Thursday, December 26, 2013


The Olympic Animal Sanctuary has a long and complicated story. We do know that some Devore dogs were pulled and sent to this "facility for dangerous dogs". The story is not finished either.

The question should be why the dogs were pulled from Devore and shipped to that 'facility' and the pullers just wiped their hands of these dogs evidently. Should these people be allowed to pull more, only to dump them elsewhere?

Here's a facebook page recounting the horrors of this 'facility'.

Are the ones who pulled and transported these dogs stepping up and taking them back? If so, what do they plan to do with them, they couldn't handle the dogs to begin with? Ask questions, lots of questions. What is happening on these transports to hell?

This page is for Sadie, a pit bull who was repeatedly attacked by numerous dogs and left without medical care by her owner, a supposed 'rescuer'. Sadie has been passed around like a "bag of chips". So states the facebook page that contains a police report which shows Sadie came from the LA area and was transported to this person who has been charged with animal cruelty.

This is madness, total and complete madness.


"There are only 74 No Kill shelters approved by the No Kill Equation. According to the ASPCA, there are 5,000 independent animal shelters overall, meaning only 1.4% of that total are NKE shelters. All 74 of these shelters were contacted and 49 of those have stated they are not following the No Kill Equation. There are 10 shelters who stated they are partially following the NKE. But 14 of all shelters have never heard of the No Kill Equation. Again one can ask, how does the NKE take credit?
Nathan Winograd takes credit for a generic list of techniques that have been used for a long time prior to his arrival on the scene. The reality is that only 135 No Kill communities out of 21,585 communities give the NKE credit for their success, according to the No Kill Equation 90% Club. That means that the NKE serves a total of less than 1% of the communities nationwide. Many of the shelters listed by the No Kill Equation don't use the NKE so it makes one wonder how NKE is taking so much of the credit? Nathan Winograd has stated on many occasions that the only way to become No Kill is via the No Kill Equation."

Thursday, November 21, 2013


Once again Devore shows the true colors of a caring shelter by offering 5,000 microchips to those pets leaving the shelter.

Members of the general public also contribute regularly to the nonprofit.
“There’s no mandate that says microchips need to be provided to all animals,” Cronin said Thursday. “If you adopt a pet, other shelters may charge a microchip fee - an additional $10 or $15 for each pet. We in San Bernardino County are using charitable contributions to buy chips so we don’t have to increase the fees for adoption and can provide the microchips at no additional charge to the person adopting a pet.”
The County is very fortunate to have a supportive non-profit, Animal aRe First Fund, ARFF, that can provide this service for Devore and Big Bear. 
Along with the microchip program, ARFF also provides free spay and neutering to animals at its off site adoption events, which are typically held every weekend. It can cut a standard pet adoption fee of roughly $95, which includes spay/neutering and license fees, in half, Cronin said.
ARFF also recently sponsored its Pets to Vets progam, an event that ran from Nov. 9-17 and offered free pet adoptions to military veterans in observance of Veterans Day, Cronin said.
This weekend, San Bernardino County Animal Care and Control will be in Rancho Mirage participating in a meg-adoption event with the nonprofit animal rescue group Loving All Animals, and will be waiving the spay and neutering fees to anyone who adopts a pet, Cronin said.

Thursday, October 3, 2013


Oh dear, Devore has done it again! Let another poor dog die!

Devore didn't do it, 'rescuers' did it. They are the ones to let this dog die and now they complain. On facebook a plea went out to save a pit bull named Cameron on September 20th. It was specifically directed to probably 50 other 'rescues'. As of today, October 3rd, there are 269 comments and 201 shares. That's a lot of people but not one stepped up to take this dog from Devore.

Here's the timeline for this deed:

Cameron came to the shelter on Sept. 20 as a stray.

Animal rescue networkers listed their name as a potential adopter of Cameron.

Cameron became available for anyone to adopt on Sept. 25th.

The 'potential adopter' listing for Cameron expired (AND THE PERSON NEVER CAME TO      ADOPT CAMERON.)

Time was extended for Cameron at the request of an animal rescue networker from Chicago on the 29th.

The same person from Chicago extended the hold time again on the 30th.

The same person from Chicago extended the hold time again on the Oct. 1st, for the third time.

Cameron was placed on the euthanasia list on Oct. 2nd because no one had honored their requests and come forward to take Cameron. All available space at the shelter was taken.

On that same day, Oct. 2nd, an animal rescue networker from Hawaii contacted Devore and Cameron was again extended until 3:00 that day. On that same day, a second networker of unknown location contacted Devore and was told Cameron had until 3:00 that day.

The shelter was notified that a person would be coming to adopt Cameron so the time was extended until the close of business at 7:00.

The private rescue person came to Devore, saw the temperament (animal aggression) of Cameron towards other shelter dogs and declined to adopt the dog based upon behavior.

On Oct. 3rd, Devore received a couple of emails about Cameron and time was granted until noon. With seeing the behavior of Cameron the previous day toward other dogs, Cameron was listed as "rescue only".

Prior to noon on the 3rd, the private rescuer puller was back at the shelter, left the shelter, came back and left again. Cameron was not adopted. This puller was also interested in adopting a mother with puppies but left those behind as well.

The truth is that the shelter was full, and Cameron was not adoptable to the public because of aggressiveness. The 'rescue' puller came to Devore multiple times over multiple days and had failed to adopt Cameron.

So once again, the comments are condemning Devore when it was their own people who failed the dog. When they do fail like this, they make up stories against Devore so people don't realize that the real fault lies with those condemning. Cameron died because they failed him, not Devore. Devore did all they could to help save this dog.

