Thursday, April 26, 2012


Pit bulls are a problem, a big problem. They are mauling and killing in numbers unlike any breeds, or combination of breeds, ever. Although the pit community swears it is irresponsible owners that cause the problems, one has to ask the question, "What were pits bred to do?" And the answer is - to kill. If breeding, bloodlines, genetics don't come into play, then we would see mules running in the Kentucky Derby. 

Victims are often left with no recourse if a pit owner is a renter with no insurance. It has left families in financial ruin. And do we ever see the pit community stepping forward to do fund raisers for these victims? Never. They do the fund raisers for the pits who have committed these crimes instead.

For the first time, a state's highest court has ruled that a landlord can be held liable for damages caused by their tenant's pit bull, regardless of whether the pit bull had a known prior history of attacks or aggressive behaviors. With this landmark decision from the Maryland Court of Appeals, attorneys can now legitimately pursue similar lawsuits against landlords in other states urging their states to adopt the reasoning in the Maryland decision. 

This will mean more pits in our shelters, more chances to have staff harmed, more chances for the public to be harmed visiting the shelters. But it will also mean, hopefully, a reduction in the attacks. Pits and pit types are responsible for 2/3rds of the DBRFs, dog bite related fatalities. Everyday beloved pets are mauled and killed by pit bulls. Whether owned by responsible or irresponsible people, pits are still dangerous and need to be highly regulated. 


Please visit www.DogsBite.ORG and see all the damages being done to families by these mutant dogs. I say mutant because normal canine behavior has been bred out of pit bulls. Normal canine behavior doesn't work in a fighting ring. I personally like pits but I also don't trust any of them. It's a shame man has seen fit to mutate a dog in such a fashion but it has been done and now we have to deal with it. Thanks to Kory Nelson, the Denver attorney responsible for the highly successful ban on pits in Denver, for sending this.


I found this on the No Kill Southern CA facebook page this morning. You think that these people actually care about the shelter animals, this says no they don't. Considering that most shelters are almost always, if not always, in need of additional funding, how does this particular fool think the shelters can install all those programs that the activists want if those same activists are calling for stopping the money for those programs. Can you see that these activists don't want to help the shelter animals or they would be asking you to donate to the shelters? Recently for the $100,000 challenge, I found one listing about it on the activist's pages. They could have made a difference for Devore if all the friends listed on their pages had voted. But they don't want Devore to win, they don't want the additional money that can only help the shelter animals. They don't want Devore to be successful and save lives. It is not a part of their hidden agenda to take over Devore for their own vices.

Is there no end to their hatefulness of the shelter animals? They make unfounded accusations that push the public away from shelters and that hurts and kills the shelter animals. They ask that you don't donate to shelters that are forced to euthanize because of pet overpopulation because they don't believe there is a pet overpopulation. Hey, activists, your hatred for the shelter animals is showing loud and clear.

Do you donate to shelters that kill animals? Yes, the animals need your help, but there is a simple way your donation can help them even more! Add a note to every donation that you would prefer to donate to a shelter that is innovative enough to get their live release rate up to over 90%. You are supporting them. They will listen. :-) NO KILL! NO KILL! NO KILL! ~ Together we CAN!

Graphics to share.

Monday, April 23, 2012


Animal activist’s blogs established to spread lies and defame Devore animal shelter and San Bernardino County staff stated last week,

We just received a report from a records requests from County Counsel. It is public record that 130 dogs just flat disappeared from Devore Shelter last year! Vanished into thin air. Odd, because they seem to have the security of Fort Knox: security cameras and barbed wire around the shelter walls. That's a dog missing every few days, ALL YEAR LONG. Additionally, it was reported that 140 dogs died in their cages, again, this seems to be common, almost 3 times a week. Yet there is a vet being paid 120K a year. Can we look into this, Neil Derry? If the family dog goes missing and they look at the shelter.... and Devore staff and management can't explain where the dog went? This is VERY concerning, it's sloppy and unacceptable. Isn't it their job to keep track of the animals they pick up? This is a HUGE number of missing animals.”

We need to set the record straight. A total of thirteen (13) DOGS were found missing from their cages last year, escaped or were stolen. A total of sixty-three (63) puppies and/or dogs died last year, with a majority of those being under age puppies that did not survive. The above statement leads people to believe that hundreds of dogs were stolen or died, which is a lie. The numbers reflected in the activist’s statements are not accurate and we challenge them to produce any document that reflects this number of DOGS that died or were found missing.

