I'm wondering, Ed, since you also headed the New York City animal care & control department, how you would compare the perennial NYC dysfunction to Los Angeles. From the perspective of having reported from time to time about both since the mid-1980s, there does not appear to me to be a dime's worth of difference, & the same syndrome also afflicts Houston, Detroit, Philadelphia, Oklahoma City & Tulsa, San Antonio, and quite a few other animal care & control departments in major cities around the country. To a considerable extent, this appears to me to be an inevitable result of the politicization of animal care & control, which goes all the way back to the use of corrupt elected officials using dog-catching as a way to keep their goons on the public payroll, obvious in the U.S. in the 19th century and still evident in many places in the developing world. Parenthetically, both Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson debuted in law enforcement as dog-catchers in Dodge City, Kansas.
Thanks, Merritt and Beth. You’re exactly right—what’s happening in Los Angeles is not unique. This piece was written with the conviction that LA is emblematic of systemic dysfunction across the country. The LA Times’ question about Staycee Dains provided a timely opportunity to pull back the curtain on a national problem that continues to play out in city after city.
I'm curious, Ed, if you think that greater public awareness and education on how to engage civically would help fight bureaucracy? I'm not sure how that would unfold, but it seems to be a missing piece.
This article resonated with my close observation of Orange County Animal Care, just south of LA. What Ed says:
"The real story is the system—deliberately structured to ensure any reformer will fail, no matter who holds the title."
"... the bureaucrats who resist accountability, the political actors who trade reform for optics..."
"The system doesn’t want leadership. It wants compliance. A GM who acts boldly alienates bureaucrats. [...] The advocates demand action, while City Hall demands silence."
applies in spades to Orange County. Frankly, OC, has taken this to the next level. If we identify a problem and propose a solution, the county bureaucracy feels (dis-)honor-bound to resist any progress, and to even double-down on their failed policies. If advocates said it, it MUST be wrong, their thinking goes.
I have to say - and here perhaps Ed doesn't agree with me - that I find the San Diego Humane model more promising. No organization is perfect, and it's always fair to point out where there can be improvements, but I'd take San Diego Humane over the county-run OC shelter, in a heartbeat. The OC shelter charges MORE to cities than San Diego Humane. (I've run the numbers.) Yes, San Diego raises charitable contributions, but OC is consuming charitable donations in a different way: By sending a disproportionate percentage of its animals to rescues (after it's kept them in the shelter long enough to add to their stress & health issues), creating the need for the rescues to raise money to address the need. OC preserves its "save rate" (a misguided objective) while off-loading the work at no cost to itself.
I repeat, there are no perfect organizations. I hope we can direct our criticism predominantly to the laggards – and the broken governance systems and self-serving bureaucracies the block progress.
I worked with Dains at the San Jose shelter. She recently took a job with Sacramento and there was an article on the Sacramento Bee last week about her. The article was a bit disappointing, honestly, but at least an attempt was made.
She was always a maverick, trying new things with mixed results. People would rather stick with the status quo.
This highlights the systemic issues of LA, and to a degree all of California. I worry many problems will be swept under the rug with the upcoming World Cup soccer and the summer Olympics next year. " Can't have visitors see the ugly truth" Humans and animals suffer due to bureaucracy and wasted dollars on visuals vs substance.
China was deeply criticized as inhumane for rounding up the stray animals and killing them before the Olympics…. Hell… we are doing the EXACT SAME THING… every single day with taxpayer money 💔 🐾💔
The article identifies the self-defeating structures we are dealing with in our large municipal shelter that has been used opportunistically by Maddies and Best Friends.
This article paragraph very contemporary for us as yet another Maddies grant is dictating policy: "Third, all private organizations—including Best Friends—that seek to influence public agencies must be required to disclose their finances, contracts, and the extent of their policy influence. Public policy must not be shaped behind closed doors. No more shadow governance through grant-funded control, embedded consultants, or coordinated media campaigns designed to obscure accountability or intimidate public officials."
Like most communities, our shelter is chronically critical overcapacity with a flood of puppy litters, hoarding cases, strays, Parvo and distemper cases and urgently need volume spay/neuter clinic outreach especailly in the outlying areas.
Being philosophically opposed to funding s/n and population control while capitalizing on overpopulation, Maddies proposed grant directs shelter resources to invest in a fixed location satellite adoption center to be staffed and maintained when there are ample adoption events city wide. The proposed grant is another "Non Disclosure Agreement" so other provisions are unknown.
Most authorities , distracted with 10-20 other urgent priories, uncritically accept the terms of such grants allowing outside orgs with self-serving agendas to install policies that has created this crisis.
I've locally promoted Dr. Jeff Young's (of Rocky Mt Vet Series) MASH (Mobile Animal Surgical Hospital) format he pioneered and demonstrated on several episodes servicing an entire areas animals economically in any large space with power and water. This is highly effective application of resources making a significant intake reduction in one breeding season.
