Dr.Boisot.Letter.to.Sup.Spitzer.April.24.2016 April 24, 2016 Dear Supervisor Spitzer, As discussed, please find enclosed a data analysis pertaining to animals killed at OCAC for the month of October 2015, as compiled by our data analyst, Dr. Sarah Lamere. Dr. Lamere is a veterinarian [Cornell University] and also has a PhD in Biology in Immunology [The Scripps Research Institute]. She is currently a researcher at UCSD. Because we did not have the full six month data set at the time of our conversation to look for any trends, and in the name of getting something to you expediently, we collectively elected to just look at the month of October, since this was the first month data was provided. For these reasons this analysis is only designed to provide a “snapshot” or microcosm of some of the euthanasia practices at OCAC, although we believe it will prove to be reflective overall. That being said, we did just receive the sixth month of data from OCAC, and Dr. Lamere will be doing a more in-depth analysis in the course of the next few weeks, which I will be able to forward upon completion. Several points about the data set itself require some clarification, since it is incomplete in multiple, major aspects. Firstly, the month of October is notable for the fact that when this data was originally received from OCAC, only 556 animals were listed as being killed. It was only when reporter Nick Gerda from the Voice of OC was investigating for an article he was writing, and he called Katie Ingram at OCAC to get their comments, that the actual count of 725 animals killed for that month was gleaned. Thereafter it was discovered that the discrepancy lay in the omission of 169 unweaned kittens* that the shelter was lumping together with their mothers under the “L” designation for litter and were therefore not even counting these kittens as individual animals. I’m sure I don’t need to tell you how reflective it is that an animal’s life should be regarded with so little importance by the very organization charted to save their lives, as to not even merit it being counted as an individual when killed. Almost more egregious than this was the emotionless tone of Katie Ingram’s email to Nick Gerda acknowledging this (see link & attachment). Since this discovery was made, the Logan lawsuit team has still not received an updated spreadsheet for October, nor even any indication that OCAC plans to provide the corrected data. *this number includes a litter of opossums according to the OCAC data Additional holes in the data set pertain to missing times of euthanasia for 2 dogs and 7 cats, which therefore had to be omitted from Dr. Lamere’s calculations, as well as missing ages of animal in multiple species categories. Perhaps most importantly though is the fact that because Sharon Logan’s lawsuit does not adjure it, we do not have any intake data ... SEE THE DOCUMENT FOR THE REST OF THE LETTER AND APPENDICES

1. Dr. Saskia Boisot April 24, 2016 Page | 1
Letter from Dr. Boisot to
Sup. Todd Spitzer, Orange
County, April 24, 2016
The letter starts on page 4.
There are 3 blank pages
because Slideshare does not
activate links until page 4.

2. Dr. Saskia Boisot April 24, 2016 Page | 2
Letter from Dr. Boisot to
Sup. Todd Spitzer, Orange
County, April 24, 2016
The letter starts on page 4.
There are 3 blank pages
because Slideshare does not
activate links until page 4.

3. Dr. Saskia Boisot April 24, 2016 Page | 3
Letter from Dr. Boisot to
Sup. Todd Spitzer, Orange
County, April 24, 2016
The letter starts on page 4.
There are 3 blank pages
because Slideshare does not
activate links until page 4.

