Saskia Boisot Letter to California Vet Medical Association July 10 2016 BELOW IS THE FIRST FEW PARAGRAPHS To: Mr. Louis Massi Veterinary Medical Board 1747 N. Market Blvd, Suite 230, Sacramento, CA 95834 phone: 916-515-5220 | email: vmb@dca.ca.gov From: Saskia Boisot, MD Founder, No Kill Shelter Alliance cell: 619 895-0599 | email: sboisot@yahoo.com (Note: because Slideshare – where this letter is posted for public consumption – does not enable links until page 4, all text with links are repeated on page 4.) Dear Mr Massi, I am writing to find out the status of my prior complaint #NV 2016 220 that I lodged last October against Dr. Jennifer Hawkins at Orange County Animal Shelter. • My original complaint #NV 2016 220 dated (around September 2015) • Your response to my complaint #NV 2016 220 (dated 10/2/2015) Given that it has now been 9 months, coupled with the wealth of supporting information I submitted along with my complaint at the time, I can only hope that the substantial time lapse since my submission means that it is being given appropriate and full consideration. Since the time the complaint was generated, my group has been doing a considerable amount of research on OCAC through numerous public records requests, whereupon a significant amount of additional disturbing information has come to light, much of which pertains not only to how they are inappropriately labeling dogs as aggressive in order to justify killing them, but also with respect to their handling of medical dogs.

1. pg. 1
To:
Mr. Louis Massi
Veterinary Medical Board
1747 N. Market Blvd, Suite 230, Sacramento, CA 95834
phone: 916-515-5220 | email: vmb@dca.ca.gov
From:
Saskia Boisot, MD
Founder, No Kill Shelter Alliance
6463 Paseo Delicias, #1833, Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92607
cell: 619 895-0599 | email: sboisot@yahoo.com
(Note: because Slideshare – where this letter is posted for public consumption – does not enable
links until page 4, all text with links are repeated on page 4.)
Dear Mr Massi,
I am writing to find out the status of my prior complaint #NV 2016 220 that I lodged last
October against Dr. Jennifer Hawkins at Orange County Animal Shelter.
 My original complaint #NV 2016 220 dated (around September 2015)
 Your response to my complaint #NV 2016 220 (dated 10/2/2015)
Given that it has now been 9 months, coupled with the wealth of supporting information I
submitted along with my complaint at the time, I can only hope that the substantial time lapse
since my submission means that it is being given appropriate and full consideration. Since the
time the complaint was generated, my group has been doing a considerable amount of research
on OCAC through numerous public records requests, whereupon a significant amount of
additional disturbing information has come to light, much of which pertains not only to how they
are inappropriately labeling dogs as aggressive in order to justify killing them, but also with
respect to their handling of medical dogs.
Whilst I am aware that overall regulation of California animal shelters does not necessarily fall
under the purview of either the American Veterinary Medical Association or the California
Veterinary Medical Board, it certainly seems that oversight for the medical management of
animals under their care should meet the criteria for this. I would therefore like to draw your
attention to one particular aspect of operations at this facility, namely that of delegating the
responsibility of determining whether an animal is considered to legitimately fall under the
category of so-called “irremediable suffering” to registered veterinary technicians. We have
systematically put in public records requests for all owner-surrendered dogs killed under the
auspices of this designation between October 2015 and now, and have found that a vast majority
of these assessments are being made by RVTs (Registered Veterinary Technicians), and not by
veterinarians. Additionally, we have had our data analyst (who also happens to be a
veterinarian) do an in-depth evaluation of the euthanasia data, and she has calculated the median
time to death for animals in the so-called “owner-surrender” category to be only 60 minutes, with
many being killed within only a matter of minutes upon relinquishment.

