News

‘LONG LIVE GAY DOGS’

Dave WielengaWed. June 04
 

And other possible solutions to the city’s jacked-up animal shelter


PHOTO by JEFF GOULD

Nearly three months after a dog’s gruesome death at the hands—or, technically, in a noose at the end of a long pole—of a Long Beach Animal Control officer, the public’s outrage hasn’t abated. It’s become outrageous.

Hundreds of online responses have been posted at thedistrictweekly.com since April 3. That’s when reporter Heather Reger first told how the dog died at the city shelter, flipping and flopping as it was choked until blood gushed from its mouth and nose. But the tone of the online reaction almost immediately disintegrated—from a heartfelt e-trail of tears and anger into a vicious e-gauntlet of personal insults, sexual innuendo and just plain pettiness. 

“I have nothing to say—I just wanted to be No. 300 on this ridiculously long thread on this issue,” wrote somebody named Milestone, who missed even that: The post appeared as No. 299. But Milestone saved his day by adding, “Long live gay dogs.” 

Who knew dogcatchers could be so catty?

Some of the sniping has likely been a way to kill time while the city of Long Beach responds to what have turned out to be widespread problems throughout its system of animal control. That’s been slow going since City Manager Pat West’s April 7 press conference, where he announced the resignation of veteran animal control facilities manager Wesley Moore, the suspension of employee Victor Martinez for his role in the brutal killing of the dog, and a thorough investigation by an independent firm.

“We’re trying to do a major culture change, and that’s never easy,” West says now. “That said, we’re dealing with a satellite facility of the city; it’s rather insulated. The easiest way to create a culture change is to get new people. Several people are not with us anymore, and we have numerous other vacancies that we can fill with good hires.”

But a local consortium of concerned animal lovers, experts and organizations—the just-formed Greater Long Beach Coalition for Humane Animal Care & Control—wants to go further. It has petitioned the city to participate in the reform process, and its highest priority is to make the Long Beach Animal Control a so-called “no-kill” shelter.

“We want to change the focus from euthanizing the animals to adopting them,” says Thomas Kelch, a local attorney who teaches the little-known field of animal law at Whittier Law School. “We want to institute programs—spaying and neutering, behavioral training—that help prevent animals from coming through the doors of the shelter in the first place.”

The “no-kill” term is somewhat misleading. Such shelters do euthanize some animals—for example, the seriously ill or injured and those that have become incorrigibly vicious due to abuse or training.

But taking on a no-kill approach would set the bar much higher than it is now: last year, Long Beach reported that it euthanized nearly three-quarters of the animals it impounded (7,965 out of 12,156)—a rate that’s been about typical for the past three years.

The new coalition points out that Long Beach’s rate is almost four times that of Los Angeles and greater than the national average. It says cities across the country—San Francisco, Philadelphia, Tompkins County (NY), Charlottesville (VA) and Washoe County (NV)—have successfully tackled similar problems by adopting no-kill policies. 

“Not only have these policies helped to alleviate animal suffering,” says Lorraine Fishman, whose Long Beach Spay & Neuter Foundation has joined the coalition, “but they have actually saved these cities money in terms of the cost of operating.”

Kelch says he hopes that the coalition’s informed, practical approach will get through to Long Beach Animal Control. The group has already met with John Keisler, a city official who suddenly became animal control’s acting manager when the crisis erupted. 

“He listened to us and was quite cooperative, but we’re just getting going,” Kelch says, his voice strengthening. “We intend to talk to people higher up in the city—the city manager and mayor. We’re in the process of setting up meetings with those people.

“We are not trying to be adversarial and throw dirt. But our No. 1 present issue is having citizen and community involvement in the determination of the new director of the Long Beach shelter.”

Meanwhile, there’s always the comments section on thedistrictweekly.com.

“I’ve seen some of the things you’re talking about,” acknowledges Kelch. “I can understand people’s frustration, but I’m not sure that kind of behavior is going to be productive. My goal is to get something done.”