Thursday, September 26, 2013


Sad, disgraceful, but true. And this has a major effect on the animal shelters in the Inland Empire. 

"About one in four children in the Inland Empire are living in poverty, according to recent statistics, said Gregory Bradbard, CEO of Inland Empire United Way."

Who would adopt when they can't feed their children? If they have pets, they don't have the money to have them spay/neutered and more come into the world. They can't provide medical care and then abuse sets in. They dump, they abandon.

The City of San Bernardino is hit hardest. Do the activists care? Nope. They are filing a lawsuit against a City in bankruptcy, when programs for children are being cut, these activists expect animals to be treated better than children or the elderly.

"It’s seen in the numbers for the city of San Bernardino, which according to the Census Bureau’s American Communities Survey had a poverty rate of 31.1 percent and an unemployment rate of 17.5 percent in 2012, the year the city filed for bankruptcy."

Despite the downturn in the economy, the County of San Bernardino's animal control/shelter has continued in the quest to be the best they can be for animals. The County has a 35% euthanization rate when many shelters are well over 50% and higher. 

"In 2012, 20.4 percent of San Bernardino County residents lived below the federal poverty line, an increase of 1.1 percentage points from the year before and 6.0 percentage points from 2008."

So at least 21% of the population of the County would probably not be in the market to adopt pets from the shelter, and probably contribute to the shelter population because neither can they afford to alter their pets. It's a vicious circle.

I congratulate the County of San Bernardino and the Devore shelter for continuing on against these striking odds. They deserved more praise than condemnation. 

Friday, September 20, 2013


Liked · 12 hours ago 

Captain Doug Smith honored as the Department of Public Health’s Employee of the Month for April 2013.

During the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health’s (DPH) quarterly Employee Recognition Event held in September, Captain Doug Smith who oversees the Shelter Services Section for the Animal Care and Control Division was honored as the employee of the month for April 2013. Captain Smith’s Supervisor, Greg Beck wrote the following:

Captain Smith is willing to go above and beyond his regular position duties to make sure that Animal Care and Control's two shelters are maintained at the highest level possible and that the animals that are housed at the shelter receive proper care. On June 18, 2013 over 130 dogs were seized from a hoarder situation for a criminal animal cruelty case from a location in the County area of Apple Valley and impounded at the Devore Animal Shelter. During the impound process, the dogs were examined by a veterinarian, photographed and placed into their kennels. Smith coordinated this effort with field and shelter staff in a process that extended past the normal closing time of the shelter and past the end of his and staff’s shift. During the time that these dogs were housed at the Devore Shelter, Smith managed normal shelter operations and coordinated staff's efforts to clean and maintain above average number of animals at the shelter. Smith interacted with a number of local and national rescue groups that would eventually take and care for 131 of the dogs. Smith’s hard work and dedication he made sure that a difficult situation was handled professionally to shine a positive light on San Bernardino County Animal Care and Control and the Department of Public Health.

We are honored to see the Captain Smith received this recognition on behalf of the over 800 employees who work in the Department of Public Health. 

We would be remiss not to acknowledge the entire team at Animal Care and Control that assisted with this case, from the kennel staff who worked tirelessly to care for the additional animals at the shelter, to the field animal control officers who worked overtime to impound and care for the animals initially, to the supervisors at ACC who assisted in compiling and filing the criminal complaint in this case.  We also need to acknowledge the expanded efforts of our rescue group partners who ultimately accepted the animals for long term care and placement.  Truly a case of this magnitude can not be successfully managed without the help of many unsung heroes who have stepped forward to help those animals in their time of need.

Thursday, August 29, 2013


What an honor for San Bernardino County. Congrats to DA Ramos. We expect great things from this association.

"Members of the council are chosen for their leadership in protecting animals from violence, neglect and other types of crimes, according to a news release from the Human Society. Supporting state and federal legislation involving animal laws, promoting animal protection training tips and raising awareness about the HSUS are some of the activities members of the council may undertake."

Ramos is quoted:

“I am honored to have been selected to be a part of the National Law Enforcement Council,” Ramos stated in the release. “I look forward to working with my fellow council members from across the nation to make sure that we are doing all we can to protect our animals from illegal animal cruelty.”

Lots of ticked off people with this information, too bad. 

Saturday, August 10, 2013


In a court of law, if a witness is paid for his testimony, it is usually not considered credible.

I received a comment under a post about the animal commission.

Witnesses call 323 529 4885
Rewards offered

So how many people will take advantage of this offer and come before the animal commission to lie for that 'reward' money. 

Is this showing ethical behavior? Of course not. In fact it shows that the activists are desperate and will do anything to back themselves. This is despicable behavior for any group. If you haven't already presented your 'evidence', it's because it ain't there. You've had your chance with the Grand Jury, the ABC reporter that was sent without notice, the press. 

This will be reported to the Commission members. They will have it in the back of their minds whenever any of you speak. You have done more to destroy yourselves than this blog could ever do. Give No Killers enough rope and they will hang themselves always. Would it be appropriate for this blogger to thank you at this point?

Wednesday, August 7, 2013


On the Board Agenda today, the County of San Bernardino Animal Care and Control officially received a $15,000 grant from the California Department of Food and Agriculture to provide additional spay/neuter vouchers for Pit Bull type dogs. The County will be offering 500 additional $30 vouchers which can be coupled with the existing $50 vouchers for a grand total subsidy of $80.

“As pet owners, we have to take responsibility for our animals—that includes spaying or neutering our pets,” said Supervisor Josie Gonzales. “Every year thousands of animals come through the county’s shelter system. If we can reduce that number, we will not only generate savings for taxpayers, we will reduce the number of animals euthanized and help increase pet adoptions.”

