a plan to minimize the population in a humane way. What is the Town Councils decision? MURDER. You gotta love governments that condone murdering animals! Who the fuck votes there? I certainly hope that each and every one of these people is voted out and that they feel the repercussions. They say their decisions are made based on health issues.

Please check this link:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=121954864505374

And if you're on facebook, join their cause. This makes me sick and angry at the same time. If you are local, I would say get there and stand in the way, you will be removed, but stand their anyway. I don't suggest anything violent, I suggest getting in the way and making the job of murder a little more difficult physically since its obviously not morally difficult for these morons. I also suggest video taping it and spreading the word that this is not ok.

Also, here is the contact info to voice your opinion.

Please call or email to oppose this kill!
Town Chair- Dorothy Burwell 262- 728-6085 Cell:262-374-2560 townchair@townofdelavan.com

Park Committe/Supervisor-
Herb Sessner
262- 740-1195 Cell 262-374-9756
hjs754@charter.net

Take an action for someone who can not - for someday you may require someone to step up for you, when you can not!

Robert Cabral
Bound Angels

Spent the weekend at Bark Ave - check out Kim's videos.

I spent Sunday at Bark Ave LA, a great organization that helps so many dogs here in LA. Kim Sill asked me to come by and temperament test a few of the dogs, here are the videos.

Kim and Bark Ave are willing and able to transport any of these beauties directly to your doorsteps.

Please watch their videos and pass them along...

Sweetie pie is the dog Nancy Heigl asked me to pull
Melanie and Dawn at Bark Ave have been boarding her for me

Sweetie Pie-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LArG7eSEztU

Lucy- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlRimkCPrMc

Mona- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imsZ_Kjlf_A

Finn- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z78f_2GYRPw

Bowser-  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ukdXLk29bg

Babie Girl- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfU8I7ROM6c

Apalonia - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQYPvSXDuzM

Carmella- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxHInYwmNyg


Bo-  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40gWYaplgjY

Katie- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdFLvThirRo


Thanks for taking the time to look at these pets... they need you.


giving a voice to animals...

Robert



______________________________
Robert Cabral
BOUND ANGELS
"giving a voice to animals"
www.boundangels.org
www.BoundAngels.tv
www.youtube.com/boundangels
www.blackbeltdogtraining.com
join the revolution!

Hoarders - why?

There are those people that are called hoarders. Among rescue people these individuals are seen as the most evil of people, comparable often times with animal abusers and murderers.

Lets take a look at the mentality that makes up a hoarder. A hoarder is a person that takes in animals and continues to take in more and more often times with no limit in sight. Their houses are over-run with dogs, cats, and whatever else. These people continue to take in more animals even though they are unable to care for the animals they have in a way that is acceptable by our standards. Most of the time this compulsion is triggered by several factors, namely in an effort to keep these animals from being killed at shelters. Hoarders are not collectors (who may have a “collection” of one type of dog or a particular animal), but instead take any and all animals. It’s not uncommon to see a hoarder with dogs, cats, and horses among other animals.

A hoarders goal starts out very noble and somewhere goes awry. They start out with 2, 3 or 4 animals and begin amassing more and more. Often times they try to adopt out the animals they have, but these efforts get squashed as the toll of taking care of their current animals takes up too much of their time. Their number grow by people dropping off animals to them, they get them from the shelters, strays find their way to the hoarders property and just about any other way to get animals, they get them. As it is very obvious to understand, without a major staff, it is impossible to care for but only a few animals. Hoarders don’t see the crazy cycle of neglect that is cast upon the animals, as their main goal is to keep the animals alive. They clearly see one vision: these animals would all be killed at a shelter. This forces us to look at a scary logic, is it better to have these animals living in somewhat deplorable conditions or kill them at the shelter? There are those who think that killing an animal (or as they refer to it- euthanizing) is a humane thing to do. I can only cite very-very rare occasions in which ending an animals life is a humane thing to do.

Although I do not agree with hoarders, I do understand their twisted logic or I should say, where their hearts lie. These people are animal lovers, they are trying to provide for the animals and save them, but the mission goes wrong somewhere. When the levy finally breaks and the amount of animals attracts enough attention, rescue groups and animal control agencies will step in. At this moment all efforts are shifted toward one thing: saving these animals from these deplorable conditions: although I ask the question, “Where were these people before?” What happens to these animals now is where the true demented logic comes in. For the most part they are taken to rescue organizations which are already over-run with too many animals, they are take to shelters which are also over-run with too many animals and the rest are killed / euthanized because of their conditions. The hoarder will go to jail, serve some time, pay a fine and eventually be free to start the same cycle again.