4. Dr. Saskia Boisot April 24, 2016 Page | 4
April 24, 2016
Dear Supervisor Spitzer,
As discussed, please find enclosed a data analysis pertaining to animals killed at OCAC
for the month of October 2015, as compiled by our data analyst, Dr. Sarah Lamere. Dr.
Lamere is a veterinarian [Cornell University] and also has a PhD in Biology in
Immunology [The Scripps Research Institute]. She is currently a researcher at UCSD.
Because we did not have the full six month data set at the time of our conversation to
look for any trends, and in the name of getting something to you expediently, we
collectively elected to just look at the month of October, since this was the first month
data was provided. For these reasons this analysis is only designed to provide a
“snapshot” or microcosm of some of the euthanasia practices at OCAC, although we
believe it will prove to be reflective overall. That being said, we did just receive the sixth
month of data from OCAC, and Dr. Lamere will be doing a more in-depth analysis in the
course of the next few weeks, which I will be able to forward upon completion.
Several points about the data set itself require some clarification, since it is
incomplete in multiple, major aspects. Firstly, the month of October is notable for
the fact that when this data was originally received from OCAC, only 556 animals
were listed as being killed. It was only when reporter Nick Gerda from the Voice of
OC was investigating for an article he was writing, and he called Katie Ingram at
OCAC to get their comments, that the actual count of 725 animals killed for that
month was gleaned. Thereafter it was discovered that the discrepancy lay in the
omission of 169 unweaned kittens* that the shelter was lumping together with their
mothers under the “L” designation for litter and were therefore not even counting
these kittens as individual animals. I’m sure I don’t need to tell you how reflective it
is that an animal’s life should be regarded with so little importance by the very
organization charted to save their lives, as to not even merit it being counted as an
individual when killed. Almost more egregious than this was the emotionless tone of
Katie Ingram’s email to Nick Gerda acknowledging this (see link & attachment).
Since this discovery was made, the Logan lawsuit team has still not received an
updated spreadsheet for October, nor even any indication that OCAC plans to
provide the corrected data.
*this number includes a litter of opossums according to the OCAC data
Additional holes in the data set pertain to missing times of euthanasia for 2 dogs and
7 cats, which therefore had to be omitted from Dr. Lamere’s calculations, as well as
missing ages of animal in multiple species categories. Perhaps most importantly
though is the fact that because Sharon Logan’s lawsuit does not adjure it, we do not
have any intake data from which meaningful comparisons can be drawn, such as for
example the percentage of owner surrenders killed. As such, this analysis is limited
to a one particular facet of euthanasia practices at OCAC, namely the median time to
being killed after impoundment; while we suspect trends will emerge in the

5. Dr. Saskia Boisot April 24, 2016 Page | 5
“behavior/aggression” category for dogs, we are waiting for the full 6 months to
address this.
The data is delivered as a raw spreadsheet full of acronyms and no explanation as to
what the acronyms mean. For instance, is it obvious what “HEAD TEST” as an
outcome subtype means? And how can an outcome subtype be “AT VET”? The pet
was killed because it was at the vet?
The most baffling and shocking lack of transparency within the data set relates to
most of the dogs, whose intake type “EUTH REQ”, is the largest category of dogs
killed (we assume the request came from an owner, but this is not explained), yet
whose outcome subtype is almost universally is “OWNEUTHREQ” [a.k.a. ORE]. We
assume “EUTH REQ” means someone who had control of that animal wanted it
killed, and that “OWNEUTHREQ” means that it was killed, because the owner said to
kill it. This is inexplicable and unacceptable – I should emphasize that entire point
of the Logan lawsuit was that an owner cannot simply tell the shelter to kill a pet.
The shelter must accept the pet and then make a determination of why that pet
should live or die. In fact, on the OCAC website it says – quote: “Animals must either
have a history of aggression or be irremediably suffering to be considered for Owner
Requested Euthanasia”. Yet for these hapless dogs their outcome subtype is
essentially the same as the intake – to paraphrase “the owner said kill this pet, so we
did”. Of the other outcome subtypes in the data, ‘TOO YOUNG” is perhaps one of the
saddest reasons given to kill a homeless pet, yet according to the spreadsheet OCAC
killed 140 for this reason, not including the 169 littermates missing from the
spreadsheet, for a total of at least 309 baby animals killed in October 2015 alone.
Additionally, it is our observation after reviewing the policies and procedures forms
supplied via a PRR request, that there is NO place on the owner surrender form
where the owner actually checks a box or indicates that they are making a “EUTH
REQ” (see link & attachment) It is our understanding that the staff makes that
determination – we do not know if this is done on intake, or after OCAC decides to
kill the pet. In fact a handwritten note on this form says “Per Jennifer Hawkins,
reason for relinquishment is noted in shelter computer data”. So the staff decides why
the animal is being surrendered, without any paper trail that can be traced to the
owners’ actual reasons. And even more sinister, and quite possibly at the root of
the high number of OREs, is the fee schedule (see link and attachment), whereby the
cost to surrender one’s pet to the shelter with the possibility of adoption is $108,
while the cost to surrender them to be killed is only $40; needless to say, this
engenders a financial incentive for those relinquishing their animals to have them
be killed.
Some salient features about this analysis are as follows: 51% of dogs killed with
outcome subtype listed as “OWNREQEUTH” [OREs] were killed within less than an
hour of intake, and 79% of OREs were killed within less than 2 hours, with an
overall median time to death for OREs of 60 minutes. While this number is slightly
different than that quoted at the Board of Supervisors’ meeting, this is likely because