Tags: , , ,

Viewing 25 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    This City currently has a wonderful opportunity to shift paradigms in their animal control programs and methodology. Including this consortium of concerned animal lovers would be the epitome of a democratic process. The time is right; the time is now!
    • ^
    • v
    He** Yeah !!! Good job Dave. You are on the right track. There is so much more to uncover, but this article should get things rolling. This is the best one yet. Keep digging, you will be surprised.
    • ^
    • v
    Does this animal rights group have a contact person or a website?
    • ^
    • v
    PRESS TELEGRAM

    Wednesdays- Letters to the Editor

    Rabbits abandoned

    I volunteer at Long Beach Animal Control. I wish people would think before they adopt a rabbit. Remember, rabbits don't stay cute little bunnies for long. You need a large cage for them to grow into, and the cage gets cleaned every day, besides exercising them every day.

    Too many people get a rabbit because the kids want a cute, little bunny, then the kids lose interest, and the rabbit is abandoned. Don't get a rabbit if you are not going to have it spayed or neutered, care for it, and love it till the day it dies.

    Judy Griffith

    Long Beach



    employee
    Long Beach, CA Reply »
    |Report Abuse |#6 5 min ago

    There are no volunteers at Long Beach Animal Control. The SPCA shut that program a long time ago. SPCA volunteers are restricted to caring for the animals on their side only. You are right about one thing Judy, owners need to take care of the animals they adopt. Thank you for your continued dedication. If the SPCA would actually allow Long Beach have a volunteer program then we wouldn't kill 99.9% of the shelter rabbits! Better yet, way to go SPCA for forbidding Animal Control to adopt out animals. I hope this contract between SPCA and Long Beach is available for public view. SPCA is "indirectly" responsible for the senseless deaths of hundreds of thousands of animals. Some things are not all what they appear to be. It sickens me.
    • ^
    • v
    Yes, the Greater Long Beach Coalition for Humane Animal Care & Control can be reached by email: glbc4hacc@yahoo.com

    We will be happy to put you on our email list for updates.
    • ^
    • v
    ????When are they going to get rid of Lt.Quigley?
    • ^
    • v
    Gee, No. 6, could you possibly be more obtuse? Did you even read the story?
    • ^
    • v
    Thank you for keeping this story alive. Although many comments posted about the previous articles were tasteless, cruel, and downright stupid, this came as no surprise. Trolls and spammers are drawn to hot news stories like flies to poop. If one disregards these comments, the reader will discover that there are a lot of people who care deeply about the fate of animals who end up at Long Beach Animal Control.

    My belief is that LBAC will continue to draw criticism as long as they conceal what really goes on there. The public is looking for answers and we are not getting them. We depend heavily on the press because you have the resources and skills to uncover the facts.

    With the exception of The District Weekly, the City of Long Beach and the press have let the public down. We are no further along than we were 8 weeks ago in terms of accurate and reliable disclosures, and about the actions that are being taken to correct the problems.

    Unequivocally, the DW has done the most thorough job of reporting, but there are questions that could and should be answered by now.

    I am asking that the DW dig a little deeper. This would go along way to dispelling some of the misinformation that was published in the comments section.

    Here are some questions that I have:

    Have criminal charges been filed against Victor? If yes, what are the charges? If no, why not? (he did brutally mistreat a dog, in violation of the law and common decency)

    Is Roger officially in charge of the facility now? If so, what are his plans for improvement?

    Have charges been filed or reprimands issued to the persons who threw live animals in the bins with dead ones? What are the consequences of these negligent acts? Employment termination? Wrist slappings? Nothing?

    Is there a vet at the facility? Full time? Part time? On Call?

    How do SPCA/LA and LBAC really function together? Is there really one person who has life and death control over the fate of the animals brought to LBAC? In other words, the way things are now, the “adoptable” animals are sent to SPCA and the “unadoptable” ones await death on the LBAC side—all based on the assessment of one person. Can this be?

    Why does LBAC kill all of the wildlife brought to them? The public should be informed when they bring in wild animals, that the animals will be killed

    Why has the city not published any reports on the investigation, even preliminary reports?

    Is there really a financial incentive from the State of California to euthanize impounded animals?


    What is the status of the investigation? Who is handling it? “An outside company” doesn’t really tell us much. Will their findings be made public? When? What is their authority to make changes and or enforce state law?

    What is the status of Christine Culhno’s complaint to the vet med board?

    The vapid remarks by Pat West do not shed any light on these questions.. Mr. West proclaimed that LBAC is a “state of the art” shelter and went on to say that “most” of the animals are well treated. Most? (Mr. West, most airplanes land safely—it’s the ones that crash that call for investigations.) Please explain the impilications of his statement about LBAC: “…it’s rather insulated.” Does this mean employees are covering up information? This is a public agency and being “insulated” is not acceptable. We have a right to know what goes on there.