Ask most people in rescue if they had a million dollars what would they do with that money and I can assure you most will tell you that they would buy a big piece of property and take in as many animals as possible. These are the same people that abhor hoarders; at their core they are the same people. At their core they see the goodness, yet are unaware of the pitfall.

Are hoarders bad people? Are they abusers? I would say NO. The goodness of the mission goes wrong along the way and they get caught in the middle of a whirlwind that can’t be righted. These people started out with the goal of saving animals from the hands of those that will kill them, eventually only to be judged and condemned by these very people. Their animals are not properly cared for mainly because of a lack of resources. It should be noted that hoarders, for the most part, spend all of their money on the animals they have. These people are not living high on the hog in one house with these animals being abused and neglected somewhere else. Quite the contrary, these people live in the very same deplorable conditions that the animals under care live in. This indication alone shows me that these people are no more animal abusers, as they are human abusers because of the abuse they subject themselves to. They deny themselves the luxuries of life and instead live in sub-human conditions with the animals they are trying to save.

When the rescue community steps in, it is generally with a whirlwind of excitement, media attention and accusations hurled against someone who is not that far removed from the people casting the stones. Here is someone whose initial goals started out quite aligned with his or her own. These people step in and start taking the animals one by one, starting out with the ones that can be adopted and eventually ending up at the feral ones that no one can touch. These animals are generally on a short list to be killed.

I’d be a hypocrite if I only laid blame without a solution. And, perhaps my “solution” is less of a solution than an ideal that can be seen as nothing more than a dream. Since these people started out doing the work that all of us in rescue see as “kind of” the right idea that somewhere went wrong, how hard would it be to step in and help these people with some resources and support. What if their homes could be rebuilt to clean them up, some donations could be gathered to help with food and supplies and rescue organizations worked with them to help them adopt their animals out to homes? What if some people volunteered some time to keep this type of “no-kill shelter” rolling? What if our efforts would be geared at helping instead of hurting?

Instead people see these places as a dumping ground for dogs that they’ve been stuck with. Rescue needs to take a good hard look at themselves and understand that if someone is trying to do the right thing, they deserve some help. Throwing a person under the train does nothing to help the animals they’ve tried to help. As humans we are afraid to stand up for someone when it becomes un-popular, it’s easier to cast a stone than to ask people to put their stones down and try and do something.

If hoarders are such evil people, we need to define when they turn evil and what makes them evil. Is it when they have more than 10 animals, 20, 50 or 100? If they suddenly become evil at that point, why don’t people step in then and help? Is the act of evil that they are keeping these animals from being destroyed at shelters? Is the act of evil that they take these animals from people who drop them off to them, who tie them to their fences or even throw them over those very fences? Is evil living in deplorable conditions along with the animals in their care? As rescue we need to step up and help those who are helping, we need to work together. And, when one of our own is prosecuted, we should step up to help. I am in no way condoning hoarders or hoarding, but I am inviting you to look at that what makes hoarding what it is. We live in a country where we kill millions of animals every year. It’s done in a back room at the end of a hallway. We all know the room is there, but we choose to ignore it. If getting an animal out of a shelter gives it a chance at life, is it better to do that or kill it? It’s a perplexing question and one that we have to ask. If you were given the option to live in sub-standard conditions or face death, what would you choose? Personally I don’t know many dogs who live the life of the dogs that my closest friends have, but yet they live. Are we to judge what is good enough, and play G-d?

Robert Cabral
Bound Angels

The Fisherman, the Seagul, and my input!

It was an early morning walk on the beach in Malibu, like I take almost every day with my dog. Up ahead I spotted a seagull curiously sitting and not flying away as my dog Silly and I approached. I knew something was wrong. I placed my dog away from the bird and approached to find a beautiful, young seagull with a fishing lure pierced through its right leg, and if that wasn't bad enough, one of the hooks was pierced through the webbing of its left foot as well. It was doomed.


Yes, I save dogs, but I advocate on behalf of all animals, especially those harmed by and ignorant ass who was too f*cking selfish to clean up his own mess. I guess spending several hours fishing for a 3 pound fish is more financially beneficial than working for $8.00 an hour and spending $10 at Ralphs. Oh, I forgot its a "sport." Well, a sport is an activity in which both parties are willing participants, therefor I can't really see fishing or hunting as a sport. Sorry, wearing camouflage does not classify you as an athlete.