The national award winning spay/neuter voucher program still has the $180,000 per year allocated and has not received a cut since the inception in 2001. This grant from the State will add the additional $15,000 for extra Pit Bull vouchers exclusively. Total voucher funds available this year will be $195,000 to serve a human population of approximately 300,000 or .65 cents per capita. The per-capita funding for our spay/neuter voucher program is one of the largest funded spay/neuter voucher programs on a per-capita basis in the region.

By comparison, the City of San Bernardino has a human population of approximately 200,000 and no voucher program. Most larger cities within the county have human populations of between 150,000 and 200,000 people. The vouchers are to serve people and animals in the County's unincorporated areas exclusively.

Now I wonder what kind of hook the Examiner will put on this.

Tuesday, August 6, 2013


The County of San Bernardino entered into animal shelter agreements with the Town of Apple Valley, Town of Yucca Valley, City of 29 Palms, Barstow Humane, City of Ridgecrest, and Inland Valley Humane. The County is larger than nine (9) states in the U.S. and contracts with shelters in outlining areas of the County to make it easier for pet owners to locate their lost pets.  It is expected that the activists will probably concentrate themselves on these contact shelters rather than on Devore, since they have failed so miserably in their efforts to degrade Devore. 

A recent facebook post shows the same old stories, same old accusations, just a different name. I do have a question, if $315 were already raised, why didn't someone take this dog out? It was more than enough to adopt it. The dog was there 14 days, well beyond the hold time by law. The "rescuers" left the dog there until it was getting sick. Shades of Zephyr in Carson.

And this poster blames "Donna" for the dog being PTS. How does that figure? Where was the rescue after 14 days? Devore held onto this dog well beyond the legal hold time, you would think the rescuer would be grateful for this extra time for her to get it together.

Along with these accusations comes the plea for more donations.

"In his honor, I would like to have anyone that donated (for the one left to be PTS) to put on another dog that we will get out of a shelter (they didn't take the dead one out with $315), in fact a rescue group has said they will take 2 Labs or mixes, in honor of the 4 month Lab from Apple Valley, and now Stanley from Apple Valley."

The shelter is not for private boarding, 14 days is ample time to get a dog out. The rescuer is the one who failed the dogs, not the shelter. Raising money when a pet is still in the shelter seems unethical to me. What do you think?

Wednesday, July 10, 2013


As reported in the Sun and Press Enterprise, Devore took in 137 dogs from a hoarder in Apple Valley in the past two weeks. This hoarder had gotten a non profit status just two months earlier.

Prior to admission, some rescues came forward to take the adoptable dogs from Devore to make room for these hoarded dogs. Kudos to those who cared enough to help.

But it appears that not all wanted a good ending to this story. A group that pulled several puppies has received HATE MAIL for doing so. Who would begrudge a group from saving lives? Give you two guesses and the first one doesn't count. I would like a count of all those lives saved by the No Kill activists who stand in front of Devore with their signs telling the public to go away. Then to make accusations that Devore refused help? Use your common sense, why would Devore refuse any help offered.

From the group's Facebook page:
All of the Devore puppies are healthy and doing great !!
Which is amazing in consideration what they have been through.
and the amount of time they have spend at the Shelter.

It's obvious that the Devore Shelter keeps the kennels very clean
and has a great sanitation system in place. Only two out of 19 pups
have a mild kennel cough.
... We like to thank the Devore Shelter for their great effort to keep these puppies healthy and alive. It would be nice if people would give this Shelter some credit for a change instead constant criticism and scrutiny. Lets be fair for ones.
In all of this we received a few hate mails, because some people just can't handle it if you take their joy of hate away. Pictures are in circulation on facebook, claiming to be from the hoarding situation. These pictures are false, non of the pictures taken from the scene are released. They are part of the evidence.
Hello, this is just common sense, right!!
Please evaluate carefully what circulates on facebook before you pass it on. Sadly people make up all kinds of stuff.
So many lies are spread. Yesterday someone posted that the HSUS offered help and Devore refused it. They have reached out to everyone. The public like to believe that these large organizations are coming to the rescue right away. This is not always the fact. Often it's the smaller rescues who are
right on the spot. The entire ordeal is a good example and will be a wake up call for many. If we have a good animal welfare system in place now it has the chance to proof itself. If just one dogs out of the group has to die because our big brother turned his back, people need to start to questioning their integrity.
Instead calling the Shelter and giving them a hard time, it would be more effective to place a call or send an email to the larger organizations, ask them where they are and why didn't they showed up last Friday, the day the dogs have been offically released.

A huge thank you to all the people who contacted us to help or like to adopt one of the dogs. As you can imaging an undertaken of this kind is overwhelming. We apologize if we haven't gotten back to you or answer your questions on FB. We'll try to catch up, but
for now the welfare of the puppies and organizing a plan to get some of the adult out has priority. We have things covered in some areas and not in others.
We'll post soon what exactly is needed.

Another post on this same facebook page praises the efforts of Devore.


over 100 dogs confiscated from a hoarding situation waiting of rescue! They only have days to live -- where is rescue???????????

Countable times Devore got bashed in the past. We like to let everyone know that the ACO in charge and his staff went out of their way to reach for help.
This is a HUGE letdown for Devore and proofs that we are fast to cast the stone, but from what we are seeing now we are NOT ENTITLED to do so. 

Rescued for Life went this weekend to California and pulled 19 puppies, the smallest one and most susceptible to disease from the group of over 130 dogs.