    I have tried to find answers to many of the above questions on my own, but with limited success. I’m hoping the DW will step in, and stand up for the animals: the ones who “have no voice, have no choice” This is why I read your paper and support your advertisers.

    Please don’t let the animals down, Dave. I urge that you press a little harder for answers—John Keisler is indeed a very amiable, open and considerate person. But—this isn’t a personality contest. Please get some hard facts so all of us who care can help the animals.
    • ^
    • v
    To #8 and Dave Wielenga:

    Great Questions and I agree that DW is the only publication doing the right thing, printing the juiciest story that this city has been involved with so far. I would like to respond to some of your questions and in turn anyone out there that has answers or knowledge to anything posted by #8, please post it. This is the only way to lead to the true issues at Animal Control. I really mean the true issues at animal control and the SPCA. Things are about to get ugly for them.

    VM Question #1 – No charges have been filed for the animal cruelty as of yet because there was no evidence of cruelty. The city appears to have dismissed these charges for now. He is suspended over some other petty issue that the department was cooking up for months. He is still not back at work, still not getting paid and has possibly been terminated over this unrelated issue.

    Roger Question#2 – No Roger is not officially in charge of the shelter; John Keisler is Acting Manager right now. We have been told that Roger is there to help with the transition, he is there to help with the internal investigation and we have also been told he will only be there until the new manager gets set in. He does want to be there anyway, it just looks better that he is there.

    Live Barrel Question#3 – No charges have been filed because that employee was suspended over Cruelty and possibly terminated already over other bull*** that was planned before the events happened. This employee was obviously targeted before the euthanasia incident. SP watched this struggle, knowing VM was on his way out anyway.

    Question #4 – Vet Question –Yes, there is a Part-time Vet at the facility now. She finally appeared at the shelter last week for the first time to do rounds, almost 2 months after she was hired with the city. This Vet was also turned into the Medical Board for supplying the shelter with an illegal Controlled Substance License for the shelter. The Medical Board recently granted the City a premise permit to this Vet that was involved in fraudulent controlled substance activity. Why did she agree to being the premise after saying “no” months earlier. Maybe she thinks it will help her when the Board finally comes to inspect.

    Question #5 – Function Question – This is the best question of them all. They “dysfunction” together. What is supposed to be a “joint” effort is actually the opposite. There is constant bickering, back stabbing between the management on both sides. The animals are obviously cared for better on the SPCA side. They have ample donations of bedding, food and other necessities. They also have more people to care for the animals, not to mention the large amount of volunteers on their side every day. Their side of the facility has been modified and is always in working condition. The floor heaters in the dog cottages are always working and their cats are in a building away from the heat and cold. The animals well taken care of and are spoiled if they reach it over there. Animal Control is a different story. Floor heaters are always broken and it is colder because the SPCA decided to cover open air windows on their side only. So, combine a cold winter night with drafty holes in the kennels, lack of bedding, lack of employees to change and wash the bedding and broken floor heaters. Sounds like paradise to me, especially for a nursing mom or a small skinny dog. Their cattery is very functional and humane. Animal Control’s new cattery is very dysfunctional, inhumane and stressful to the cats.
    The fate of all the shelter animals initially lies in the hands of Long Beach supervision. They decide if they are “healthy” enough to stay for the hold period. After that, the SPCA selects an animal based on what the medical staff recommends first and then somebody (??????) agrees with them and they take the animal. The rest of animals die with the exception of a handful a month that go to AMRT or one of the other small lists of rescues that Long Beach deals with. The real question is: Where are all the rescues? I have been told by several rescues that they just can’t stand dealing with this shelter. The shelter does not actively contact rescues. The animals just die. Someone enlighten us please.

    Question#6 – Wildlife Question – The shelter kills almost all of the wildlife with a few exceptions. Healthy or not they die. Nice work!

    Question #7 – Investigation Question – The full report will not be available for a few months. No prelims will be published.

    Question#8- Financial Incentive question- I don’t think this is the issue at all. Long Beach kills because adoptions on the SPCA side are few and far between. The SPCA only takes a small chunk of what actually comes into the shelter. The SPCA adoption application is really difficult to be accepted so the animals that they do take stay a long time. Finally, we come to the rescue question. Rescues do not come and get the animals, so Long Beach kills them. Believe it or not, all this is directly related to the SPCA. Rescues do not want to deal with the SPCA for some reason. SPCA forbids adoptions on the animal control side. It is not a financial problem; it is a control freak problem.