6. Dr. Saskia Boisot April 24, 2016 Page | 6
the number quoted in the meeting was predicated on an analysis of 4 months, rather
than one, and by extrapolation, we will likewise expect a slightly different median
time to emerge when 6 months’ worth of data is analyzed. The median time to
death for all dogs killed in October was 3 hours. Among cats brought in as OREs,
67% were killed within less than an hour, and among cats brought in as strays (438
stray cats killed in the month of October), the median time to death was 17 hours,
and in fact, the median time to death for all cats killed was 17 hours.
As I described earlier in this email, because the intake type of “EUTHREQ” can have
an outcome subtype of essentially the same thing, “OWNREQEUTH”, there is no way
to separate out those brought in for irremediable suffering versus purported
aggression, or other reasons. However, regardless of the reason, the urgency with
which animals in this category are killed is noteworthy; while some are undoubtedly
legitimately “euthanized” to alleviate suffering, it is hard to imagine that so many
would meet the criteria for this, especially the ones that are only a few years old.
This also raises considerable doubt as to whether due diligence in documentation
can be adequately and accurately performed in such a short time frame prior to
administering the Fatal Plus lethal injection. If this is the case, the shelter is clearly
continuing to disregard the law, specifically the Hayden Act, the very premise for
Sharon Logan’s lawsuit against them in the first place.
It’s important for you to know that one of the main reporting algorithms for
euthanasia rates (Asilomar Live Release Rate [LRR]) allows the shelter to remove
from the total euthanasia numbers the “OWNREQEUTH” a.k.a. OREs, therefore there
is a strong incentive to put as many killed animals as possible into that category,
whether in fact these animals truly were OREs. By doing so, the LRR can be
manipulated to appear more favorable than it really is. This is a major weakness of
the Asilomar LRR, and why many progressive and humane animal shelters have
moved away from this calculation of LRR, or choose to include OREs in their LRR
calculations. [How Shelters Can Use Data to Save Lives, ASPCA webinar] It is
noteworthy that in preliminary comparison to several other California open
admission shelters Orange County does have an inordinately high % of OREs (see
attached comparison). In particular, OCAC can be compared to Contra Costa County
Animal Control, which also serves 18 cities, has a dog intake of 2/3 that of OCAC, a
population 1/3 of OC, and similar economic demographics. At OCAC 15% of the
dogs are designated as ORE, yet at Contra Costa only 1%. It is odd that so many
more dogs are brought by their owners to be killed by OCAC than in Contra Costa
County, or in any of the other shelters we examined.
In closing, and on a slightly different note, I would like to use this opportunity to
bring a specific current case to your attention, since I believe this perfectly
illustrates the mentality of the shelter staff at OCAC. On April 19th, the rescue named
“Two Dog Farms” requested to take A1451104, an 8 month old Jindo mix puppy out
of her kennel for an evaluation, with a view to rescuing her if she fit their rescue
criteria. At the time, the dog was being kept in the back quarantine area, out of
public view for allegedly showing aggression towards staff. Tammy Osborn, the