2. pg. 2
This above paragraph raises two important issues; firstly, how is it possible for a full medical
evaluation and review of any supporting documentation to be adequately performed in such a
short time-frame, especially given that this will seal an animal’s ultimate fate? Secondly, I am
perplexed as to how it is acceptable that such a task be delegated to a low-level employee such as
an RVT, someone who has only 18 months of education beyond high school, when clearly this
represents a form of diagnosis? If a dog is brought in by an owner who claims that his or her dog
is suffering just because they say so, doesn’t this warrant a more substantial assessment than an
RVT merely walking over, prodding the dog for a minute, and agreeing with the owner? Surely
the AVMA and California Board of Veterinary Medicine must recognize that a certain degree of
diagnostic acumen is required to ascertain an animal’s prognosis, and in reviewing the job
description of allowable versus non-allowable duties that can be carried out by an RVT, medical
diagnostics clearly and specifically falls into the latter category. I don’t know if this is an
accepted practice at all California shelters, but if it is, then it certainly seems to devalue the
veterinary profession as a whole, and raises the question of why an RVT would not simply be
able to set up their own independent practice within the community.
Obviously we recognize that there are many instances where an animal truly is suffering, and
humane euthanasia is entirely appropriate, and sometimes in cases of massive traumatic injury
this may even have to be executed expediently; but when you have a shelter that lacks
transparency, and whose mission appears to be more about protecting the status quo of its
operations rather than the interests of its resident animals, heavy scrutiny and questioning are of
paramount importance.
Furthermore, it is noteworthy that, in comparison to a number of other shelters of similar intake
size, this shelter has an inordinately high number of so-called “owner requested euthanasias”
(OREs), and nowhere on the form signed by these owners is it clearly delineated that the owner’s
intended purpose of surrender is for euthanasia. Therefore it is entirely possible that these
owners think they are handing over their animal to the shelter thinking there is a small but real
possibility of him/her having a chance at survival through adoption, while in fact the shelter is
making the decision to kill. Even more nefarious though is the fact that the cost incurred to
relinquish one’s animal for “euthanasia” is only $41, compared to $110 for the shelter to take the
animal in and make it available for adoption. Needless to say that in a place where a substantial
demographic is economically challenged, the financial motivation to kill cannot be ignored.
When shelter performance measures are largely based on ASILOMAR calculations of live-
release rates where animals killed under the “owner requested euthanasia” category can be
subtracted out, this clearly illustrates how data manipulation can falsely elevate the live-release
rate, and therefore give that shelter a significantly more favorable rating.
You may well ask what makes this shelter particularly egregious, when there are many other
high kill shelters in the vicinity who seemingly fare no better. OCAC continually nurses up to
200 empty kennels at any given time, yet kills on a daily basis regardless, and we have been
documenting this week after week. In our view, this alone exemplifies their absolute disregard
for animal life, and highlights their complete lack of commitment to saving lives, a sentiment we
feel should represent the cornerstone of modern animal sheltering.

3. pg. 3
In support of the allegations I have made above, I am enclosing some of the records from dogs
killed between October 2015 and early 2016, as examples (there are many more), so that you can
see for yourself what I am talking about, as well the list of acceptable and unacceptable duties
that can be performed by an RVT, according to the California Code of Regulations Veterinary
Medicine Practice Act (2036).
One record is for a dog (Jade) that was brought in with a vet note stating that the dog should not
receive any rabies vaccination because of autoimmune hemolytic anemia, yet the shelter
conveniently misconstrued this note as appropriate documentation of “irremediable suffering”,
and the dog was summarily killed. As a human physician myself who specializes in blood
disorders, I know very well that autoimmune hemolytic anemia represents a treatable disease,
and even if the owner did not want to pay to treat the dog’s condition, the Hayden Act militates
that this dog should have been made available to rescues and given a chance at survival.
Another record pertains to two dogs (Shelby and Brewzer) brought in by the same owner, one 7
years of age, the other 8; the statistical likelihood of two dogs owned by the same person and at
such a relatively young age having the misfortune of meeting the criteria for “irremediable
suffering” at exactly the same time is practically zero, and therefore the only conclusion that can
be drawn in this case is that the shelter obliged in convenience killing, again violating the
Hayden Act, which would have afforded at least one of them a chance at survival through rescue.
I am also including three additional records (Chanel, Duke, Annie) that show RVTs as the sole
evaluators for dogs surrendered for supposed irremediable suffering, but we have many more of
these should you need further proof.
I am also including two records from dogs (Mack and Spanky) that were killed for alleged
aggression, simply to demonstrate the complete absence of appropriate documentation. Mack,
was owned by an OCAC staff member who clearly just wanted to get rid of him, and according
to the record, even tried dumping him in a local park the day before he was surrendered to be
killed; Mack was killed within 30 minutes of surrender, and clearly in the absence of any
documentation. Sparky was brought in with a hand-written note by his owner describing
purported aggression, but no supporting evidence for this contention; Sparky was killed within
103 minutes of relinquishment.
I sincerely hope that at this time you will ensure that my complaint is given a higher priority than
previously, as many animals continue to die needlessly and inappropriately at the hands of
shelter management.
Many thanks in advance for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Saskia Boisot, MD
Reference Links repeated on next page

4. pg. 4
Reference Links repeated
 My original complaint #NV 2016 220 dated (around September 2015)
 Your response to my complaint #NV 2016 220 (dated 10/2/2015)
 list of acceptable and unacceptable duties that can be performed by an RVT, according
to the California Code of Regulations Veterinary Medicine Practice Act (2036).
 Jade
 Shelby and Brewzer
 Chanel, Duke, Annie
 Mack and Spanky