    Question#9 – Investigation Question – The investigation for the euthanasia incident is over and the report is being written. A private investigator is handling it. I don’t think that their findings will be made public but I pray someone will find a way. The report is going to the city manager. It is not at all a directive; it is findings and recommendations only. It will be the City’s choice if they decide to follow these recommendations. That sums it up. Nothing may happen at all. Exciting!!!

    Question #10 – Christine Question- Someone please tell us the status of Christine’s complaint. They have not been out to investigate yet. The Veterinary Medical Board ignored her complaint and decided to grant Long Beach a Premise Permit before looking into things further. Christine just got slapped in the face by the State. That is shocking but typical government behavior. I have personal knowledge that the City of Long Beach has been in contact with the Medical Board Investigator in charge of this case. The investigator was told by them that they don’t know why Christine filed a complaint and that she was mistaken because Animal Control has had a Vet all along. Wow!
    • ^
    • v
    Nice article District Weekly. I especially like the name, "Long Live Gay Dogs". Most people would think of it as a stupid attention getting headline, but I think it has another meaning. "Long Live" is appropriate considering there have been almost 1000 comments posted between all 5 of the articles written by the District. That's incredible!
    • ^
    • v
    Wow, initial source, I am both stunned and not surprised at all! You have a lot of information and I hope Dave and others at the DW will use your report to pursue this story and get the facts out to the public. We have nothing from the city except vague remarks about "culture changes". This tells us absolutely nothing about the cover-ups of the past. The city needs to come clean.

    Dave, before the trolls clutter up your comment section with posts about 2-headed dogs from Venus, please take Poster #9's statements to heart and keep reporting.
    • ^
    • v
    What we have here is not a failure to communicate. The above comments are a perfect example of the concept called Citizen Journalist.

    (The following is a repeat of a post I submitted several weeks ago to the District Weekly. It is an idea for which the time has come.)

    For sometime now I have been toying around here with the idea of being a citizen journalist. Yesterday, I googled "citizen journalist" and to my surprise discovered that such an animal actually exists. I would like at this time to share some of the information I discovered on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

    According to the seminal report, "We Media: How Audiences are Shaping the Future of News and Information" citizen journalism, also known as public or participatory journalism, is the act of citizens "playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information." Authors of the report, Shayne Bowman and Chris Willis, continue: "The intent of this participation is to provide independent, reliable, accurate, wide-ranging and relevant information that a democracy requires." Citizen journalism should not be confused with civic journalism, which is practiced by professional journalists. Citizen journalism is a specific form of citizen media as well as user-generated content.

    In a 2003 Online Journalism Review article, J. D. Lasica classifies media for citizen journalism into the following types:

    1.) Audience participation (such as user comments attached to news stories, personal blogs, photos or video footage captured from personal mobile cameras, or local news written by residents of a community).

    2.) Independent news and information Websites.

    3.) Full-fledged participatory news sites.

    4.) Collaborative and contributory media sites.

    5.) Other kinds of "thin media." (mailing lists, email newsletters).

    6.) Personal broadcasting sites.

    Freelance journalist Mark Glasser who frequently writes on new media issues offers the following:
    "The idea behind citizen journalism is that people without professional journalism training can use the tools of modern technology and the global distribution of the Internet to create, augment or fact-check media on their own or in collaboration with others. For example, you might write about a city council meeting on your blog or in an online forum. Or you could fact-check a newspaper article from the mainstream media and point out factual errors or bias on your blog. Or you might snap a digital photo of a newsworthy event happening in your town and post it online. Or you might videotape a similar event and post it on a site such as "Youtube."
    • ^
    • v
    See the Press Telegram article 4/6/08 - front page

    Anne wrote:
    It is surprising to me that the City is claiming that only 57 adoptable animals were euthanized at the shelter last year. I'd like to know what evidence they can offer to support that. First of all, how do they define feral? Any cat that is in a shelter environment, even the most domesticated and placid of cats, will be crazed with fear and appear feral-like. The attitude that produces this kind of spin, which common sense tells us is patently not true, is troubling. Long Beach, and all municipalities that run "Kill" animal shelters need to experience a paradigm shift - the way that animals are treated currently in city animal shelters is not acceptable. Cities need to work to find more creative solutions to the animal overpopulation problem. Kudos to the Coalition for starting this process.

