Tuesday, March 27, 2012


More scare tactics being used by the activists to make euthanasia go up at Devore. The things they are willing to do, the animals they are willing to sacrifice for their agenda are so immoral.

Facebook pages are reporting outbreaks of parvo at the shelter. Not only does this push the public away, but it keeps rescues from pulling from Devore, a double whammy.

ATTENTION: Friends of Devore Shelter Dogs reports their FIFTH (5!!!) case of parvo in less than 2 weeks. If you have adopted or rescued from Devore recently, please consider isolating animal and making sure they are clear. We just want everyone to have a heads-up that things seems to be worse than usual....

AND ONCE AGAIN, IT AIN'T TRUE!! There is no outbreak of parvo, just the usual run of the mill.

According to Devore:

We had one dog what went to Petfair diagnosed and another that tested positive today in the kennel.

We have had 2 pups brought in over the counter within the last couple of weeks that have tested positive, but they were tested upon intake and were not placed in the kennel with other animals.

Dogs that develop the disease show symptoms of the illness within 3 to 10 days.Untreated cases of CPV2 have a mortality rate approaching 91%. With aggressive therapy, survival rates may approach 80-95%. Parvo is a disease that is hard to prevent in shelters since dogs can be brought in without any symptoms.


  1. But my question is when has the truth ever come into consideration for these activists.

    If an activits said there was snow falling at Devore in the middle of summer, everyone else must be lying because the activists said it was so....

    Don't bother them with the facts, their minds are already made up.

    Must be nice to live in fantasyland.

  2. What is with these people? First they run the public off, now they are trying to run the rescues off, what is their agenda?

  3. If they run off the public,they can say it's the shelters fault. Then they can claim if they ran the shelter, all would be wonderful. They did the same thing in Rancho Cucamonga. Except, even after following their guru Nathan, and with spending millions of tax dollars, they still cannot say they are NO KILL. If you want to see animals suffering (some physical, most mentally) just take a walk thru the RC animal shelter.

  4. Ah yes, Rancho, the shelter Nathan Winograd prefers to forget. I agree, I can't go into the Rancho shelter any more, it makes me sick. Stack 'em, crate 'em, turn 'em away is now the motto of Rancho. Now just think, for all those millions of tax dollars spent on chasing "No Kill", Rancho could have spay/neutered every animal in the city and then could close the shelter. Instead their intake is not any better than it was before the hostile take over.

    And it is a scheme by these activists to take Devore over. Why else would they be so adamant about driving the public, and now rescues, away? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that bad publicity kills animals in the shelters. These activists are more guilty than Devore for the deaths in the shelter because they have a choice not to kill and they choose instead to harm the animals.

  5. I'll put a different spin on it. Follow the money. I listened to Christine Haslet on a radio show say that Devore makes the County millions of dollars a years, because of the contracts it has. She is just looking for a piece of the pie (or the whole pie if you have ever seen her). She quoted the date and agenda items the Board of Supervisors used to approve those contracts.

    Here's the problem, while Devore does contract with the City of Yucaipa, the City of Highland, and the City of Rialto for sheltering animals picked up in those areas and does collect money for that service, they also contract with Dogs Days Inn, the Barstow Humane Society, the City of 29Palms, the City of Yucca Valley, and the Inland Valley Humane Society to house animals on behalf of Devore for those areas in which those other shelters are located (in other words Devore pays for the services being provided).

    Christine touts herself as a small business person (taking photos), but if she can't read a contract and determine if it is an asset or liability, all I can say is I hope she takes good pictures.

  6. We went through that about how she can't tell an asset from a liability. And she has a business?????


Remember no accusations without proof. Rant if you will, it won't be published.