Over one hundred dogs will be euthanized if rescue doesn't steps up. A mass euthanization..... and the Shelter is NOT to blame for that -- WE ARE !!

Please share far and wide to stop the huge amount of life to be lost !! Thank you all for caring!

Thank you to this group for saving these lives. Thank you also for acknowledging a shelter that strives beyond the call of duty to do the right thing. Keep us posted on the puppies. 

Friday, June 21, 2013


San Bernardino County Animal Care and Control’s (ACC) efforts to find homes for homeless animals are being recognized. Animal Care and Control’s social media campaign has garnered local, state and national awards.

ACC launched a campaign a year ago to promote the many positive aspects of adopting a homeless pet from a County animal shelter facility.  This effort included the establishment of a “Homeward Bound Project Adopt” Facebook page which provides information and updates about the many available pets which await new homes at San Bernardino County animal shelters in Devore and Big Bear Lake.  The Facebook page also provides information about animal laws, recent events and responsible pet ownership. It also provides the public with easy access to submit questions regarding Animal Care and Control services.

The most recent award received for the County’s Homeward Bound Project Adopt Facebook Page, was from the Public Relations Society of America – Orange County Chapter: PROTOS Award in Social Media.  The PROTOS awards honor the top public relations organizations and professionals for outstanding campaigns and this award was presented on June 7, 2013.

Other awards received this year, include the California Association of Public Information Officials (CAPIO) “Award of Excellence” received in the new media category and the National Association of Government Communicators (NAGC) Blue Pencil & Gold Screen “Award of Excellence” in the social media category.

“We are honored for our page to be recognized. However, our greatest reward is in the fact that through this page, we have been able to help these pets find homes,” said Brian Cronin, Division Chief for Animal Care and Control.  “We are grateful to our supporters who follow our Facebook page and help create awareness about pets awaiting adoption. We will continue to use our page as a way to find homes for pets in San Bernardino County Animal Shelters.”

The San Bernardino County Animal Care and Control Division encourages residents to view their Homeward Bound Project Adopt Facebook Page at: and like them on Facebook if you would desire to receive updates regarding the Division and the animals and people they serve.

Tuesday, June 18, 2013


Today was the first meeting of the newly formed animal commission for the County of San Bernardino. And not one of the activists who demanded this commission bothered to show. After all that fuss, primarily from outsiders, and they didn't even bother to show for the first meeting. Could it be they had nothing to talk about, no evidence of their accusations to present?

The new appointees were introduced:

*         1st District (Seat 1)
*         Beverly Bradshaw, Esq.
*         2nd District (Seat 2)
*         Christine Haro
*         3rd District (Seat 3)
*         Michelle P. Guthmiller
*         4th District (Seat 4)
*         Sam Gadd
*         Appointed Veterinarian (Seat 6)
*         Allan Drusys, DVM
*         Animal Care and Control Appointee (Seat 7)
*         Greg Beck

There is still one seat unfilled at the present time. The first meeting was delayed because of a lack of interest and that goes for the last seat to be filled. Doesn't that show something along the lines of we, the people, don't think there is a problem with Devore.

The activists didn't bother to show, their candidates for election were defeated, now go home, wherever that is. The very least they could have done is shown their faces since they wanted this so badly. Just goes to show, the activists have nothing, nothing to back themselves up on their accusations, and nothing to show this commission.

Friday, May 31, 2013


Last year saw a wonderful adoption event and this year will bring the same. At this time seventeen groups will participate with 171 dogs and 46 cats available for adoption.

ACC will use the event to kick off its participation in the ASPCA 2013 Rachel Ray $100K Challenge that begins on Saturday, June 1. ACC is one of 50 shelters in the United States competing in the Rachel Ray $100K Challenge. ACC will use events like the Homeward Bound Mega Pet Adoption Event to adopt or return more animals to their owners during June, July and August than the same period in 2012, for a chance to win $100,000.

Thursday, May 16, 2013


On Tuesday, May 14, 2013, San Bernardino County Chief Executive Officer Greg Devereaux announced at a Board of Supervisors budget planning meeting that he was recommending the County allocate $10 million dollars as a the County’s proportionate cost share to replace the County’s animal shelter facility located in Devore.  The County intends to meet with cities in the Central Valley Region to identify if they have an interest in partnering with the County to build a new shelter facility. 

This is a wonderful opportunity to move the shelter to a more visible and accessible location within the County.  According to the County, a site has not yet been identified, but cities who wish to participate in the project may have land for the proposed new shelter which could reduce their cash investment to participate as a partner in constructing the new animal shelter facility. 

As we have written before, the County of San Bernardino has one of the lowest euthanasia rates of the shelters within the County and only the City of Upland and City of Rancho Cucamonga have better outcomes for animals when compared to the County.  Ten other shelters/jurisdictions actually have higher euthanasia rates than the County, by percentage.  This new facility will continue to allow the County to better serve people and pets from the Community.

The City of Upland combined with the City of Rancho Cucamonga handle fewer animals per year than Devore. It makes sense that the fewer you intake, the better job you can do finding homes. Plus those two cities have a much more affluent citizenry and that usually means more adoptions from a shelter. Please express your support for a new shelter, it is long overdue. 

Wednesday, April 17, 2013


This is an example of why transporting of shelter animals needs regulation. Transported dogs were brought in, and now other dogs are dying from the disease brought in. The shelter is closed and a shelter director was fired. Is this helping our shelter animals?