The majority of animals that were reported missing were scared and frightened cats and kittens, which was 111. Has anyone ever seen a feral cat escape and scale an 8’ high fence in a heart-beat. The activists would have you believe that is “very concerning.” The same situation occurs at animal shelters that accept every animal delivered to their facility throughout the State of California. In fact, in 2010 shelters in California reported that 4,674 dogs and cats escaped or were stolen from shelters throughout the State. Also, in 2010, 10,002 dogs and cats died of other causes, other than euthanasia, while being housed at shelters throughout the state. The statistics mentioned here can be found on the California State Department of Public Health’s website at:

This is just another example of how the activists are spreading lies and are attempting slander, harass and condemn the staff at the animal shelter. When people spread hurtful, slanderous rumors like these who is served? Maybe the activists can let us know what they hope to accomplish by lying and deceiving others? Then again, isn’t lying and deceit a part of the “No-Kill” movement.

Tuesday, April 17, 2012


San Bernardino County Ranked #8 in the ASPCA’s Rachael Ray 100K Challenge.

As an example of the tremendous support the County of San Bernardino received in the primary round of this national competition, the County’s animal shelters ranked 8th out of 103 animal shelters that elected to participate in this life saving effort. This will advance the County to the next round in the competition, where the County plans to place an additional 300 animals into new loving forever homes during a three (3) month period compared to the same time last year.

You have to wonder where the “No-Kill” activists were during this competition. Surely they would support the County in an effort to adopt additional animals and receive additional funds to offer spay/neuter incentives for pets adopted from the County’s animal shelters in Devore, Big Bear and Dogs Day Inn in Apple Valley? Nope. Not one of the activist’s Facebook Pages or websites encouraged people to vote for the County during the competition. In fact the County was criticized by one (1) of the activists for participating. It is mind-boggling to even attempt to understand the activist’s motives as to why they would not want to encourage and support the County in such a positive effort to save animal lives.

Even though the “activists” intend to spew their lies and criticism in a way that discourages people from adopting from the County’s animal shelters, the County is determined to continue to support and advance their efforts to promote responsible pet adoptions.

The best example that can be given as to the way in which the activists support “killing” is the manner in which they remain silent regarding the 74% euthanasia rate at San Bernardino City’s animal shelter. The City euthanized more than 6,000 additional animals in 2011 compared to the County’s three (3) animal shelters during the same time period (County euthanized 7,304 and the City euthanized 13,369 in 2011). The County participated in the challenge and ranked #8 in the nation, the City didn’t even attempt to participate. The County is planning a Mega Pet Adoption Event in June the City doesn’t participate in off-site adoption events.

Again, you have to question their motives. Why not support the County’s life-saving efforts and attempt to help the animals? Why not support such a positive program? Maybe someone could ask the activists and let us know.

Thursday, April 5, 2012


The Central California SPCA (CCSPCA) has served notice to the City and County of Fresno California that they will need to locate another animal control services provider by October 1 of this year. This will end a fifty year relationship between the non-profit CCSPCA and the City and County. The move comes after animal activists have threatened and tormented CCSPCA staff and Board members and criticized the organization’s 63% euthanasia rate. CCSPCA Executive Director Linda Van Kirk stated, “Our Board is comprised of local citizen volunteers who are dedicated to our society’s animal protection mission and who are not interested in public policy debates.” A newspaper article printed on March 28, 2012 can be viewed at the following link:

You need to note here, that San Bernardino County animal shelters in Devore, Big Bear Lake and Dog’s Day Inn facility in Apple Valley averaged a 45% euthanasia rate last year which is below the estimated national average of a 50% euthanasia rate for municipal shelters. The CCSPCA handled approximately 47,000 dogs and cats last year and now the City and County will have to determine who will provide services to this massive number of unwanted pets. The sad reality is the No-Kill activists could care less what happens to the 47,000 animals. The City and County will be forced to build a temporary animal shelter to house this large number of animals and hire government employees at a significantly greater rate of pay to perform the same services the CCSPCA provided for decades. We hope Fresno City and County officials have set aside tens of millions of dollars to build the new animal shelter facility, provide funding to establish the temporary facility, and increase the annual costs of operations for providing the same services previously offered by CCSPCA.