7. Dr. Saskia Boisot April 24, 2016 Page | 7
OCAC staff rescue coordinator, denied their request, reiterating that the dog was
aggressive, and that if the rescue wanted her, they would have to take her directly
from her kennel. The rescue declined to take the dog, rightfully stating that they
needed to be able to have their volunteer evaluate her in the more natural and
unthreatening environment of a play yard. I contacted Supervisor Bartlett’s staff
members Paul Walters and Tanya Flink about the situation, yet Tammy Osborn
remained firm in her stance, refusing to let the rescue do the appropriate
evaluation; I have included my email thread with them for you to see the absurdity
of the situation [see attachment]. Luckily for this puppy, at some point the tide
changed, I have absolutely no doubt because of all the pressure being applied not
just from me, but from other independent parties, and while the rescue was not
allowed to do their own assessment of the dog outside the kennel, Tammy did
concede to videotaping the puppy outside the kennel herself. Although the outcome
here was ultimately favorable, since the rescue felt the video was sufficient evidence
that the dog was in fact unlikely to be aggressive at all, barriers to rescue are put up
by OCAC shelter staff on a regular basis (in fact I refer to a similar such incident in
my email thread, involving the dog Bowie, which I told you about during our phone
conversation). The extraordinary amount of effort that had to go into getting this
dog out of the shelter, coupled with the atrocious mislabeling of her behavior
without any consideration as to the stress of her environment, underscores the
shelter’s overall total lack of commitment to saving lives, and this is precisely why
the shelter will never be able to become an example for animal welfare, to quote
you, until there is an overhaul in management, specifically with a shelter director
who believes every life matters. [See the attachment for the email conversation with
Bartlett’s staff regarding this puppy. Here is a video of the puppy when she was
rescued.]
Many thanks in advance for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to
discussing these findings at your earliest convenience in the next few days.
Sincerely
Saskia Boisot, MD
sboisot@yahoo.com
(619) 895-0559

8. Dr. Saskia Boisot April 24, 2016 Page | 8
Attachments
Euthanasia Charts...................................................................................................................................9
Katie Ingram email to Nick Gerda re: 169 baby animals killed in October 2015........23
OCAC October 2015 Euthanasia Raw Data ................................................................................24
Owner Surrender Form (on slideshare) .....................................................................................25
Owner Surrender vs. Owner Euthanasia Fee Schedule.........................................................26
Owner Surrender Comparisons (OCAC vs. other CA government shelters).................27
Email Convo with Bartlett Staff about Jindo Puppy................................................................28

9. Dr. Saskia Boisot April 24, 2016 Page | 9
Euthanasia Charts
(also online in our slideshare account here. The slides are bigger in that document.)

10. Dr. Saskia Boisot April 24, 2016 Page | 10

11. Dr. Saskia Boisot April 24, 2016 Page | 11

12. Dr. Saskia Boisot April 24, 2016 Page | 12

13. Dr. Saskia Boisot April 24, 2016 Page | 13

14. Dr. Saskia Boisot April 24, 2016 Page | 14

15. Dr. Saskia Boisot April 24, 2016 Page | 15

16. Dr. Saskia Boisot April 24, 2016 Page | 16

17. Dr. Saskia Boisot April 24, 2016 Page | 17

18. Dr. Saskia Boisot April 24, 2016 Page | 18

19. Dr. Saskia Boisot April 24, 2016 Page | 19

20. Dr. Saskia Boisot April 24, 2016 Page | 20

21. Dr. Saskia Boisot April 24, 2016 Page | 21

22. Dr. Saskia Boisot April 24, 2016 Page | 22

23. Dr. Saskia Boisot April 24, 2016 Page | 23
Katie Ingram email to Nick Gerda re: 169 baby animals killed in
October 2015
(online in slideshare)

24. Dr. Saskia Boisot April 24, 2016 Page | 24
OCAC October 2015 Euthanasia Raw Data
This is a spreadsheet go here to get it
This is a slightly modified version of the original OCAC spreadsheet in
that there is some color coding.