I am pissed at this, its downright stupid. I've never attacked hunters in the past, as I feel "it is what it is," but this sight put something into deep perspective. Its like leaving a loaded gun in a playground. But perhaps we should care more if a child got hurt, of if a child got caught up in fishing line or lures and died. We are sentient beings, but care only about ourselves... How sentient is that?

Anyway, I was able to handle the seagull and met a really nice guy who lives close to where I found the bird. We were able to get the bird into a box and he took it to the California Wildlife Center here in Malibu. I can only hope it wasn't too late. The bird was in shock, and from the look of the pics you can see that the foot has already started developing an infection.

So my message to anyone who is going to fish the beaches as a sport is simple, clean up your f*cking mess. I've seen several dead birds wrapped up in fishing line and hooks, this time I hope I was there in time. And, if I see you fishing the beach, I'll make it a point to tell you the pain that having your necked wrapped in a thin mono-filament can be; how a slow-painful suffocation while the line is cutting into your skin feels like. How painful it must be to have a speared fishing hook jammed through your skin or your tongue and pulling it out the same way must feel like.

Am I pissed??? F*ck yes, whoever did this f*cked up a really nice day I was getting ready to have. Now that I got this off of my chest, I do feel much better though.

Thank you.

anti BSL issues

I'll start off by saying that I am strongly opposed to BSL (breed specific legislation), and I'll tell you why. I don't believe there is any one specific breed of dog that is "bad" or should be banned. As a trainer, behaviorist and animal rights advocate, I've seen great pit bulls that would never bite, and ones that will - I've seen golden retrievers that would take your arm off as well as dachshunds and chihuahuas. So, legislating against any one breed is idiotic. Most of the issue with problem dogs is their problem owners. Yes, some dogs are bred for a specific purpose and that purpose should be understood when acquiring a dog. Breeders are a big part in this, and responsible breeders can lend a hand in "fixing" the issues with the dogs that may have issues.

For example, we understand that pit-bulls have been bred for fighting dogs; the strongest and most aggressive were bred further and the weaker, submissive dogs that showed no aggression were culled. Most other breeds that are used for pets, or protection would be culled if they showed these radically aggressive tendencies. I will say that pits, for the most part show the slightest amount of aggression toward humans, this was bred out of them to keep their handlers safe in the pit. Since its proven that we can breed a trait into a dog, its only logical that we can breed it out. Now, when you have the morons breeding dogs in their backyards and selling them on the street corner for $100, that is a huge problem and must be stopped.

Its not my point to get into breeding in this post, it is my point to address serious issues. The first and foremost is that we can not legislate on one specific breed of dog, just like we can't draw a line around a specific group of people. Say for example white-protestant males were the number one cause of sexual abuse crimes in a particular city. Would it be fair to require all white-protestant males in that city to be castrated or wear tracking devices? Its just as stupid for a law banning one breed of dog irrelevant of individual issues.

Now, my biggest issue is the people fighting against BSL. Every time I see an article or picture from a group trying to prove their point it involves a big dog: rottweiler, pit bull, mastiff, etc, laying next to a baby or a small child riding on it. I can tell you this is beyond stupid, and even if your dog is ok with it (at that moment), another dog may not be and by showing this picture you are giving others the impression that it is OK to put a child in a dangerous situation like this.

IT IS NOT OK. Dogs and children are a tricky thing, and dominant breed dogs must be desensitized and socialized to children properly. Just winging it and hoping for the best is putting a child and the dog at the greatest of risks.

If we want to make a point how good a dog is, it can be proven through proper training and socialization. I would not put any dog -NONE in a situation with a baby laying on top of it - or the dog laying on top of the baby.

Everyone should know that ALL dogs should be trained, socialized and safe. It is our responsibility, not the dogs.

PLEASE - if you care about dogs and are against BSL and you want to voice your opinion, do so in a rational manner. Understand that showing a dog in a situation that could be construed as dangerous or provoke someone else to put a dog and human at risk is irresponsible, stupid and proves no point. Every time a dog attacks a child I see one of those idiotic pictures and wonder if the victims family saw that and thought, "We can do that with our dog."

All dogs deserve a fair chance at a good life, that chance hinges on us.