One of the main reasons why CCSPCA Board decided to cancel their existing contract was the No-Kill activists attempted to take over the organization’s Board meetings. The activists would keep the Board members in session for hours on end, until the late hours of the evening, and the Board was unable to function effectively. CCSPCA being a non-profit organization elected to close their Board meetings to the general public which enraged the activists. Now we have the situation in San Bernardino County in which the County is proposing an animal advisory commission. The No-Kill activists are supportive of the commission so they can use similar tactics to threaten and harass appointed Commissioners and County staff. We have to wonder if the Commission proposed by San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors will be any more effective than the Board of Directors was at CCSPCA?

It appears the tax-payers in the City and County of Fresno are getting ready to feel the financial impacts of the No-Kill activists. Hopefully they have set aside the resources to ensure success as they cater to the whims of the animal rights extremists. For some reason, we do not believe this is the case.

Wednesday, April 4, 2012


Years ago, I was at the Rancho shelter before the hostile takeover, when the County had the contract and an 86% return to owner/adoption rate for dogs. One of the ACOs came up to me, with tears in her eyes and said she had resigned.

I was shocked, this ACO loved her job. I had seen her in action many times and never saw her resort to using a catch pole. Animals seemed to trust her and would come up to her easily enough. I'm sure she did have to use that catch pole at times. One thing about catch poles, they can be tough to watch. Lately the tall tale about the ACO at Dogs Day Inn probably fell into that category. I don't watch when the catch pole is being used. I know it doesn't hurt but there are times when a dog looses it with the catch pole and that is hard for me to watch. So some inexperienced self proclaimed "rescuer" sees this and totally blows it out of proportion.

This ACO was a lovely woman with a family. She explained she had to leave animal control for the sake of her child. Seems he came home one day in tears, didn't want to go back to school. Another kid was saying that the ACO's son had a murderer for a mother, she murdered animals.

The child that tortured the ACO's child probably was the offspring of some of these activists. No child should have to be told something like that and no adult should allow their child to hear their rantings and ravings about the shelter. But this is just in the activists' grand scheme of things. Make life miserable for the "old" regime so they will leave. Then the activists think they will replace the old with their new. In LA City, the activists went into neighborhoods scaring children that lived around animal control officials. They would tell the children that the people who live in that house kill animals. Is this any way to win a battle? Yet the extreme animal rights "No Kill" people have already added this tactic to their arsenal. Whose neighborhood will be next?


The activists constantly are referring to the "success" stories of "No Kill". Are there any? No, not really. Of the 30 being reported, not exactly an overwhelming success story after all these years, none are actually open door. When you use a waiting list or evaluations, you are no longer open door which is to take any and all at presentation. You can see that these self proclaimed open door shelters are indeed not open door. takes these claims and shows that open door is just a claim, it is not true.

Here are some of those listed on No Kill News (link above). Baton Rouge is a good one since No Kill News was bragging about it only five days before it was being investigated for cruelty.

Thanks to for this list. The LA City fiasco is not listed. The current head of LA City animal control is a supreme follower of Nathan Winograd's NKE program. Under her euthanasia has risen, adoptions have fallen, and she has managed to give away a brand new shelter to a private rescue group whose base is a church that worships Satan.

The list needs to include San Francisco which Winograd claims as a bragging right too.

