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.  

Monday, February 11, 2013


It also appears that Washington is still euthanizing while California continues to dump their unwanted pets on that state.

PAWS of Bainbridge Island and North Kitsap Executive Director Mark Hufford delivered powerful testimony this week on behalf of a spay/neuter bill currently under consideration by the Washington State Legislature. The bill seeks to reduce animal overpopulation and lower the need for euthanizing healthy dogs and cats in overcrowded shelters by providing low-cost or free spay/neuter services to low-income people throughout the state. It is estimated that over 30 percent of Washington residents are living below the poverty line.

Aren't these activists pulling dogs from CA with the excuse that there is a shortage in the NW? Doesn't appear to be so. Best Friends is dumping the LA City shelter dogs so they can look good enough to steal yet another of the new shelters in LA. It's all an agenda, it has nothing to do with saving shelter lives.

Hufford asked both committees to imagine the hearing rooms stacked from floor to ceiling with cages containing the dead animals that are euthanized in our state each week because of animal overpopulation. He described the agony that many animal rescue providers face each day holding healthy dogs and cats, looking in their eyes, and euthanizing them simply because there is no room for them in shelters, especially underfunded ones in the state’s more rural eastern and southern areas. Hufford went on to suggest that the legislators would pass the bill without hesitation if they themselves had to do the work of euthanizing healthy animals. “You are requiring by your inaction a morbid reality and a nightmare,” he said. This is the fourth time Hufford and many others involved in animal welfare in our state have testified on behalf of similar bills brought to the legislature since 2009.

What is being done is immoral and unethical and it is done in the name of No Kill. God only knows what is happening to the dogs being pulled from Devore. I do know some are being given to a woman who is banned from Devore. The "activists" coming after Devore are the ones who gave pets to the infamous hoarder Cindy Bemis. In other words, they don't care about the pets, what happens to them, they only care to pat themselves on the back. Agenda, they have an agenda and it is not saving shelter lives.


This blogger campaigns everyday to regulate these transports out of state. There are horror stories galore about these transports. Not even to mention how unethical it is to dump more dogs on areas still having to euthanize for time and space. Just one way that No Kill is forcing themselves onto the rest of us. Those followers of this morbid movement bring in their "product", leaving those in their local shelters, forcing euthanization to rise, and then in steps No Kill on the white horse to save the day. 

This article points out that Oregon doesn't need any more dogs.

"But, more to the point, over the last several years we have become increasingly concerned about the numbers of dogs that your shelters are shipping out of state. We’re concerned because your counties appear to be doing nothing to stem the flow of dog production that is causing this situation. We’re concerned because the dogs are being dumped all over the country with little to no review or evaluation of the shelters and rescues to which they’re being sent. We’re concerned because they are leaving your state in poor health: full of ticks and fleas, intestinal parasites such as giardia and coccidia, and infected with heartworm, parvo, and distemper; they are dogs who have sat in shelters for weeks with untreated injuries ranging from severe scrapes and abrasions to broken legs. We’re concerned because nobody is monitoring the transports as dogs are packed in crates and stuffed into unheated, unventilated vans and driven 16 to 20 hours with no water or potty breaks or food, by uncertified drivers. We’re concerned because the dogs (and cats) arrive dehydrated, ill, un-spayed or -neutered, and carrying new strains of diseases that weren’t previously present up here. And we’re concerned because as small, local rescues and shelters we know that we barely have enough space and resources to help Oregon and Washington dogs let alone the thousands you send out of state each year."

"What we don’t understand is why the folks in California are doing virtually nothing to clean up your problem – instead you seem to be perfectly content to continue shipping dogs to every part of the country: New England, the Mid-West, Canada, Idaho, Oregon, Washington; you name the state or the province, and they’ve likely had several shipments of dogs from California’s major Central and San Joaquin valley shelters: Merced, Modesto, Salinas, Devore, Bakersfield/Kern County, Porterville/Tulare County, Orange County, and Los Angeles (including Lancaster). The word is out that these are now some of the highest “kill” shelters in the country. And the dogs don’t die easy: Often they’re finally killed only after they’ve developed pneumonia, or any one of several other respiratory diseases constantly present in the shelters. Being born in or put into these and a number of other California shelters is a certain death sentence – and that’s why other states are ending up with California’s unwanted dogs and cats."

Note that Devore is mentioned. Our shelters don't have much of a choice with the Hayden in force. Either give the animals to these self proclaimed rescuers or face lawsuits, protests, etc. I call it blackmail myself.

These transports must stop until they are regulated.