"There were animals that were brought in that were sick and quarantine procedures were not followed," said Sheila Cook, president of the board of Safe Harbor Animal Rescue of the Keys, which operates the shelter under a contract with Monroe County.
Bentley said it appears a Labrador mix the shelter took in from Dogs on the Move, a Miami rescue group, was the animal that spread the kennel cough. It's been diagnosed with pneumonia.
She also said there was no quarantine procedure in place because the shelter is basically one large long room. There are 30 to 35 dogs there now. She said she separated cages using roofing material.
"I apologized if that was the dog that brought the kennel cough," she said. "It was about a month ago. I told this group I could no longer accept animals from this rescue group."
Dr. Mike Dunn, a veterinarian who's a nonvoting member of the SHARK board, declined to speak about whether Bentley handled the situation correctly, but said the spread of kennel cough is a real fear.
"It's really, really contagious between dogs," he said. "Like kids at school, one kid comes in with something and then it seeps through the classroom."
He said kennel cough -- technically called tracheal bronchitis -- is rarely fatal but if it spreads, countless dogs could be affected. That's why the shelter is not adopting animals out or accepting animals for likely a month and a half.
"It could run through the entire town," Dunn said. "It's less than a 5 percent mortality rate. But you'd hate for 5 percent of dogs in Marathon to die from it."
The transporters and their fodder feeders could care less that they transport diseased animals and that those diseased animals are putting our pets at risk. Regulate these transports, vet those transported animals, stop patting yourselves on the back because you don't deserve it. You aren't saving lives with these transports, you are sending more into areas already suffering with an overpopulation. You are immoral and unethical when you transport into those areas. 

Saturday, April 13, 2013


I came across this on a Facebook page and wanted to pass it along. What makes it exceptionally bad is that the dog was terrified before the transport, it should have never been considered like that for transporting.

From a rescue in Missouri .... As we work on this rescue today we would like to take a minute to WARN all fellow rescues to Be AWARE of a person going by the name of Molly ****** she has been in contact with us for a couple of weeks about adopting. She had another person with a GREAT BIG Heart for animals sponsor the adoption, (thank goodness the sponsor paid us through PayPal). We had everything done, sent the dog, a poor chihuahua that is scared to death on transport yesterday, She acted so excited to be helping this baby, and BAM, her facebook page dissappeared, her phone goes straight to voicemail. She is not returning calls etc. PLEASE BE WARE IF THIS PERSON CONTACTS YOU TO ADOPT!!!! Now poor Chico is stuck on a transport, having to go all the way to Kentucky only to be brought back to the Shelter. Please if you have contact or are contacted by @Molly ***** DO NOT try to adopt to her. Please share and alert!! — with Monica  and 6 others.
Unlike · · 13 minutes ago ·

Sunday, April 7, 2013


UPDATE: Julie Hall, a reporter with Inside Bainbridge news has written a piece where she personally visited this facility. Still, after reading it, there is no comfort for this person. When animals are still being euthanized for space, is this the best use of space? I only am publishing this in the interest of fairness.

This is sickening. To know that these dogs were pulled from Devore, shipped in crates for a thousand miles, and this is how they end up. This is the face of the Devore TERRORISTS.

Olympic Animal Sanctuary is a facility for "dangerous dogs". A dog's life at the sanctuary is portrayed as wonderful, with the dogs residing there being well cared for, yet there are no regular paid staff or volunteers caring for the dogs.

There are approximately 160 dogs living in a 5,000+ sq. ft. facility (with unfinished addition) located on 3/4 acre. There are only three fenced yards, and generally they have a dog/s living in them. The facility is located in Forks, Washington.


Even a Facebook Page to save these Devore dogs that were "saved" by the Devore activists.

Look at the pictures carefully, I can't post any here because they are propriety. According to one comment, there should be 11 Devore shepherds at this horrible place. Then the question: WHERE ARE OUR DDI (DOGS DAY INN) DOGS THAT PEOPLE FOUGHT AND TRIED SO HARD TO SAVE?

So I assume that saving a dog only means pulling it from the shelter. Doesn't mean a home check, research or a personal visit, just means ship them off in a damn UHaul to places like this. Then pat yourself on the back for being such a good Savior. Yes, I'm mad. 

Saturday, April 6, 2013


This was found on a Facebook page but it just had so much truth, especially in light of the puppy that is being used to condemn Devore currently. How many times has Devore been condemned when the truth was that no one came for the pet that was euthanized. 


DISCLAIMER: Names have been left out of this story to avoid all drama. I do not want drama, all I want is for people to be educated and because this has to STOP happening and to help others NOT to make this same  mistake. The only name I am using is the name of the person who wanted to adopt Shine On.  IF the person involved in her "rescue" wants to post on this thread and call out the perpetrators that is HER choice. My point here is to EDUCATE