Proposed Budget for LA Animal Services May Risk Public Safety and Increase Pet Euthanasia

The following letter is from the Department of LA Animal Services to the Budget and Finance Committee regarding impending budget cuts:

I urge you to weigh in on this issue by contacting the District Councilmen, the link is below. Remember, animal control calls it euthanasia to soften its blow.. these animals will be murdered because council members will vote for a 10% budget cut. Meanwhile we can hire another 1000 LAPD officers, just like the ones that had to shoot and kill the dog below.... I'm not putting down the LAPD, I have the utmost respect for them, however the council needs to know that we NEED animal control to maintain their budget.... PLEASE READ THIS!

In the pre-dawn coolness of Friday morning, April 16, 2010, LAPD officers were waiting for help. Three 130-pound Cane Corso dogs, two males protecting a female, were boxed in by police cars near Slauson and Verdun in Council District 8. The police had to wait for the one person who had the knowledge, skill, and experience to handle the situation safely: an Animal Control Officer. Unfortunately, there was in fact only one Animal Control Officer on grave duty in the entire southern half of the City, and he was responding to a separate LAPD call for assistance to rescue an injured dog in Northeast Los Angeles. Soon after the Animal Control Officer arrived back in South LA to help the LAPD there, the two male dogs crawled out from between two squad cars and were heading home on the sidewalk. There, on the public sidewalk, in this neighborhood of businesses, homes, and churches, two los Angeles Police officers fired at least six rounds, killing one of the dogs. The other two dogs were safely impounded by LA Animal Services.

The reason LA Animal Services exists is to provide for public safety. The City's first obligation is the public's safety. Safe streets are those in which trained Animal Control Officers are available to respond to dangerous animals and handle situations without injury to the public, without wasting police resources, and without shots fired. A safe city is one in which an animal expert is on hand to evacuate animals in a disaster as mandated by Federal law so that people are willing to flee to safety. Safe neighborhoods are the foundation for a Humane LA.

Recognizing the precarious financial situation facing the City, we as a public safety agency nevertheless must be candid in our assessment that the deletion of $1.8 million in funding attributed to the 26-working days reduction compromises the Department's ability to deliver on our public safety responsibility. It compounds the impact of the shared sacrifice cuts we have already absorbed in the last two fiscal years and of the protracted hiring freeze by cutting another 10% of the work force through the 26-working days reduction. The Department believes this will obligate the Mayor and Council to choose closure of an operating animal care center and to sanction a likely resulting increase in pet euthanasia.

Closure of Animal Care Centers/26-Working Day Reduction

Consolidating pet intake into fewer facilities is regression to the conditions that the voters of Los Angeles chose to change in approving the Prop F Bond. Consolidation of the animals leads to more disease, over-crowding, incidences of aggression, and inevitably, increased euthanasia.

We acknowledge the financial imperatives behind the proposed temporary shuttering of the Northeast Animal Care Center in 2010-2001 to achieve short-term financial savings. While this facility is not used for the public now, it is generally filled to about 1/3 capacity with evidence and quarantined animals and for nursing mothers with puppies and kittens. It has proven an invaluable resource for temporary holding of animals evacuated in disasters.

Closing Northeast will require evidence and quarantined animals to be housed in kennels and cages at the other six animal care centers which are currently used to promote the adoption of healthy, available animals. This action will trigger the negative domino effect of: reducing Citywide kennel/cage holding capacity, reducing adoption revenue, reducing our live release rates, and increasing our euthanasia rates. The Department's overall holding capacity will drop by about 10%, and euthanasia will increase by about 2,500 to 4,000 animals, depending on intake trends. The reaction of the humane community to this downgrading of progress is unknown.

The $1.8 million (10%) additional cut of 26-working days is an effective cut of 8 Animal Control Officers, 14 Animal Care Technicians, 3 Registered Veterinary Technicians, 4 Clerical Staff, and 2 Supervisors, the equivalent of the staff of one of the six fully operational Animal Care Centers.' The only remaining option that allows for enough staffing to safely provide the necessary levels of animal care and service to the public is to close one Center. The Department will need direction from the Mayor and Council as to which additional Animal Care Center should be closed during the period of time this 26-working day reduction is in effect.

Closing an operating Animal Care Center in addition to Northeast creates an unfortunate situation for the communities we serve. Net holding capacity will drop by at least another 15% and pet euthanasia will rise by 4,000 to 11,000 more pets, depending on intake and the number of animals held as evidence and quarantine, using kennels that would otherwise be available for adoptable animals. Again, we will also lose adoption revenue, and spend more on euthanasia, aggravating rather than alleviating our revenue situation.