25. Dr. Saskia Boisot April 24, 2016 Page | 25
Owner Surrender Form (on slideshare)

26. Dr. Saskia Boisot April 24, 2016 Page | 26
Owner Surrender vs. Owner Euthanasia Fee Schedule
(link to info on City of Santa Ana website)

27. Dr. Saskia Boisot April 24, 2016 Page | 27
Owner Surrender Comparisons (OCAC vs. other CA government
shelters)
spreadsheet is here
OCAC vs. Contra Costa County Animal Services (CCCAS): Both serve 18 cities. CCCAS has two
shelter locations, OCAC has one. CCCAS dog intake is about 2/3 that of OCAC (see the
spreadsheet). They are very similar in many ways although the population of OC is 3 times as large
(yet dog intake at CCCAS is 2/3 that of OCAC not 1/3, so that is still quite comparable)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_locations_by_income
County[5]
Population[1]
Per capita
income[2]
Median household
income[3]
Median family
income[4]
ContraCosta 1,037,817 $38,141 $79,135 $93,437
Orange 2,989,948 $34,416 $75,762 85,009
Square miles: Contra Costa County 720 sq mi | Orange County 790 sq mi

28. Dr. Saskia Boisot April 24, 2016 Page | 28
Email Convo with Bartlett Staff about Jindo Puppy
Here is a video of the puppy when she was rescued.
(read from the bottom up)
From: "Yahoo (sboisot@yahoo.com)" <sboisot@yahoo.com>
Date: April 20, 2016 at 2:33:25 PM PDT
To: "Flink, Tanya" <Tanya.Flink@ocgov.com>
Cc: "Walters, Paul" <Paul.Walters@ocgov.com>
Subject: Re: A1446725
I'm absolutely stunned. They are going to kill an 8 month old puppy, rather than let a rescue do an
appropriate evaluation, so that they can do what should've been the shelter's job in the first place. Do
you think this is the mark of a shelter that cares about the animals? Can nothing else be done to stop
the course of things, given that it's clearly driven by egomania? I think this case underscores the
mentality we are deal in with here, and proves exactly why nothing is going to change at this place until
management is replaced...
On Apr 20, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Flink, Tanya <Tanya.Flink@ocgov.com> wrote:
Unfortunately, I was not able to change the situation. The shelter was not comfortable with
allowing an out of kennel assessment, and for obvious reasons, the rescue could not take the
dog without such an evaluation. This is an issue I am looking into, as I know it can be frustrating
to the rescues, and sad for all those involved when the case doesn’t work out.
From: Yahoo (sboisot@yahoo.com) [mailto:sboisot@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 1:08 PM
To: Flink, Tanya
Subject: Re: A1446725
Hi Tanya,
Is the Jindo puppy going to have an eval and videotape session in the play yard with
Jessica?
On Apr 20, 2016, at 8:49 AM, Flink, Tanya <Tanya.Flink@ocgov.com> wrote:
Sorry for the second email, but do you have Jessica’s contact information?
From: Flink, Tanya
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 8:48 AM
To: 'Yahoo (sboisot@yahoo.com)'
Cc: Walters, Paul
Subject: RE: A1446725
Just spoke with Tammy. She said if Jessica wants the dog she needs to contact her immediately.
Last Tammy heard from Jessica, she was going to pass the video on to other rescues.

29. Dr. Saskia Boisot April 24, 2016 Page | 29
From: Yahoo (sboisot@yahoo.com) [mailto:sboisot@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 6:33 PM
To: Flink, Tanya
Cc: Walters, Paul
Subject: Re: A1446725
Thank you Tanya. Jessica King is on standby to go film...
On Apr 19, 2016, at 6:09 PM, Flink, Tanya <Tanya.Flink@ocgov.com> wrote:
I put in a request to hold to see if they would allow the rescue to assess the dog with the new
behaviorist.
From: saskia boisot [mailto:sboisot@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 5:57 PM
To: Walters, Paul; Flink, Tanya
Subject: Re: A1446725
They can't make the commitment without evaluating the dog appropriately
first...it's the same circular thing as before...they will not send an email out until
they see the dog outside the kennel...
On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 5:54 PM, "Walters, Paul" <Paul.Walters@ocgov.com> wrote:
Let’s make sure to make that commitment to Tammy
From: saskia boisot [mailto:sboisot@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 5:51 PM
To: Flink, Tanya; Walters, Paul
Subject: Re: A1446725
The rescue is willing to make the commitment IF they can have one of their
volunteers take the dog OUT of the kennel and into a play area to video her in a
more natural environment, and not confined in a kennel, and filmed by a staff
member, since that is not a credible source. They are actually going to kill an 8
month old PUPPY when a rescue is waiting in the wings to take her. Don't you
think this is beyond ludicrous, never mind illustrating a complete disregard for
animal life? I think something needs to be done over-and-above just asking for
Tammy's opinion...
On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 4:40 PM, "Flink, Tanya" <Tanya.Flink@ocgov.com> wrote:
Saskia,
Tammy got back to me. Per Jessica King’s request, she took a video of the dog and sent
it to her. Tammy said Jessica was satisfied with the video, and she reiterated that the
dog needs a commitment by 8:30am tomorrow morning. Jessica has not since
responded.

