Thursday, May 31, 2012

ACTIVISTS CHANGING THEIR STORY INTO ANOTHER LIE

I think we have all heard the outrageous lie by the activists of the frostbite at Devore. Well, they were challenged to present proof of this frostbite and they have yet to answer that challenged.


Now they are claiming it was a chemical burn. Wait a minute here. Did no one take this dog to the vet? Were there no tests run to determine the prognosis of either frostbite or chemical burns? What's the deal here?
Lori Wagner

I'm not sure who started this page but the pic you've depicted is more than likely not of frostbite injuries but of 'chemical burns.' It's ONE of the things management at Devore can deny because the frostbite apparently NEVER happened - however, the CHEMICAL BURNS, did occur and several dogs were severely injured from it. Unfortunately, those in rescue who took some of the chemically burned dogs/pups did not and will not come forward. THIS is the key reason that Devore continues to go on with their cruel practices and get away with them. THOSE who have witnessed incidents and have proof - real 'legal' evidence - need to come forward for change to happen at Devore. Otherwise, Devore management just chalks it up to more hysteria by the 'humane-iacs' - their word, not mine.

Now I ask you, why aren't these rescuers coming forward? Why are the activists begging them to give some evidence? Could it be that the activists have absolutely no evidence to back up their accusations? Note the writer refers to "real "legal" evidence. What does that say? It says they have no evidence, just their unfounded accusations that are pushing the public away and causing more animals to die. Then again, that is their true motive for doing all this, make more die so they can yell and scream "No Kill". Hidden agendas abound with these activists. 

17 comments:

  1. This is what I heard from the rescue community. That the rescuer who took this dog with the supposedly frostbite also had another dog in the household with parvo. According to what I hear, the rescuer used bleach because that is something you use with parvo and the rescuer actually caused the chemical burns. I do know that the solution used by Devore for parvo does not cause burns. So in my mind, the rescuer caused these "chemical" burns and then tries to blame it on Devore. That is why there is no vet report, she didn't take it to the vet because she would be in trouble.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is certainly eye opening. And it makes a lot more sense than Devore doing something to the dog. After all, the public is in and out of there all day, to harm a pet there so the public can see is not what people do.

      And bleach would certainly look like the picture. I know frostbite when I see it, it is black. That picture I saw was not frostbite and I thought at the time that it looked more like a chemical burn.

      Delete
  2. I Support DevoreMay 31, 2012 at 12:11 PM

    OMG!!! I heard the same thing about the rescuer burning the dog!! So must be something to that. It stands to reason because I know too that Devore doesn't use chemicals that can harm animals. I get recommendations from them for what they use. The bleach would be the answer, this rescuer used bleach for parvo, that's not unusual. And it burned that little dog. OMG!! Plus the way I read it too, it appears that they didn't seek medical help on it either or they would know whether it is frostbite or a chemical burn. They wouldn't be online asking what they are asking if the dog had been seen by a vet. So this just adds more cruelty onto cruelty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Okay, now there's two with the same story. I will do my best to check out this information. It appears to me that this rescuer should have neglect charges filed against her because it is obvious that she didn't seek medical help or there would be a vet report, right? Nothing has been offered as far as proof of the accusation of frostbite. Let's see what we can dig up as far as a chemical burn. I think I will show the picture to my vet tomorrow.

      Delete
  3. I remember when this was first reported years ago. I remember the rescue group that had the dog kept saying they had the 'evidence' but would only release it 'when the time was right'.
    Well, I guess the time still isn't 'right', as I have yet to see any evidence. I have seen lots of uninformed people posting all over facebook and other social media sites saying it must be true because it was posted on the web. OK, using that logic, here you go. Cows and pigs can fly, a dog will never bite another person, world hunger doesn't exist, and Pamela Anderson got a perfect score on her SAT and her chest is all natural. There, it all must be true as it has been posted on the web.

    Bottom line, without proof, it is all just one persons opinion, being spread and retold by others on the web. Just a modern day game of telephone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At a recent Board meeting, one activist said she had the proof but didn't have enough time to present it. Believe me if she had it, she would have presented it, time limit or not.

      Delete
  4. What I'm not understanding is - these NKers are libeling the shelter left and right including defamation - why is the shelter not filing something to hold them accountable?