I'm wondering, Ed, since you also headed the New York City animal care & control department, how you would compare the perennial NYC dysfunction to Los Angeles. From the perspective of having reported from time to time about both since the mid-1980s, there does not appear to me to be a dime's worth of difference, & the same syndrome also afflicts Houston, Detroit, Philadelphia, Oklahoma City & Tulsa, San Antonio, and quite a few other animal care & control departments in major cities around the country. To a considerable extent, this appears to me to be an inevitable result of the politicization of animal care & control, which goes all the way back to the use of corrupt elected officials using dog-catching as a way to keep their goons on the public payroll, obvious in the U.S. in the 19th century and still evident in many places in the developing world. Parenthetically, both Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson debuted in law enforcement as dog-catchers in Dodge City, Kansas.
Thanks, Merritt and Beth. You’re exactly right—what’s happening in Los Angeles is not unique. This piece was written with the conviction that LA is emblematic of systemic dysfunction across the country. The LA Times’ question about Staycee Dains provided a timely opportunity to pull back the curtain on a national problem that continues to play out in city after city.
I'm curious, Ed, if you think that greater public awareness and education on how to engage civically would help fight bureaucracy? I'm not sure how that would unfold, but it seems to be a missing piece.
Timely question, Cindy. Check out my Ask Me Anything feature tomorrow (Saturday).
This article resonated with my close observation of Orange County Animal Care, just south of LA. What Ed says:
"The real story is the system—deliberately structured to ensure any reformer will fail, no matter who holds the title."
"... the bureaucrats who resist accountability, the political actors who trade reform for optics..."
"The system doesn’t want leadership. It wants compliance. A GM who acts boldly alienates bureaucrats. [...] The advocates demand action, while City Hall demands silence."
applies in spades to Orange County. Frankly, OC, has taken this to the next level. If we identify a problem and propose a solution, the county bureaucracy feels (dis-)honor-bound to resist any progress, and to even double-down on their failed policies. If advocates said it, it MUST be wrong, their thinking goes.
I have to say - and here perhaps Ed doesn't agree with me - that I find the San Diego Humane model more promising. No organization is perfect, and it's always fair to point out where there can be improvements, but I'd take San Diego Humane over the county-run OC shelter, in a heartbeat. The OC shelter charges MORE to cities than San Diego Humane. (I've run the numbers.) Yes, San Diego raises charitable contributions, but OC is consuming charitable donations in a different way: By sending a disproportionate percentage of its animals to rescues (after it's kept them in the shelter long enough to add to their stress & health issues), creating the need for the rescues to raise money to address the need. OC preserves its "save rate" (a misguided objective) while off-loading the work at no cost to itself.
I repeat, there are no perfect organizations. I hope we can direct our criticism predominantly to the laggards – and the broken governance systems and self-serving bureaucracies the block progress.
I worked with Dains at the San Jose shelter. She recently took a job with Sacramento and there was an article on the Sacramento Bee last week about her. The article was a bit disappointing, honestly, but at least an attempt was made.
She was always a maverick, trying new things with mixed results. People would rather stick with the status quo.
This highlights the systemic issues of LA, and to a degree all of California. I worry many problems will be swept under the rug with the upcoming World Cup soccer and the summer Olympics next year. " Can't have visitors see the ugly truth" Humans and animals suffer due to bureaucracy and wasted dollars on visuals vs substance.
China was deeply criticized as inhumane for rounding up the stray animals and killing them before the Olympics…. Hell… we are doing the EXACT SAME THING… every single day with taxpayer money 💔 🐾💔
The article identifies the self-defeating structures we are dealing with in our large municipal shelter that has been used opportunistically by Maddies and Best Friends.
This article paragraph very contemporary for us as yet another Maddies grant is dictating policy: "Third, all private organizations—including Best Friends—that seek to influence public agencies must be required to disclose their finances, contracts, and the extent of their policy influence. Public policy must not be shaped behind closed doors. No more shadow governance through grant-funded control, embedded consultants, or coordinated media campaigns designed to obscure accountability or intimidate public officials."
Like most communities, our shelter is chronically critical overcapacity with a flood of puppy litters, hoarding cases, strays, Parvo and distemper cases and urgently need volume spay/neuter clinic outreach especailly in the outlying areas.
Being philosophically opposed to funding s/n and population control while capitalizing on overpopulation, Maddies proposed grant directs shelter resources to invest in a fixed location satellite adoption center to be staffed and maintained when there are ample adoption events city wide. The proposed grant is another "Non Disclosure Agreement" so other provisions are unknown.
Most authorities , distracted with 10-20 other urgent priories, uncritically accept the terms of such grants allowing outside orgs with self-serving agendas to install policies that has created this crisis.
I've locally promoted Dr. Jeff Young's (of Rocky Mt Vet Series) MASH (Mobile Animal Surgical Hospital) format he pioneered and demonstrated on several episodes servicing an entire areas animals economically in any large space with power and water. This is highly effective application of resources making a significant intake reduction in one breeding season.