The Department cannot reduce its workload by telling residents that services will be cut or by closing our doors. The pursuit of strays and biting animals, the impoundment and care of animals, and the adoption or euthanasia of impounded animals is not discretionary; it is not even a set of services for which residents can find temporary alternatives. We do not control animal intake, and by law we cannot shirk our duty and responsibility. We must accept animals found or brought to us, 24/7. Failing to do so directly and negatively impacts public safety and the City's compliance with State law.

In the event that the City's financial situation ultimately requires the temporary closure of any Animal Care Center, we recommend that the General Services Department be requested to submit an estimate of the cost for security services from at least dusk to dawn and to erect fences or other physical measures to safeguard the vacant facility and all remaining equipment.

Call Center Closure

The proposed Call Center cut will result in the elimination of the Department's dedicated 888 - toll-free number and will increase phone traffic to individual Animal Care Centers and to the City's 3-1-1 System. Since the 3-1-1 operators cannot have access to our dedicated Chameleon information database (animal, medical, and financial tracking system), operators will be limited in their ability to provide information on topics such as lost animal inquiries. Other than providing general information that is currently available through the City-wide Services Directory, operators will be required to transfer calls directly to Animal Care Centers for assistance which will impact the ability of Department staff to process revenue generating adoption/licensing transactions while servicing and assisting the visiting public. This will result in delays for both callers and on-site customers alike.

The Call Center's six (6) staff members currently handle approximately 400,000 telephonic inquires annually while the 3-1-1 Call Center handles 1.5 million. Dropping the toll free number in favor of having all calls go through 3-1-1 will result in an approximate 25% workload increase to ITA's 3-1-1 Call Center. However approximately $100,000 in toll and Integrated Voice Response (IVR) charges will be saved by ITA, a portion of which could be utilized to hire at least one additional 3-1-1 Call Center operator to assist with the increased workload. Beginning in May, the Department will start phasing out the advertisement of its 888 - number while promoting 3-1-1, in a pre-changeover exercise to see if 3-1-1 can handle the call increase without unexpected problems.

The proposed elimination of the License Canvassers will result in a decrease of approximately $300,000 in annual revenue attributed to them. However, they are not cost neutral and total burdened costs for all 8 staff is over $400,000, without considering the cost of supervision and clerical support. Other changes to the dog licensing program which are in process at this time including multi-year and on-line licensing, have a potential to cover the loss of canvassers while additional alternatives are explored."

The biggest drawback to our program's success has been that the position of Animal License Canvasser lacks the peace officer or public officer enforcement powers to issue citations, unlike the programs in other jurisdictions. Our Animal License Canvassers are able to request payment for licensing fees; however, other than acting as a "good will ambassador" requesting that payment be made, they lack the ability to enforce compliance of the law through the issuance of citations. For example, the lack of enforcement authority requires a Canvasser to make repeat visits while attempting to collect outstanding $15 license fees, rendering any attempt at full-cost recovery unachievable. Proper staffing of this program with classifications able to carry out the required program duties (i.e., Animal Control Officers or Animal License Inspectors) should be considered a key component to a successful in-house License Canvassing Program in the future.

Fill Remaining Vacant Mid-Management Positions

The proposed budget resolves overfilled supervisory and mid-management positions and makes other streamlining changes. The Department will develop an efficient and functional organization based on the proposed regular positions. However, the ability of the Department to achieve effective and efficient operations, particularly under the strain of reduced resources, requires the authority to appoint staff to the existing positions in that structure. Continued reliance on "acting" appointments compromises effectiveness and damages morale.

Early Retirement IP Payouts

The Department will have $170,000 payable in the coming fiscal year as payouts among the 12 employees who took the ERIP in the current fiscal year and for deferred sick leave. This cost apparently is to come from existing budgeted resources.

The Department does not recommend any budget reduction that would dilute public safety, close an Animal Care Center, or increase the euthanasia rate from its steady downward trend.

We stand ready, however, to support the ultimate decision of the policy-makers. On behalf of LA Animal Services, I look forward to further discussion of this proposed budget and any alternatives that may be possible.

Very Truly Yours,
Kathy Davis
Interim General Manager
LA Animal Services

If you would like to weigh in on these important decisions
contact the
LOS ANGELES BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE

http://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=10-0600