    Remember - the city council in New Jersey took the NKers to court for this exact same thing.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/37261015/LHS-Harassment-Complaint-1

    ReplyDelete
  5. Liberty Humane is a private corporation/non profit. That's why the difference. The only reason these NK'ers are doing this to Devore and others is because they think no one can come after them legally. But they are forgetting the Animal Terrorism Act and it is not just for labs, etc., it also includes "No Kill". I know for a fact that the FBI has names and is watching certain people involved in this Devore fiasco. If anything happens, these folks will have a knock on their door. I have no sympathy for them, they have made their hateful bed and soon they will have to lie in it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sad thing but you can compare the NKers' agenda - and how the media/public are ignoring it (i.e. ignorant) with the current political (national) administration - it's the same scenario it seems.

    People are either just following blindly behind thinking it's a good thing - or they just don't care who/what they follow.

    Signs o' the times I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It wasn't Liberty Humane who took them to court - it was the city council members - which is a govt. office. The NKers started verbally threatening/defaming the city's council members.

    I would imagine Devore can do the same thing - just has to be approved by the county or city atty. But someone would need to file an official complaint or police report first - documenting the charges.

    If nothing else - anyone who is threatened can file for a protective restraining order - at the very least.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I must have missed something. Do you have a link to that? I thought it was Liberty Humane in question. And yes, I will be happy to pass along this thought to the appropriate people.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Liberty HS was also included on bringing the lawsuit - but the shelter had a contract with the City for animal control services. This link explains, at the beginning of the document, who is who regarding plaintiff vs defendent. There were volunteers, employees and board members who brought the lawsuit - so it may be my bad, and didn't include the City - but you can read the actual court transcript and see for yourself.

    http://nokillexposed.wordpress.com/consequences/

    ReplyDelete
  10. A threat is a threat - doesn't matter if a person is employed with a non profit or with county/city govt.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anon:38, I have asked powers that be to give me an explanation as to why they can't go after these people. I know in LA, bodyguards were assigned to certain people surrounding animal control at one point. I don't know the answer specifically so I will wait until I get an answer for you. Good question BTW.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This came from an attorney friend of mine.

    Governmental agencies can file a lawsuit if there is just cause and we can prove harm has been done to the County or the County was denied funds or money owed to the County. I think your question here is, “Why can’t a Governmental Agency file a lawsuit for slander or harassment?” Slander is very hard to prove and you must demonstrate that through the slanderous acts the Governmental Agency has been harmed or damaged or has lost revenue as a result of the slander or harassment. It is easier for a non-profit organization to “prove” they have been harmed by slanderous statements, such as demonstrating donations were lost, or are significantly down from the previous year, as a result of the slander or harassment. When people call Politicians bad names or accusations what recourse does the Politian have to hold the accuser accountable? The same applies to public officials, such as the head of animal control or the manager/staff of Devore, when someone calls them bad names, at the end of the day, they still have their jobs and pay. How are they harmed? However, it might be a different case if they were fired or lost their jobs, then they probably would have recourse to sue the activists.
    How has the County been harmed? What money has the County lost? It is just much harder to prove that a Government Agency has been harmed from the rhetoric spread by “animal activists.”

    On another note, most Juries are not sympathetic to Governmental Agencies and their employees. It is almost common place for the general public to have a negative perception regarding the role of Governmental workers. You have to be able to convince a Jury that a highly paid Government Employee has been harmed by the negative statements made on the internet or elsewhere. This is one of the reasons why most Governmental Agencies will not sue for slander. You have to be able to prove to the tax-payer, who is paying for the litigation, that you have been harmed and they have been harmed.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I still say just because a person is a govt. employee doesn't mean they lose their civil rights as an individual taxpayer and human being who has been verbally threatened.

    I worked for a govt Ag agency and had a licensee put her hands on me in an aggressive manner - Ag wouldn't lift a finger to do a thing to that licensee - so I went to that county's Sheriff's Dept. and filed an incident report just in case I decided to take it further.

    While a govt employee probably can't file representing the county or city they work for, they certainly can file as an individual who has been threatened - regardless of their employer. They don't even have to mention who they work for - unless the clerk of court asks them.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You could do something as an individual but it comes from your pocket. And you had someone put their hands on you, that is different than people just bad mouthing you. I think you may see legal happenings because of these activists all over the country before long. They are costing taxpayers and they are promoting suffering more than anything else. Someone will file a lawsuit against them and it will bring their whole of a movement down. Just won't happen soon enough.

    ReplyDelete

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