Shine On arrived at Miami Dade Animal Services on 01/02/2013. Like most dogs that arrive at the shelter Shine On's picture was uploaded to many Facebook networking pages and so the networking and rescue of Shine On began. 
Shine On caught the eye of Julie. Julie fell in love with Shine On and decided to focus on her rescue and so the process began. Since Julie does not live in Florida she did not know how to go about rescuing a dog from Miami Dade Animal Services. So she did what most people do, she jumped on the thread and asked for help on how to get Shine On to her. People from all over the place started giving her suggestions on how to get Shine On out of MDAS and into her home. Like most people working dogs from MDAS, people started telling her to contact a local Boarding facility that helps pull dogs and helps with transport. So she called the boarding facility, had everything arranged, and a hold was sent out for the dog. According to everyone on the thread, Shine On was safe. A mistake most people make when networking dogs. They NEVER follow up on the dog. NEVER. 
A couple of days later Shine On was pulled from the shelter and taken to the boarding facility to await transportation. As Julie mentioned, she was being charged $11 a day for Shine On's stayed at the boarding facility and she was quickly running out of money so she begged for a foster in order to give her time to arrange for transportation. A person saw the request for foster and decided to contact Julie and offer her "fostering" services for $50 a month. Yes, some fosters out there charge, a red flag in MY opinion.
A friend of Julie's transported Shine On to this so called foster and as you can see from the picture at the botton, Shine On arrived at the fosters safe and sound. 
Here is where things started to go wrong. Julie started to request pictures and info regarding Shine On and the foster would not answer. The foster never provided any more info after the below picture was taken. From there own Julie's ordeal in finding Shine On began. 
But here is the problem, Julie NEVER received an adoption application from the rescue that pulled Shine On. As a matter of fact she did NOT even know who the rescue was, all she knew was that the local boarding facility had pulled the dog for her and that was it. So basically Julie was NOT the legal owner of Shine On and therefore had NO right in requesting info regarding Shine On. So this slowed down the process even more in finding Shine On. The drama continued between her and the foster, who by the way continued to avoid Julie and Julie's questions (this according to Julie). Julie contacted several people on Facebook, including several administrators of these networking pages, who instead of helping blew it off, defending the foster, and or just blamed Julie. Shine On's threads ( there are multiple threads for her) continues to have no updates on Shine On. No information on her whereabouts. Nothing. And of course NO ONE HAS EVEN BOTHERED TO ASK. NO ONE!
I contacted Julie and offered my assistance in trying to find Shine On. We started by trying to contact the boarding facility in order to get the name of the rescue so this way they would send her the adoption application and Julie would be the LEGAL owner of Shine On. Also the micro chip number was needed in order to register it into Julie's name so in case Shine On was dumped at a kill shelter, Julie would be contacted. We called all the shelters in the area, we continued on trying to get a hold of the boarding facility and rescue. And this went on for the past two weeks. Well, Julie had been dealing with this longer I just started assisting 2 weeks ago. 
Sadly, and very tragic, we received an email from the shelter stating that the foster had dropped off Shine On at a local kill shelter the same day she picked her up. Shine On was dropped on January 14, 2013. The shelter tried contacting the rescue registered to the micro chip. This is the rescue that pulled her. After MULTIPLE attempts from the shelter of contacting the rescue that was register on the micro chip  Shine On was KILLED on 01/24/2013. 10 days after being dumped at the shelter by the very foster who claimed was going to care for Shine On. How do we know it was the foster, because the shelter provided the name of the person that dropped off Shine On at the shelter. 

And in all honesty I do NOT care to hear anymore detail of this, point being is RESPONSIBLE PROCEDURES were not followed which ultimately caused the dog to die. All this caused for Shine On to be killed at another shelter. 
So I repeat, leave ME out of the drama and focus on this EDUCATIONAL MESSAGE!!! 
I am not taking any blame away from Julie, from the foster, from the boarding facility, from the shelter, from the transporter. Point being SHINE ON IS DEAD. KILLED! KILLED! And sadly there are MANY more dogs out there that have disappeared, that are dumped at other shelters, that have been murdered. 
PLEASE DO THINGS RESPONSIBLY!!! PLEASE! It really doesn't take a genius. It really is LOGIC. 

How could this have happened? How did the system fail Shine On?
Here is how:
1) If you are out of state and you want to adopt a dog CONTACT A LOCAL RESPONSIBLE RESCUE who can assist you. The responsible rescue will follow the necessary RESPONSIBLE procedures like: home check, vet check, reference check, adoption application, responsible transport, vet care for the dog before leaving etc. CONTACT A LOCAL RESPONSIBLE RESCUE PERIOD!

2) Make sure they give you ALL the paper work (adoption application, medical records, micro chip,) this will ensure that the dog is YOURS LEGALLY

3) Fosters. Come on! HOME CHECK PEOPLE! HOME CHECK! No one bothered to check on this foster. NO ONE!  

4) When networking a dog on a thread DO NOT just jump on the first person that says they want the dog. Before doing that find out who this person that wants the dog is. Come on? if you would not do that to a child, than do NOT do it to a dog or cat. 

5) FOLLOW UP. People this is very important. FOLLOW UP. Go on thread ask for updates on the dogs that safe. THAT IS THE RESPONSIBLE THING TO DO. COME ON!!!

Friday, April 5, 2013


The No Kill Equation movement of Nathan Winograd has taken a major blow from PeTA and you need to know about it.

For years, Winograd has spewed forth nothing but hate. To read his blog means reading more words like murder, torture, killing and execution more times than a Syrian new bulletin. He hates the HSUS, the ASPCA, and PeTA with a passion that is more closely related to mental illness than passion. He distorts the truth about all of them in hopes of destroying their donor base. Of course, he also hopes that donor base comes into his bank account. He wants to stop the only organizations who stand up against the cruelty of puppy mills, hoarding, dog fighting. Why would anyone want to do that? Especially when No Kill offers nothing to take up the slack.

Here is the expose of No Kill shelters, the truth behind them. Many of these are bragging rights for No Kill but there is nothing to brag about. To turn away animals mean their being dumped to fend for themselves. Not only is that cruel to the animals, but it presents a definite public health and safety risk with strays. No Kill doesn't care, if those animals are outta sight, they don't exist.