Sayreville, New Jersey – In danger of closing
Porter Co., Indiana – “…the troubled no kill shelter”
FORGOTTEN FELINES – no kill shelter for cats – CLOSED
Brooklyn, Ohio NO KILL SHELTER Closes
Raeford, North Carolina – State to put down no kill shelter for five years of failed inspections – 2009 animal count was 746 dogs and 592 cats
San Antonio, Tx No Kill Forced To Close - Evicted
Gilmer County No Kill Rescue Closing – Lack of Volunteers
Charlotte, North Carolina Cat Rescue – “Too many cats”
Colorado No Kill Shelter Served “Cease and Desist” Order -
Stephenville, Canada No Kill Shelter Forced To Close – “...suffering severe neglect”
Picqua, Ohio No Kill Shelter Condemned By City Health Officials
Kingman, Arizona No Kill Shelter In Front of Judge – 174 dogs along with 88 cats and 13 pigs.
Texas City, Texas No Kill Rescue - county authorities seize 187 cats and find 27 dead -
Lynchburg, Virginia No Kill Requests More Than Triple Budget Increase
Marion County< W. Virginia No Kill Shelter Faces Possible Shut Down
Boone County, W. Virginia No Kill Rescue – Abuse Investigation
Bloomingdale, Chicago No Kill Rescue – state officials claim “crowded and unsanitary” conditions
Jersey City, New Jersey No Kill Shelter – State threatened to shut down due to health problems
Jersey City, New Jersey No Kill Spca Shut Down For Health Violations
South Africa No Kill Shelter – Exposed for Conditions
Washougal, Washington No Kill Shelter On Verge of Shut Down
In 2008, the Humane Society of Tacoma and Pierce County, in Tacoma, Washington, backed away from its no-kill commitment, acknowledging the difficulties encountered in trying to keep animals alive. In announcing their decision, the shelter president stated “that because we are an open shelter that will accept every animal that comes to us, regardless of its medical or behavior problems, true ‘no-kill’ status will never be a reality.” The shelter has now switched from no-kill to “Counting Down to Zero”, a coordinated effort to reduce euthanasia.
Forgotten Felines, a Canadian no-kill shelter for cats in Delta, British Columbia, was closed following an October 2008 investigation by the BC Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals which found 51 cats suffering fromstarvation, dehydration, infection, and illness. Five cats died because of illness, 36 were adopted and the remainder were euthanized. The former director was charged with animal cruelty.
In 2009, the Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada provincial government and the town of Stephenville began negotiations to close their no-kill animal shelter, claiming that upwards of 100 dogs and cats with diseases or behavioral problems were suffering severe neglect. Media quoted the town’s mayor as stating that animals cannot be humanely stored indefinitely. The animals in the shelter will be evaluated by veterinarians but will most likely be euthanized.
A no-kill policy led to a dispute between the Toronto Humane Society and the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in 2009, with the OSPCA revoking the THS’ credentials for several months while it conducted an investigation. Several staff and officers with the THS were arrested, although all of the charges were eventually dropped.

Tuesday, April 3, 2012


I just received this comment and thought I would share it with you. Does anyone remember how the ADL-LA, who dearly love Nathan Winograd and "No Kill", smoke bombed high rise apartments in LA where the animal control director lived? Families lived there too, children. But these "No Kill" activists didn't care about others. And that the threats from the "No Kill" activists, demonstrations in neighborhoods with children watching, that one animal control director's wife had a heart attack from the stress and he resigned as a result.

This comment wants to know who the Administrator of this blog is so that the Administrator might subject him/herself to this kind of intimidation that is promoted by "No Kill". I do hope the Supervisors see from this why others can't speak up for Devore. This is being sent directly to the Supervisors as well so they can see the type of people that make up the Devore activists. Plus the comment came as anonymous, but accuses the Administrator of the blog? Why didn't this person announce who they are? This is terrorism and the Devore activists are the ones guilty of it.

I don't expect you to print this, because you moderate this so tightly you don't leave room for those with any common sense.

Anyone else find it really odd that the author of this "blog" doesn't have the courage of their convictions to even use their real name? Or identify themselves?

Much like terrorist who wear a mask, hides a bomb in their coat when they go into a building...the ultimate coward.

It's not hard to find your ISP, and we know what city you're in. It won't be long before you will be exposed for the piece of slime you are.

At least the people that you drone on about have the courage to use their real names and stand up to be counted for what they believe in.

If you're so sure of your opinions, your stories, your mindless dribble.... what are you afraid of? What are you hiding?

The funniest have been totally baited and fallen for so many things already, it's actually funny to see what you have fallen for. You know the show "punk'd"? We've been leading you around by your nose....and you're too stupid to realize it.

I know one thing, I am not in the least worried about you or your finding any ISP. You might be surprised if you try to do so. And it might mean legal problems if you do so. But I would be tickled if you did. Go for it, see what the outcome will be.


A look back in time here. As we all know, the Katrina disaster ended with a mandate to include pets in emergency planning. San Bernardino County Animal Control had an emergency plan for pets long before being told to have one and that plan was devised by the very people that are now being condemned.

During the fires of 2003, many people left home one morning not thinking the fire would affect their houses but it did, suddenly. Their pets were left and the owners weren't allowed in to get them. Who were the heroes that put themselves in danger to rescue these pets? The very people that are now being condemned as not caring about animals.