30. Dr. Saskia Boisot April 24, 2016 Page | 30
From: saskia boisot [mailto:sboisot@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 3:38 PM
To: Flink, Tanya; Walters, Paul
Subject: Re: A1446725
Thanks Tanya...I am actually still quite concerned about him, because even if he
does have a liver shunt, if he's just had surgery that should always be at the top
of the differential, regardless of whatever else is going on. Quite honestly with
the deterioration he's shown, he should be staying in the hospital, and not in a
kennel at the shelter, and it doesn't necessarily assuage my anxiety to know that
kennel staff or vet techs are the ones evaluating his progress, since I think this
requires a higher level of education and medical understanding...
One a separate note, I have also been told that there is a similar issue going on
right now as we had with Bowie...The dog in question (A1451104) is an 8 month
old female Jindo mix puppy who is in the back quarantine area for so-called
"aggressive behavior", but no bite history, and is reportedly scheduled to be killed
tomorrow. Two dog farms, a partnered 501c3 rescue, wanted to take her, but
requires a video out of the kennel in order to do this, and Tammy is refusing to
oblige. I have included her email exchange below, but yet again, the shelter is
putting up a barrier to saving this dog's life, so I was wondering if there was
anything you might be able to do on your end, since she is considered urgent,
and in this case there actually is a rescue willing to take her. Obviously I don't
need to tell you how I feel about the ridiculousness of the situation, given that this
is an eight month old puppy we're talking about. And note that Tammy can't
even get the dog's gender right...
Thanks
Saskia
On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 2:38 PM, "Flink, Tanya" <Tanya.Flink@ocgov.com> wrote:
Hi Saskia,
Paul followed up with OCAC this morning, and I saw you received a response from
Tammy Osborn as well. Katie Ingram is also working on compiling the medical history,
which we have been told is quite complex. He is a part of the medical pets program, and
I know the shelter is invested to ensure he is provided the best care possible. The liver
biopsy is being reviewed today. Let’s hope for some good news.
Best,
Tanya Flink
Office Manager/Scheduler
Office of Chairwoman Lisa Bartlett
Orange County Supervisor, 5th
District
333 W. Santa Ana Blvd, 5th
floor
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Office: (714) 834-3550

31. Dr. Saskia Boisot April 24, 2016 Page | 31
From: saskia boisot [mailto:sboisot@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 9:28 AM
To: Flink, Tanya
Subject: A1446725
Hi Tanya,
It has been brought to my attention that this dog, Petey, in kennel 189, a one
year old pitbull mix (who I don't think is one) is doing very poorly days after
surgery, and I'm concerned he will be found dead in his kennel if no one
intervenes soon; so I am reaching out in the hopes that you can contact the
appropriate person at the shelter and make sure he is seen by a vet
ASAP. Petey had intestinal surgery recently for an obstruction after eating
something he shouldn't have, and a video was posted of him soon after surgery
running around the play yard and doing well. This morning there is a video of
him in his kennel taken yesterday where he is disoriented and falling in his water
bowl, and I'm worried he may have a perforated viscus with early onset sepsis. If
that is the case, he will require attention immediately. I am emailing the shelter
staff as well, but thought you might be able to expedite things.
Thanks
Saskia