Winograd published a piece of trash about PeTA this week in the Huff Puff (Huffington Post) and I will not put up the link. All he did was reiterate the same old stuff he has been saying time and time again. He offered no proof of his accusations, nothing was new news so to speak. But PeTA had a little surprise awaiting Mr. Winograd. The video shows that each and every No Kill shelter was full, turning away surrenders, AND REFERRING THOSE TO THE VERY SHELTERS THAT NO KILL CONDEMNS. Can anyone say hypocritical?

How many words has Winograd written to discredit PeTA, and PeTA has managed to crush Winograd in a short, 8 minute video. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Read, think, and then tell Winograd to take a hike.


This week the activists launched another attack on Devore. A puppy was euthanized due to severe parvo but the activists would rather this puppy suffer than be put out of it's misery.

Let's discuss parvo. Yes, parvo is treatable and if caught in time, a dog can come out of it unscathed. Unfortunately that isn't usually the case. Many times the dog is left with neurological problems. It is a killer of puppies and older dogs as a good rule.

The activists claim that someone was on their way to pick up this puppy when it was euthanized. They say that every time whether it is true or not. In this case, it probably wasn't true because the puppy could not be released to anyone per the law.

Devore could not release this puppy to another party, prior to the expiration of the stray animal holding period (per the law). Devore also cannot maintain highly contagious animals without potentially exposing other animals to the disease. The activists are well aware that Devore did not have clear title or the authority to release this puppy. Devore would have created liability had the owner showed to claim the puppy and it was gone to a group.

Once again, the activists are lying all over the internet. The puppy was euthanized because of the very slim chance it would recover to have a quality life. These activists preferred to make that puppy suffer knowing the chances of recovery were slim to none. Again, question their agenda, actions speak louder than words and the actions of the activists say one thing, they don't truly care about animals.


Despite all the ranting and raving by the activists, disrupting the shelter and staff, Devore has had more adoptions this past year. Of course, the activists are trying to take credit for this positive piece of news.

Devore participates in forty-eight (48) off site adoption events each year, will be holding the 2nd Annual Homeward Bound Mega Pet Adoption Event this year, partners with the Animals aRe First Fund to help subsidize pet adoptions during the off site events to lower adoption fees and make pet adoptions more affordable for the general public to adopt, provides free microchips for all pets adopted, just was nominated for two marketing awards for their Homeward Bound-Project Adopt Campaign, publishes a biweekly newsletter which is sent to over 7,000 supporters to promote Devore and the adoptable pets available at the shelter and is participating in the ASPCA Rachael Ray 100K Challenge for the 2nd year in a row to promote the shelter and the pets available.  This is just a few of the efforts Devore has advanced to increase adoption and public awareness regarding the homeless pets available at the shelter.

Devore suffered through all the accusations, the protests outside the shelter, the rude activists, a Grand Jury investigation, and yet managed to increase adoptions and reduce euthanasia.

Of all the agencies in San Bernardino County, Devore was #3 in adoptions. Only Rancho Cucamonga and Upland had a better percentage. Let's look at the actual numbers. 

Devore handled almost 15,000 animals. Rancho handled 4,700 and Upland handled 2,600. Rancho adopted out about 70% of their intake, Upland adopted out 58% of their intake and Devore adopted out 56% of their intake. Question would be why these activists aren't going after Upland, they are about the same as Devore on numbers? Ask why these activists aren't going after the other agencies who are euthanizing more and adopting less than Devore.

Keep up the good work, Devore. Just remember that the vast majority of us are on your side, don't let these activists get you down. 

Thursday, February 21, 2013


That didn't take long. Seems Maria Sanchez learned a lesson. Problem is that Dave has the dog back. No, Maria, you didn't do a good deed. You failed to see this man for what he was and now you have put this poor dog back in the hands of a person who should not have a pet. Considering that this was done to condemn the shelter, it didn't quite work out the way it was intended.

I just got a phone call from KTLA channel 5. Apparently, Dave has called to inform them that I am keeping the money raised for his dog. I have transferred $842.07 into my bank to reimburse myself for the shelter fees, vet and PetSmart shopping spree that I put onto my personal credit card. I had a discussion regarding the remainder of the donations and how he would like to spend them. I said it would be a good idea to pay off any outstanding tickets so that he will not be taken to jail in the future for having a warrant for unpaid traffic tickets. I asked if he had any bills that were due at the time. I told him that every dime that was donated would go to him and Buzz, but that I would not be giving him the cash. I explained to him that the money that was donated was a blessing for him, I wanted to be sure that we respected that and used the donations responsibly. He sat next to me and nodded his head, Not one response, question or concern.

After I hung up with KTLA channel 5, I tried to call Dave. His wife would not let me speak to him. She screamed at me that I was stealing their dog’s money. She said they have called the news stations and that if I did not give them their money, they were going to call the police.

I am exhausted from this entire experience. This is the last thing I needed or expected. I will not be giving Dave or his wife one single penny, what I will do is refund the money that was donated to Dave. I have had my life and the lives of my children devastated by drug addiction. I will play no part in supporting anyone’s habit. I just can’t.

That being said, if you would like me to refund your donation that was made for Dave, please email me at and put REFUND as the subject. I will send the refund tonight. If you would like to transfer your donation that was for Dave to another urgent animal in this album, please email and put DONATE TO URGENT SBC DOG. I will put your donation towards a homeless animal that will live or die depending on whether or not a rescue has the funds to help them. If I do not get a response within 1 week of this posting, I will refund the amount donated with an explanation of why it is being refunded. I know not all who have donated will see this post.

So to sum this up, I have been reimbursed for all expense to rescue Buzz from the high kill San Bernardino City Shelter and reunite him with his owner Dave Thomas. There are donations leftover. The donations will NOT go to Dave after the stunt he has pulled. If you still want Dave to have your donation, I will have to ask you to send it to him personally. I do not have an email for him, maybe he will post it.