I remember that fire. I remember the organized effort of San Bernardino Animal Care and Control. I remember the adoption wagon, another story of how much Devore cares, was used to house evacuated pets on the north side of Fontana. The adoption wagon has been used many times since during fires and also is used in the 48 outside adoption events that Devore has during the year. The Cat Fanciers Association also recognized this great effort and awarded Animal Control with a check for $10,000. This was a major evacuation effort and it went according to plan, many lives were saved. This is the heart of San Bernardino Animal Control, not the one painted by the activists. San Bernardino cared enough to put in place a life saving program long before being told to do so and it is a result of the caring for the pets. The same people who have proven they care for the pets are the same people who are still around and I doubt seriously that they have changed their attitude from those days of the 2003 fires.

Monday, April 2, 2012


Imagine my response when I received a copy of the "No Kill"s Dollar and Sense Guide (NKDS Guide) on April Fools Day? The Guide states "The Economic Benefits of "No Kill" Animal Control, reduce costs, increase revenue, support community business. A community cannot afford NOT to embrace "No Kill".

In San Bernardino County, one municipal animal shelter elected to establish a “No-Kill” model of animal sheltering six years ago and as of today still has not achieve No-Kill status. Using this shelter as an example, when the County of San Bernardino provided animal control services to this community and operated the animal shelter on the City’s behalf, the total cost to the City was less than $400,000 (net city costs). The total cost today is over $2,000,000 (net city cost). This is five times the amount the City was paying the County of San Bernardino to provide the same state mandated services.

Using this facility as an example, they are now spending over $2,000,000 of tax-payer funds to pay for animal services that were previously provided at a cost of less than $400,000. This is an additional $1,600,000 per year. Multiple this amount by six years and you get a minimum additional cost $9,600,000. In some years the city spent even more than the additional $1,600,000. So let’s look at the first statement alleged in the NKDS Guide. Reduce Costs. In this case, we would question when the City will receive the return on their $9,600,000 investment and actually reduce cost below the $400,000 level the City was previously paying the County. For some reason, we do not believe this will happen in our lifetime.

On to the second statement, Increase Revenue? Revenue has been static in this jurisdiction since they have focused all of their attention on pet adoption. Dog licenses have actually decreased from over 14,000 dogs licensed when the County operated the shelter to just 8,767 licenses sold in 2011. Who needs additional revenue or license sales when the City is paying an addition $1,600,000 to provide the same service? Even with increased adoptions, the cost to provide those adoptions has increased as well which has resulted in significant additional cost to the tax-payers and stagnant revenue. You know that when you spay/neuter, vaccinate, and provide extensive services to cats that are Trapped/Neutered and Abandoned, there is no revenue generated from this activity only increased costs in operations. For canines, the same services are provided and then the dogs are released to rescue groups at absolutely no cost to the receiving rescue group. Just another tax-payer subsidized program that generates
absolutely no revenue.

Now for the third and final statement, Support Community Business. This may be accurate if you take all of the adopted pets to local veterinarians and give the veterinarians all of that additional tax-payer funded money that will subsidize giving the “free” tax-payer funded pets to the "No Kill rescue" groups so they can make money and profit from this program. This is a win-win for the veterinarians and "No Kill" rescue groups. Just keep doling out those tax-payer dollars so the private “No Kill rescuers” can make a killing off of the tax-payers backs. This is why the “activists” are so critical of any shelter that is not “No-Kill.” They may lose all of those tax-payer subsidized animals and lose the financial gain they can make by sensationalizing their appeals to donate now to save the next pet from the Killers!!! There is no stronger motivator than money. And that is all the “activists” care for is how much money they can make to continue their “Holier Than Thou” crusade.

Now ask yourself, can a community afford “No-Kill” and the additional costs of millions of dollars in this economy? In wealthier communities possibly, those who have not been hard hit by the recession. But in low income communities, like many of those served by San Bernardino County, the answer is no.

Here is another view of this April Fools Joke from the only State to fall for "No Kill". It is a miserable failure as it has been in so many other places.

One of the first things I noticed was the absence of Austin TX in the publication. Since Austin has been discussed in my various posts on this blog, and I addressed the sustainability issue at Working to Help Animals, there is no need to address that issue further. I guess the advocacy center did not want to explain away the fact that Austin's budget has been increasing over half a million every year.