In a recent interview, Brenda Barnette estimated that of the roughly 20,000 dogs killed by LA City in 2011, that around 8,400 of them were “irreparably suffering.”

Last year, in Los Angeles we put approximately 20,000 (out of approximately 56,000) pet animals to death. By most standards, at least 10 – 15 percent of the 20,000 was irreparably suffering (8,400) and could not be saved. So, do the math: 20,000 did not make it out alive and 8,400 were suffering and could not be saved, leaving 11,600 who were unnecessarily put to death for the reason of no space available.

I’m only making this post because I find that estimation to be not only false, but incredibly misleading.

First of all, 15% of 56,000 is 8,400.
15% of 20,000 is 3,000.
56,000 is the total intake amount that she cites, while 20,000 of them were killed.
So when she implies that 15% of those killed (20,000) is 8,400 animals, and that those 8,400 animals were “irreparably suffering,” well, that’s just not true, and for 2 different reasons.
She then subtracts the 8,400 from the 20,000 killed, which gives her the figure (11,600) that represents those “unnecessarily put to death.”
The real way to get to that figure is to subtract 3,000 from 20,000. That will show that around 17,000 animals were killed for space.
Instead, she’s trying to imply that they had to kill almost half of their animals because they were “irreparably suffering.” That claim is absolutely bogus, and here’s why…
1) Let’s assume the 8,400 number is correct. There is no way in hell that that many animals were suffering so bad that they had to be legitimately “put out of their misery.”
2) Many of the rescued dogs ARE the worst medical cases, the ones in the most dire of straits, yet she dumps that whole section into the “eventually killed” column without accounting for the percentage that actually made it out alive.
3) She uses the high end of her estimation (15%) and pulls a completely inaccurate total out of her kill total, leading many people to view the scope of the shelter problem (the current reality) in a much more promising light.

So while I most definitely applaud her actual point–the statement about the term “pet overpopulation” being inaccurate–she knowingly (or unknowingly) fudged the numbers, which drastically lowered the total figure of animals that she claimed were “killed for space.” This is not an honest conversation, nor does it thoroughly portray reality.

LA City is still killing LOTS of dogs for space, just as LA County continues to do (at an even quicker and larger rate). The first dogs being killed, and the most dogs being killed, are Pit Bulls. They are not “irreparably suffering,” they are just killed. Please don’t try and curtain that reality. Please don’t try and dress it up. That’s my only angle. Those continuing to be killed (of all breeds) are by and large healthy and mentally sound, loving animals.