    initial source Reply
    Long Beach, CA


    Anne, those figures need to be redone. Here is why. Most of the healthy wildlife that was euthanized should of been sent to rescue or relocated, most of the injured wildlife should of been sent to rescue where a VETERINARIAN would diagnose them to be suffering. Most the shelter animals that were euthanized for being sick or injured cannot be counted as sick or injured because they were not seen by a VETERINARIAN and diagnosed with a condition or injury. They could of been perfectly healthy for all we know. People that are making these decisions should not of been involved. So count all sick and injured animals as adoptable animals. Neither proper nor legal procedures were not used to determine the life or death. As for the 57 adoptable animals, you guessed it, that number is not correct either. The SPCA marks animals as "unadoptable" all the time for various bullsh** reasons which are medical or behavioral. Diagnoses and behavioral conditions are just some lame persons wild guess, boldface lie or just because they really don't know what the hell they are doing. A lot of time reasons are made up because they have to put something down as for why they are not taking the animal or else they would look bad. The SPCA employs the "Vet" and the "behaviorists" who come up the "reasons" these animals will die. Long Beach's euthanasia statistics are a joke and now they are being blamed for all the killings. You can't blame Long Beach for all the killings because the SPCA refuses 80% of the animals and they will not let Long Beach adopt out the animals that are not selected. Well then rescue should be called right? No, rescue organizations in a whole refuse to come into the shelter, they do not want to deal with the SPCA and Long Beach has trouble soliciting rescues because of this. Has all of this enlightened everyone? I really am sickened by the blame and ridicule that has been put on animal control, SPCA is the reason all of these shelter animals are killed. The proof is here. I you do not believe me, just wait and see. SPCA is not what they appear to be. This new activist group that is coming in to "revamp" Long Beach Animal Control really should go to the other side of the building were the real problem lies.
    • ^
    • v
    The comments above are very valuable. We would be interested in speaking with many of you and would like you to join the newly formed coalition -- "The Greater Long Beach Coalition for Humane Animal Care & Control". Thank you for taking the time to post your comments.

    Please contact us at: glbc4hacc@yahoo.com or 562.544.0335
    • ^
    • v
    Why should people trust you Ms. Kwast? Give us some good reasons. I think people are afraid that you will give up their identity. I think you might have some trouble getting people to come to you. You have a lot of good information posted on these blogs and you just need to find out who is being truthful.
    • ^
    • v
    initial source raises a good point in post 15. Many people--rescuers, the public, and LBAC employees are afraid to reveal their identities for fear of retaliation. The workers are concerned about their jobs and rightfully so. Rescuers and individuals are concerned about the safety of their pets. Past actions of LBAC prove that a person has very little recourse if their pet is seized by LBAC. The animal will die. The hearings are a farce and decisions always go in animal control's favor, i.e., death to the pet. so if you join up with Ms. Kwast's group, make sure your dog doesn't bark too loud, lest you get that knock on the door from Quigley & Co. You won't win. Forget legal action, unless you have a lot of money--I mean a lot.

    I think that Mr. Kwast has a wonderful idea and I wish the group much success, but please everyone proceed with caution.

    If I sound paranoid, please remember even paranoids have enemies. (Plus there are reader comments, posts on other websites, and court records to substantiate my concerns)
    • ^
    • v
    Reported by Mario in the PT - Post #17

    "Check the math:

    'last year it euthanized 7,965 ... animals

    88 percent of the euthanized animals were considered unsuitable for placement

    Keisler said 12 percent, or 57 of the animals, should have been adopted'

    7965 x .12 = 955.8

    956 adoptable animals were euthanized by LBAC last year, not 57.

    An honest mistake?"
    • ^
    • v
    Can Mario crunch some more numbers with the revised information below?

    7,965 animals total

    88 percent cannot be right beause "unsuitable" does not mean "it barks at me". You cannot count most of the animals that were deemed " irremediable" because they were not diagnosed by a Veterinarian. You cannot count most of the wildlife because they should of been seen by a Veterinarain, released to a rescue or relocated. I think this 88% fiqure is more on the lines of 40%-50%. So let's go in the middle at 45%.

    What is the "revised" total?