No good deed goes unpunished, right?

Thank you for understanding why I cannot proceed with this as planned. For those who disagree with my decision, please keep your thoughts to yourself. I don’t think I can take another hit right now.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013


In the past few days, this particular story is going viral on the internet. Some think it is a warm, fuzzy story. You can decide what you think once you hear the WHOLE story.

This was posted on Facebook.

Maria Sanchez advocate for animals and photographer who assists one of the highest kill shelters in the Country with saving countless lives by photographing stray and abandoned animals so they could be adopted or rescued, witnessed a man weeping next to his dog on February 16, 2013 at the San Bernardino (CITY) Animal Shelter. With a wholesome heart and intrigued by the passion he had for his beloved pet, she sat observing the weeping man. Petting the beloved pit bull terrier’s head with tears flowing, she overheard a conversation with how the dog ended up in the shelter.
It appeared the man, now known by the first name of
Christopher (this is not his real name as it turns out) had a few outstanding speeding tickets (a few? plus a citation for letting his dog run loose and theft of recycled goods which is against municipal code in SB)  and had been arrested by Officer Martinez. Desolate and homeless (remember this, he is homeless according to what he told the arresting officer) the arresting officer confiscated the dog and took him to the San Bernardino animal shelter reporting that he was a stray. (knowing that he already had charges for an unlicensed dog and for running loose, I would venture to say he himself said it was a stray to avoid further charges. He was just trying to help it.) The officer clearly knew the owner of the dog was ‘Christopher’, (fake name, the officer isn't a mind reader) so why take the dog to a high-kill shelter? Leaving his best-friend for only a little bit of time; he went to the front counter asking how he could save his dog. They explained that in order for him to get his dog back it would cost approximately $ 290.00. (And that would include his license which he failed to get previously) Christopher (fake name) pulled $ 6.00 from his pocket and asked if that could be applied toward his deposit, cordially the young woman at the counter told him to keep the money and he had until the 20th to pay 50% of the dog’s bill. Eyes red from tears and a broken heart, he told her he would be back on the 20th for his dog. Helpless he went back to his best friend who is currently behind bars, talking to him and the dog could not understand why his owner had to leave him there. Walking over to the gentleman, Maria handed him a handful treats for his dog, took additional pictures of additional stray animals and then had to go back to work so she could end her day. Haunted by the man and his dog, she posted it on Facebook and the out pour of love and compassion for the stranger and his dog began to go viral. (But not "haunted" enough to have paid the fees or pulled the dog if she is a rescue) In a matter of twenty-four hours, pledges exceeded the necessary means to get the dog out of the shelter. Covering his companion’s neuter, shots, antibiotics, leash, collar and dog food. Christopher (fake name) and his best friend have been offered a place to lay their head, job and he also has gotten a marriage proposal (now this really shows the ridiculousness of these activists). ID#441782 at San Bernardino Animal Shelter has an owner (who gave a fake name) and he belongs to a man who had a heart to cry and the courage to fight for his dog. Christopher (fake name) will be returning to San Bernardino Animal Shelter on February 20, 2013. The police department has also agreed to provide the shelter with Christopher’s (fake name) information so he can be reunited with his dog. Relentlessly Maria drove around for hours searching and asking about Christopher (boy did she waste her time, fake name), hanging flyers and spreading the word that he will be able to get his dog back. What we do know is Christopher (fake name) promised to be back on February 20th and many are left to wonder if that is what he had been whispering in his dog’s ear.
Now doesn't that just break your heart? First of all, the man is David Vincent Thomas, not Christopher. Could he prove per California law that is he the owner? How when he is giving a fake name to the officer? How can the officer say the dog is owned when Thomas is giving a fake name, has nothing in the way of paperwork (license) to show he is the owner. 

Superior court records show that Mr. Thomas evidently doesn't have a drivers license, he gave a fake name to the shelter too. California law requires you prove ownership. He had no license records, no shot records, no driver license, so how is he to prove ownership. For all anyone knows, the dog was indeed a stray.

Superior court records show that Mr. Thomas has been convicted before of having an illegal substance. This arrest also involved drugs. Court records show a pattern of irresponsibility when it comes to vehicles with many active cases pending.

The San Bernardino Sun ran an article of how this went viral and how $2000 was collected in a short period of time.

Police said they followed protocol in having animal control officers take the dog to the shelter because Thomas and a woman he was with were both arrested and no one was available to take the animal.
Police Lt. Paul Williams said Thomas was suspected of possessing drugs for sale. Thomas claims he was arrested because he failed to show up to court for speeding tickets.
"He wasn't arrested for speeding tickets," Williams said. "He was arrested for a felony crime."
Thomas said he had marijuana when he was arrested, but he showed reporters paperwork on Tuesday indicating he's a medical marijuana patient.

Now here it is a man who shows a continuing pattern of irresponsibility, reported as homeless, and obviously no money to adequately sustain himself or his dog. Yet, the No Kill activists want to give him back his dog plus this money. Will he take the money and put it to good use or take the money and buy more drugs? The question to ask is what is in the best interest of this dog. As usual these No Kill activists think any home is better than no home, even those homes where cruelty and neglect abound. This resonates from No Kill each time a major hoarder or cruel sanctuary is discovered. Same in this case, these activists aren't seeking the best for this dog, they are using it as a photo op, a means to condemn the police and the shelter. They need to be condemning this type of "owner". I dare say that this man will probably serve time. What happens to his dog then? Do these activists think in those terms? I feel for this dog, it deserves better.